WTO Agreements contain provisions which give developing countries special rights.

These are
called “special and differential treatment” provisions. The Ministers in Doha, at the 4th WTO
Ministerial Conference mandated the Committee on Trade and Development to Examine these
special and differential treatment provisions. Cancún: The real losers are the poor-Director-
General Supachai Panitchpakdi, in the International Herald Tribune edition of 18 September 2003,
wrote that the future of trade issues of potential benefit to developing countries such as market-
opening in manufactured products, services and agriculture, are uncertain because of lack of
agreement at Cancun. He added that he would immediately look for ways to move the WTO
process forward.

CANCÚN, Mexico: The disappointing ministerial conference that

concluded here on Sunday will have many ramifications, but sadly
the most significant of them will be its impact on poor countries.

Two years ago, in the Qatari capital, trade ministers agreed to begin
global trade negotiations driven by what is known as the Doha
Development Agenda, which put the question of development at its
core. It is widely acknowledged today that trade is a vitally important
element in any program for development, as it can deliver benefits to
developing countries worth many times more than all the
development aid they receive.
Opening markets for trade in manufactured products, services and
agriculture can provide the key for global economic growth and
development. Unquestionably, we will need a balanced outcome to
this round of negotiations. At the same time it is essential that the
negotiations deliver more to developing countries than they have
received from trade rounds in the past.
Already we have recorded some benefits for these countries. In the
last several months, we have achieved significant progress both in
Geneva and here in Cancún. We reached a historic agreement last
month on access to essential medicines for the poorest countries and
we have agreed on 28 proposals that would extend special and
differential treatment to developing countries.

An initiative to phase out cotton subsidies was advanced and indeed

widely supported at the ministerial conference in Cancún. For the
first time, the poorest countries in the world actively took part in the
negotiations and succeeded in placing their interests on the trade
agenda. The proposal for improving the situation of cotton farmers in
West Africa did not go as far as governments in that region wanted,
but the fact remains that this issue was on the agenda, and once
something is on the agenda it can be improved upon.

