Third World Network (TWN) organised three workshops during the Ministerial. The first was held at the beginning of the Ministerial and focused on “Key Issues Facing the WTO Ministerial Conference.” NGOs generally felt that no new trade liberalisation agreements should be signed before the effects of the Uruguay Round Agreements for developing countries are clearly understood. These effects are not yet fully measurable since developing countries were given a “grace period” allowing them to implement many WTO agreements gradually over time. Concern was raised about the social and environmental effects of the TRIPs Agreement, as well as about future WTO agreements on agriculture, competition policy and investment.
On 19 May, TWN held a workshop on “How the IMF and its Programme of Financial, Trade and Investment Liberalisation Contributed to the Asian Economic Collapse.” It was stated at the workshop that in the recent Indonesian and East Asian crisis, the IMF was part of the problem and not the solution: IMF-supported policies of liberalising capital markets caused an exodus of money from the Asian countries hit by the crisis. A number of speakers commented on how in their view the IMF disempowers people, as well as governments from the South, and said that they were surprised Southern governments were not more outspoken about this. Several ideas for working to ensure that the IMF follows less harmful policies in the future were put forward. The representative of WWF-USA described some US NGO activities aimed at making the IMF more accountable, and the limited success achieved so far. Another, more long- term, idea was to support adoption of the so- called “Tobin tax”, which would tax international financial transactions.
The third TWN workshop took place on 20 May. It was entitled “The Future of the WTO: Defining Issues and NGO Activities”. Speakers provided an analysis and critique of what had happened during the Ministerial. First, the WTO failed to invite the Secretary General of the United Nations to speak at the conference although the UN was the institutional cradle of the WTO. The process by which the draft ministerial declaration was written was also scrutinised. It was suggested that a better process would involve trade ministers from the very start and that it is the role of civil society to question their ministers at the national level on progress in the process.
The TWN criticised the notions of non-discrimination and national treatment as promoted by the WTO, saying that countries with different levels of development should not in fact be treated equally by the multilateral trading system because poor countries cannot compete on equal grounds with rich ones. The special and differential treatment granted to developing countries in the implementation of WTO agreements is insufficient and a greater handicap must be granted.
In a workshop organised by the Association for North-South Campaigns of The Netherlands (INZET), almost 40 civil society organisations and several government delegates met to discuss the needs of the least developed countries (LDCs) in world trading. A presentation by INZET outlined disadvantages faced by LDCs in Geneva, including lack of mission staff, policy backup from their capitals and analysis which focuses on their interests. INZET emphasised key issues for developing countries including full free market access, bound zero tariff arrangements, rules of origin restraints, coherence between the EU Common Agriculture Policy and other EU foreign policy toward LDCs, support from international bodies and civil society, and a WTO agenda with more emphasis on LDC interests. The workshop brought forward positive proposals from a High Level Meeting on Integrated Initiatives for Least Developed Countries Trade Development, held in Geneva in October, 1997.
The second half of the agenda was hosted by Amsterdam’s Wemos, and covered consumer protection in the North and South. They suggested ‘healthy trade’ agenda items in the WTO such as increased transparency and inclusion for consumers’ organisations in document drafting, dispute settlement and in conferences, committees and meetings concerning standards. They also brought forward ideas for the Codex Alimentarius and national governments. The debate which ensued included interventions from Jordan, India and Tanzania, highlighting the need for North-South co-operation and for a trading system which serves the interests of diverse development models.