The WTO delivers an unfair deal for poor countries

While negotiators congratulate themselves on agreeing a framework for continuing world trade talks, people in poor countries will get little out of the last-minute agreement at the World Trade Organisation’s General Council meeting in Geneva. The deal protects the interests of rich countries including the United States and the European Union, while its position on the demands of poor countries is at best ambiguous.
 
The WTO was desperate to come up with some agreement after world trade talks collapsed last year in Cancun, Mexico. This week’s negotiations were meant to end within two days but went on for five, sometimes continuing all night. 
 
"The compromise maintains the status quo and does not change the fundamental imbalance in the multilateral trading system," said Moussa Faye of ActionAid Senegal. "We do believe in multilateralism and international trade rules, but not at any price. Only if there is immediate reform of the WTO will there be a fair deal that will improve the lives of the millions of people living in poverty."
 
Agriculture:

• There is still no timetable for deciding the fate of trade-distorting domestic subsidies in rich countries (the so-called Blue Box subsidies).
• The EU, Switzerland, Norway and Japan are able to protect their so-called ‘sensitive products’. The safeguard mechanism still protects more than 500 products for the EU alone.
• The reduction of export subsidies has been highlighted as the most important offer from the EU. However, the EU appears to be offering nothing beyond the already-agreed reform of the Common Agriculture Policy. 

Non-Agricultural Market Access:

• The proposals of the EU, US and Canada have been incorporated wholesale into the framework on industrial tariffs, leaving little space for further negotiation. 

General Agreement on Trade in Services:

• The framework recommends further opening up of the services sector, but does not respond to the need of the least developed countries for duty-free and quota-free access to developed-country markets.

On cotton, African countries were persuaded to reduce their demands. Aftab Alam Khan, head of ActionAid’s food rights campaign, said: "The framework has diluted the cotton issue owing to strong manipulation from the US. The 'sensitivities' of the US elections have taken prominence over the plight of more than 10 million poor farmers. In the coming months developing countries must use their alliances to stand firm against the long-term damaging impacts of this deal."