The same goes for the progress that was made here on agriculture.
Many developing countries thought the work done here had moved
 the negotiations in a very positive direction. Not as far as they
wanted perhaps, but in a system when all decisions are taken by
consensus members must be realistic about the political concerns of
their trading partners.
Now, because ministers could not agree in Cancún on the future
agenda, the future of many of these issues is uncertain. For this
reason, and others, the outcome of this ministerial conference is a
great disappointment. Ministers could not agree on whether to launch
negotiations on the so-called “Singapore” issues of trade and
investment, trade and competition, transparency in government
procurement and trade facilitation. The level of political sensitivity
varies widely on these issues, but members could not agree on any of
them.
In the end the ministers could not summon the necessary flexibility
and political will to bridge the gaps that separated them. Sadly, those
that will suffer the most for their inability to compromise are the
poorest countries among us. A more open and equitable trading
system would provide them with an important tool in alleviating
poverty and raising their levels of economic development.
If we are to preserve what we have already achieved, build on these
achievements and resuscitate these negotiations, ministers will have
to intensify their efforts at finding solutions to the problems they
could not overcome in Cancún.
We may have to learn the Cancún lesson that when participants take
too long to unveil their true positions, compromise becomes even
more difficult to achieve. We may also need to work closely with
groups of countries and address their concerns earlier to prevent the
unnecessary hardening of positions that complicates the decision-
making process at ministerial conferences.
For my part, I intend to immediately begin to look for ways in which
to move this process forward. This round is too important for all of us
to allow this setback to keep us from our objective — an ambitious
and balanced round that delivers better market access and more
equitable rules for all our member governments and for the people
they represent.
Doha Development Agenda: Negotiations, implementation and developmentThe
November 2001 declaration of the Fourth Ministerial Conference in Doha, Qatar, provides the
mandate for negotiations on a range of subjects and other work. The negotiations include those
on agriculture and services, which began in early 2000.In Doha, Ministers also approved a
linked decision on implementation — problems developing countries face in implementing the
current WTO agreements.Development: the heart of the Doha Development Agenda
When they launched the Doha Round, ministers placed development at its centre. “We seek to
place developing countries’ needs and interests at the heart of the Work Programme adopted in
this Declaration,” they said. “… We shall continue to make positive efforts designed to ensure
that developing countries, and especially the least-developed among them, secure a share in the
growth of world trade commensurate with the needs of their economic development. In this
context, enhanced market access, balanced rules, and well targeted, sustainably financed
technical assistance and capacity-building programmes have important roles to play.” the Doha
Declaration, member governments agreed that all special and differential treatment provisions
should be reviewed with a view to strengthening them and making them more effective, and
operational. More specifically, the declaration (together with the Decision on Implementation-
Related Issues and Concerns) mandates the Committee on Trade and Development to identify
which of those special and differential treatment provisions are mandatory, and to consider the
legal and practical implications of making mandatory those which are currently non-binding. In
addition, the Committee is to consider ways in which developing countries, particularly the
LDCs, may be assisted to make best use of special and differential treatment.
Technically, the US was blamed for causing the collapse in July 2006, because it felt that
developing countries would not open markets in the same way that it was being asked to open its
and so it saw no point in continuing the talks. It wanted what would seem like a fair deal: rich
countries open their market, and poor countries do the same in return. Without understanding
context or history, this sounds just and equal.However, as discussed throughout this site, global
trade has always been unequal, in favor of, dominated by, and influenced by, the rich countries.
Hence, this “tit for tat” reciprocation, would continue the unequal global trade—under the guise
of equality.
The Doha “Development” Round, as it has been known, was nicknamed that way to show that
this round of trade negotiations were to favor poor countries’ ability to develop and prosper from
global trade, while acknowledging the unequal nature of global trade, dominated by
industrialized countries, at the direct expense of the developing world.The Fourth World Trade
Organization (WTO) Ministerial Conference was held in Doha, Qatar, from 9 to 14 November
2001. The Ministerial Conference is the organization’s highest-level decision-making body. It
meets at least once every two years, as required by the Marrakech Agreement, the WTO’s
founding charter.
The Doha Declaration provides the mandate for negotiations on a range of subjects, including
agriculture, subsidies, textiles and clothing, technical barriers to trade, trade-related investment
measures and rules of origin. Many other implementation issues of concern to developing
countries have not been settled, however. For these issues, Ministers agreed in Doha on a future
work programme for addressing these matters.
However, international civil society rejected the legitimacy of the Doha Declaration “as the
result of an outrageous process of manipulation that is totally unacceptable for an international
organisation”. More than a hundred NGOs and social movements participating in a post-Doha
meeting on the WTO in Brussels on 7-9 December 2001 condemned the Doha Ministerial
Conference for being a Development Disaster (“everything but development”, according to the
statement). They were also appalled by the extremely manipulative tactics used by major powers
and the Secretariat to push through a Declaration which lacked public legitimacy.

The Fifth Ministerial Conference held in Mexico in September 2003 was intended to be a
revision of the post-Doha negotiations, but it ended up being a failure after the opposition of
developing countries delegates.

The G20 (Group of 20, also variously G21, G22

and G20+) is a bloc of developing nations
established on 20 August 2003. The group
emerged at the 5th Ministerial WTO conference,
held in Cancún, Mexico from 10 September to 14
September 2003. The G-20 accounts for 60% of
the world's population, 70% of its farmers and
26% of world’s agricultural exports [1].
Nonetheless, the “official” appearance
of the G-20 occurred as a response
to a text released on 13 August 2003
by the European Communities (EC) and
the United States with a common
proposal on agriculture for the
Cancún Ministerial. On 20 August
2003 a document signed by twenty
countries and re-issued as a Cancún
Ministerial document on 4 September
proposed an alternative framework
to that of the EC and the United
States on agriculture for the Cancún
Meeting. This document marked the
establishment of the G-20. The
original group of signatories of the
20 August 2003 document went
through many changes, being known
as such different names as the G-21
or the G-22. The title G-20 was finally
chosen, in honor of the date of the
group's establishment

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Fifth

Ministerial Conference took place in Cancun,
Mexico from September 10 to 14, 2003. These
meetings are some of the most important to the
world due to the various issues discussed that can
impact, positively and negatively, various
countries, especially poor ones, and their
economic futures.
The trade talks collapsed over the
rich countries attempts to discuss
new issues without finishing off the
existing and most pressing ones for
the poor countries, while poorer
countries resisted such an attempt

But these talks collapsed

• Richer countries wanted to talk

about newer issues that mostly
they themselves would have
benefited from. (This is part of
the free trade and liberalization
 ideas that they promote, which
have been under increasing
criticism from many angles in
recent years.)
• Poorer countries wanted to finish
older issues mostly on agriculture
that affected them the most,
especially the impact of European
and U.S. subsidies on their own
agriculture and lack of access to
those markets. (This actually goes
against the free trade ideas that
these two regions especially
promote.)
• This impasse led to the end of the
talks for now but for the first time
showed the developing countries
make a successful and united
stand to represent their concerns.
KThe collapse and failure of the WTO
ministerial meeting at Cancun, has been
hailed and viewed by civil society groups
and activists, as not only a failure of the
WTO process and leadership, but of the EC
Commissioner, Mr. Pascal Lamy and his
trade agendas and strategies.

“The collapse of the Cancun ministerial, has

opened a perfect opportunity for the EU to
move away from its current corporate-
centred trade policies”, said Erik Wesselius,
researcher at the CEO.
The summit failed when developing country
governments refused to accept a draft
declaration heavily biased to the EU and US
agenda, including green light for continued
agriculture export subsidies and the launch
of WTO negotiations on controversial new
issues such as investment and government
procurement. The Cancun Ministerial will
stand out as a historic moment, when
developing countries organized effectively
and didn’t give in to “the bribery and arm-
twisting” by which the EU and the US
attempted to force them into accepting a
negotiating agenda that would run counter
to developing country interests.
CEO, which has been campaigning against
Lamy and the EC trade agendas and policies
promoting the TNCs of EU and the US, said
that Lamy is politically responsible for the
EU’s “deeply flawed negotiating strategy,”
which left developing countries with no
choice but to walk out. “The EU’s
aggressive and self-serving negotiating
strategy in Cancun angered developing
countries, even more so because of the
excessive doses of ‘pro-development’ spin
which Lamy uses at every occasion”, says
Erik Wesselius.
The CEO charged that though “a coalition of
over 70 developing country governments
expressed their clear rejection of
negotiations on investment liberalization
and other new issues, the EU continued to
push for such talks to be included in the
summit declaration. The EU needs a
fundamental overhaul of its trade policy,
and “instead of serving the expansion of
corporate interests, the EU’s international
trade and investment policies must serve
the world’s poorest and the global
environment,” the CEO researcher said.
Some of the reports by the NGOs at Cancun to their constituents said that the cavalier
way the African cotton issue was dealt with, and the incorporation by the Mexican
chairman, in his revised draft text issued on Saturday, of the US views and proposals on
cotton, infuriated all the African representatives.
Some trade diplomats said that the last-minute offer from Lamy, to take the other
Singapore issues (except for trade facilitation) off the agenda, did not fly in the African
grouping. For one thing, there was nothing in writing to look at, the other demandeurs
could have insisted on keeping them on the Doha agenda, and Lamy had also made it
conditional on all his other proposals (including agriculture) being agreed to - a ‘no
brainer’ deal.
There was some confusion as to what exactly was the offer from Lamy on the
Singapore issues - whether he offered to take some off the agend at Cancun, or
completely off the WTO Doha agenda, or something else.
[Lamy, a French Socialist, in promoting his agendas adopts a language of telling
developing countries, particularly the Africans and the ACP countries, that he knows
best what is in their interest, and has a style of functioning that is not conducive to win
friends.
[Here is a sample from Lamy’s news letter from Cancun, of his views about developing
country groups: “I see my diary is peppered with ‘G’-meetings - and there’s a new kid on
the block, the G-21, or is it G-22? Hard to tell. What I can see, though, is that they don’t
like the G-25 (that’s us) plan on agriculture. The NGOs, who are active on all issues,
seem to have developed a special liking for the G-21 and are busy trying to swell their
ranks. Strange bedfellows, if you ask me, but it all makes life interesting. And later
today, a new G-X has emerged, bringing together the African, Caribbean and Pacific
countries, the least developed countries as well as the African Union. I leave you to
figure out to just how many that adds up.... I’m a party animal, and my favourite group
round here is the G-148 (WTO membership presumably).
[However, when he loses his job, whether now after Cancun failure or at the end of his
term in 2004, he may emerge as a very distinguished travelogue writer. But perhaps he
did not read a US book, Dale Carnegie’s, titled ‘How to win Friends......’]
According to a report from a representative of SEATINI (at Cancun), the African Union
and parliamentarians from the East African Legislative Assembly have called on the
WTO to implement principles of fair trade that will benefit the people of Africa. The
Parliamentarians warned that the manner in which the process of negotiations was
being managed would have the effect of “de-legitimising” decisions of the WTO.
For the African Union, Mr. Jaya Krishna Cuttaree, the chairperson of the Ministers of
Trade of the African Union, called for transparency in negotiations. “It is our view that
the conduct of these negotiations should be open and transparent and the final outcome
should be pegged on the need to meet the Doha mandate which placed the needs of
the developing countries at the heart of the WTO work programme.”
Greenpeace (some of whose disruptive demonstrations at press conferences, according
to some NGO briefing notes, merely helped organisers to force NGOs out of such
meetings) said that the Cancun failure was the “expected” end of a trade system ruled
by the WTO with a single-minded objective of trade liberalisation. Greenpeace urges
governments to rapidly convene an international conference with the mandate to
provide the basis for the creation of a alternative trade system.
A report from African NGOs at Cancun, said that the Green Room consultations on
Singapore Issues started midnight of Saturday, after the release of the chairmans
revised Draft Cancun Ministerial Text After that the ACP/AU/LDC group of countries met
and denounced the text on Singapore issues, saying there was no explicit consensus to
start negotiations on the issues. This message was repeated in several consultative
meetings held today despite the pressure being put by developed countries to launch
negotiations on the issues.
A note from the Green Room consultations was passed on to the chair of the meeting
saying three issues were being dropped; Transparency in Government Procurement,
Competition Policy and Investments leaving Trade Facilitation for negotiations. But the
group (infuriated by the way the ‘cotton issue’ had been treated, and perhaps even did
not understand the Lamy offer), immediately dismissed this tactic saying the unbundling
of the Singapore issues would not make any difference to them. What they want is to
stick to the Doha Declaration, which said that negotiations on these issues would only
begin when there is explicit consensus.
Zimbabwe, which had previously complained of the non-transparent nature of the
negotiations, said that they were blackmaiiled, and the issues will still be referred to
Geneva for further negotiations.
“We are being blackmailed. We are being told that if we don’t agree on Singapore
Issues, then Cancun will collapse. This is not true; we will take the issues back to
Geneva. We cannot agree on issues that we are not educated about. We need further
education on what these issues will do to our economies,” said Dr. Samuel
Mumbengegwi, the Zimbabwe Minister for Industry and International Trade and Head of
the delegation to the Cancun Ministerial Conference. He said the so-called Green
Rooms were not green at all. “They are Hot Rooms that cannot produce anything
green.”
The chairman of the meeting concluded by saying the position of the group was not
changing and that this was not his position but the position of the meeting. The
representatives went back into the Green Room with this message.
In a report to some Indian NGOs, Mr. Ashok Rao reported from Cancun that after the
collapse, the ICFTU, Global Unions, NGOs including the multinational NGOs like
OXFAM and Action Aid have put out statements welcoming the collapse. This reflected
that the poor and disadvantaged have managed to exploit the chink in the armour of the
arrogant US and EU.
Between the end of the green room process, and the meeting of the final plenary, Brazil,
Argentina, South Africa, Ecuador and Egypt held a press conference on behalf of the G
21.
Brazil said that Cancun showed that “we have established unity amongst us on
agriculture.” The Brazilian envoy said, “We concentrated on human issues and large
parts of human population.... We did make very constructive amendments to move the
process forward. We were very business like. Negotiations is a process and we are
stronger today”.
Argentina’s ambassador said, “we have proved that we are not a rhetoric group but a
broad based political coalition.” South Africa’s Minister said, “we worked very hard so
WTO can move forward. We have to work for the ordinary people everywhere.” Ecuador
said that the offers of the G 21 were fair and to promote free trade. We have to work for
a peaceful world for free people.” Egypt repeated that the G 21 had made concrete
proposals in its talks with EU and US.
Pascal Lamy said that we came very positively. “What was on the table was a fair deal
and more than what was possible a few months ago. We European were ready to
reduce our agricultural subsidies. On services we were ready to open movement of
professional persons. On Singapore issues which are a key we moved at Doha, after
Doha and Cancun. In order to force consensus we even agreed to drop two issues and
retain only transparency in government procurement and trade facilitation. The WTO
remains a mediaeval organisation. I strongly believe that the decision-making needs to
be revamped seriously.... All of us could have gained, but we have all lost.”
The USTR Amb, Robert Zoellick, at his press conference was arrogant, and said:
“if countries want to behave like in the UN and only make demands instead of
negotiations making inflamatory rhetoric then trade negotiations are not possible.” He
virtually cursed the G 21, and said “I tried to talk to the head of delegations; and China
was ready to move and this was followed by Uruguay and Panama....”
“We have free trade agreement with 6 countries and we are negotaiting with another 14.
We will use multiple strategies and multiple tracks to move on,” the USTR said.
The official WTO Ministeral statement, with six paragraphs, had one operative
sentence: “We therefore instruct officials to continue working on outsatnding issues with
a renewed sense of urgency and purpose and taking fully into account all the views we
have expressed in this Conference”.
The Indian NGO also reported stoically on some doings at Cancun:
“Greenpeace went into a press conference of the USTR and threw some maze in the air
so; and all with NGO badge were out of the press conference - only press badges were
allowed. Then some NGOs went and changed the homepage of the computers in the
press area, from WTO to OXFAM. So NGO badge was debarred from the Press Area.
So that is that.” - SUNS 5419
[c] 2003, SUNS - All rights reserved. May not be reproduced, reprinted or posted to any
system or service without specific permission from SUNS. This limitation includes
incorporation into a database, distribution via Usenet News, bulletin board systems,
mailing lists, print media or broadcast. For information about reproduction or multi-user
subscriptions please contact: sunstwn@bluewin.ch

BACK TO MAIN | ONLINE BOOKSTORE | HOW TO ORDER

Over 10,000 people are thought to have attended the meeting: among them 3,000 journalists,
2,000 NGOs and 5,000 government delegates (including trade ministers and other ministers of
agriculture, environment, finance and development).
The trade talks opened with key speakers warning of the importance and urgency of these issues.
We are told that trade can provide a ladder to a better life and deliver us from poverty and
despair... Sadly, the reality of the international trading system today does not match the rhetoric.
— Kofi Annan, Secretary General, United Nations. (In a statement read at the opening session
of the WTO meeting.)
We can no longer permit well-being to be limited to a few nations. We can no longer postpone
the battle against poverty and marginalization.
— President of Mexico, Vicente Fox, Speaking as host of the event
(The above were Cited from Diego Cevallos, Trade Ministers Unfazed by Criticism as Meet
Begins, Inter Press Service (IPS), September 10, 2003.)
But these talks collapsed.
• Richer countries wanted to talk about newer issues that mostly they
themselves would have benefited from. (This is part of the free trade
and liberalization ideas that they promote, which have been under
increasing criticism from many angles in recent years.)
• Poorer countries wanted to finish older issues mostly on agriculture
that affected them the most, especially the impact of European and
U.S. subsidies on their own agriculture and lack of access to those
markets. (This actually goes against the free trade ideas that these
two regions especially promote.)
• This impasse led to the end of the talks for now but for the first time
showed the developing countries make a successful and united
stand to represent their concerns.
Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winner in 2001 for economics, former World Bank Chief
Economist, and now prominent critic of the ideology of the Washington Concensus Side
Note»See his book, Globalization and its Discontents, (W. W. Norton and Company, 2002) that
at one time he helped to push, made a prediction about a month before the meeting took place:
The Cancun round of WTO talks is a chance for developing countries to get a fairer deal. But
don’t count on that happening.
— Joseph Stiglitz, Trade imbalances, The Guardian, August 15, 2003
This web page has the following sub-sections:
• Introduction
• Trade Talks Collapse
• Watchlist Of Critics
• More Information

Introduction
As with previous such meetings, even before starting there were debates and concerns on various
issues such as:
• The apparent lack of democracy in the meeting processes;
Side Note»
 The WTO and the meeting and decision-making processes, especially seen in previous
ministerial meetings, have been long criticized as being non-transparent, often behind
closed doors, and on the whole undemocratic, due to the strong influences and power of
the richer nations. In the past there have even been closed-door Green Room meetings
and consultations by richer countries, who then basically determine the agenda of the
Ministerial meetings.
Leading up to this ministerial meeting, heads-of-delegations met to discuss the draft text.
Amongst many concerns, it is interesting to note Botswana and the African-Caribbean-
Pacific (ACP) countries comments on the decision-making process, as it highlights some
of the concerns, quite politely, at the lack of democracy in various ways. Martin Khor of
the Third World Network reports on this:
To improve the decision-making process during the Ministerial, the ACP Group proposed
the adoption of procedural rules to enhance transparency and inclusiveness.
These rules should ensure that:
○ All WTO members decide on the appointment of the Chairpersons of
Working Groups formed at the Ministerial Conference.
○ The draft text that forms the basis of negotiations reflects the
proposals of all members or groups of members.
○ All WTO members be informed of consultations and are entitled to
participate in them.
○ All issues of importance, including consideration of a proposal to
extend the length of the Conference, be put before WTO members as a
whole for a decision.
— Martin Khor, North-South divide on Cancun draft at General Council, Third World
Network, August 27, 2003
That these issues are being raised suggests there is concern at the decision-making
process, once again. In the previous round in Doha, though not necessarily reported in
much detail, developing countries and non-governmental organizations charged rich
countries and regions, such as the European Union (E.U.) and U.S of things like bullying
and arm-twisting. See this site’s section on the Doha round.
• Market access issues for developing countries (or Southern countries);
• Protectionism by industrialized (or Northern) countries and regions such as
the U.S. and European Union (EU) Side Note»For example, The agricultural
subsidies of the first world or industrialized countries result in their
agricultural over-production and thus a downward pressure on prices leading
to artificially-low global agricultural prices. Combined with years of
disastrous structural adjustment policies upon the third world
commodity prices have further plummeted;
• Rich countries dumping agricultural commodities on international markets at
prices below the cost of production, and other unfair agricultural trade rules;
• Patent rules that appear to deny poor countries access to affordable
medicines;
• Trying to introduce new issues before issues raised in the previous
Ministerial, the Doha round, have been resolved. Side Note»Some of these
 additional issues include those around investment, competition policy,
transparency in government procurement and trade facilitation. Some of the
existing issues include agriculture and patents. WTO member countries
have been polarized over these issues. For example, developing
countries in general want to avoid extra issues (especially investment), while
some rich countries want to introduce these. (These issues are also known as
the Singapore issues, to reflect where they were raised — Singapore in 1996
— not who raised them);
• And many more
Leading up to the meeting there was a Draft Cancun Ministerial Text being discussed. However,
at a meeting of heads-of-delegation of WTO members at the end of August, various developing
countries were very critical of it and said that the draft text is imbalanced and does not take
account of their development needs and of their proposals in many areas.
It is interesting to note how various concerns that were raised here before the meeting, were very
similar to those being raised before and at the previous ministerial meeting. In addition, previous
meetings have highlighted continued non-democratic decision making processes, and arm-
twisting type negotiation tactics of more powerful and wealthier countries. (See this site’s section
on the Doha round for more details.) Many therefore feared that this round would not be
different and according to some, it did indeed look like this is the way it was going before the
talks ended.
The authoritative Joseph Stiglitz, mentioned further above, is worth quoting as he also
highlighted before the meeting, how concerns from previous years were real:
At their last meeting in Doha in November 2001, ministers recognised the inequities of the
previous round of trade negotiations, the Uruguay round. This round was supposed to redress
those imbalances.
One would have thought that the developing countries would look forward to the meeting as a
chance to achieve a fairer global trading system. Instead, many fear that what has happened in
the past will happen again: secret negotiations, arm twisting, and the display of brute economic
power by the US and Europe aimed at ensuring that the interests of the rich are protected.
While some progress has been made in making the negotiations more open and transparent,
efforts to go further have met with resistance, and for good reason: unbalanced processes help
ensure unbalanced outcomes. Ironically, the World Trade Organisation (WTO), where each
country has one vote, might seem far more “democratic” than, say, the International Monetary
Fund (IMF) where a single country, the US, has a veto. Yet the realpolitik of economic power
has ensured that the interests of the developed countries predominate.
— Joseph Stiglitz, Trade imbalances, The Guardian, August 15, 2003
Trade is said to be the way to enhance growth and development and eliminate poverty. That
might be the case in theory, but, currently, the 49 least developed countries that make up the
world’s poorest countries have not shared in the growth of world trade. The 646 million
people in the top exporting countries — the US, Germany, Japan, France and UK — have 100
times more trade than their poor counterparts. Those 49 countries have a similar population as
those top five.
Some third world groups have been very critical of the WTO and how it is being used. Seeing it
from their side, and the impact on the poor countries, a geopolitical dimension to what may
sound like economic issues is added, and some suggest the WTO represents a continuation, but
in different forms, of power struggle. Take for example what policy analyst at Focus on the
Global South, and author, Aileen Kwa notes:
The WTO perpetrates a subtle and pervasive form of re-colonisation and warfare. It calls on
members to relinquish their sovereign rights and policy freedom (by constraining their ability to
put in place domestic regulations) in order to allow pillage by transnational corporations. The
saturation of Northern markets makes it imperative that transnational corporations get access to
markets in the South. The ever-expanding ambit of WTO rules are designed to do just that; pry
open developing country markets, not only through the drastic reduction of tariffs, but by
“beyond the border” measures. The result is the further subjugation of economies and peoples in
the developing world.
— Aileen Kwa, Cancun and the Battle for Developing Counties' Markets: Another Form of
Warfare, Focus on the Global South, August 29, 2003
But this time round it seems that the poor countries have tried to resist such “re-colonization.”
Back to top

Trade Talks Collapse

The trade talks collapsed over the rich countries attempts to discuss new issues without
finishing off the existing and most pressing ones for the poor countries, while poorer
countries resisted such an attempt.
But this time round, this talk signified perhaps a new state of affairs too: poorer countries, for
one of the first times, have been able to make a united stand against the richer countries, who in
the past have also used non-democratic pressures to get their interests represented in the WTO
meetings and their outcomes, often at the expense of the poorer countries who have made even
more concessions.
This has left rich countries blaming poor countries for the failed talks.
• Depending on who you are and how you look at it, the talks can be seen as a
failure for not being able to make progress, but in some respects can be seen
as a sort of success for poorer countries.
• For the first time then, the poorer countries have been able to take a bold
stance.
• While the trade talks didn’t progress, the fact that it appears not to have
made things worse for poorer countries could be seen as a success.
The developing countries that took a stand included larger ones such as China, India, Brazil and
South Africa but also other blocs such as the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group, the
African Union, the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Asian countries such as Malaysia.
• They all said they would not like to launch negotiations at the conference on
the “Singapore issues” (or new issues) before existing ones are resolved.
• The existing ones impact the poor the most.
• The new ones are the ones that the rich countries and their corporations
would like the most, because they are about more market access into poorer
countries.
 • It is not clear how beneficial multinational companies (MNCs) having
more market access to poorer countries is for the poorer countries
themselves.»
○ It is clearly beneficial to the MNCs, else they wouldn’t be backing this
heavily.
○ It could be argued that they bring in knowledge and investment which
is much-needed.
○ What many people are concerned about is that this is more
concentration in things like ownership, wealth and knowledge and that
local and other regional companies would not be able to compete with
such giants, of even get off the ground, without help from their
governments, which richer countries frown upon.
○ To that extent, and as exemplified by Aileen Kwa above, for example,
some in the developing world, fear the MNC pressure represents a new
form of colonialism where there will be more dominance and influence
by foreign owners and less ability for poor countries to gain a strong
foundation and be equal partners in an international arena.
IPS reported (September 15, 2003) that “Roberto Bissio, director of the Uruguay-based Social
Watch said [that developing countries standing firm despite Europe offering to concede some of
the Singapore issues] was not surprising. The Doha Development Agenda agreed two years ago
in the capital of Qatar clearly stated that the Singapore issues would be discussed only after ‘an
explicit consensus’ had been reached. But that had clearly not happened, he said.”
The same IPS report also asked why consensus was not reached. Some, such as the European
Trade Commissioner appeared to blame (indirectly) poor countries, and implied that the way the
talks were structured it was difficult to get so many countries to talk and to direct the meetings
properly. Unfortunately, what that trade commissioner perhaps did not recognize was that in the
past, the efforts to “steer” these meetings have been mostly done by the rich countries who have
decided the agenda:
EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy had his own explanation [why consensus was not
reached]. “Despite the commitment of many able people, the WTO remains a medieval
organisation,” he said.
“The procedures and rules of this organisation have not supported the weight of the task. There is
no way to structure and steer discussions amongst 146 members in a manner conducive to
consensus,” Lamy told media representatives.
He said the decision-making needed to be revamped and that the EU would continue to work in
that direction within the WTO.
Director of the Third World Network Martin Khor went a step further: “The deeper reason is the
untransparent and undemocratic system of drafting of texts in the WTO. The decision-making
system in the WTO should be reformed so that there is more transparency and democracy, so
that developing country members can participate more effectively, especially in the drafting of
texts.”
— Ramesh Jaura, Mixed Feelings About The Debacle, Inter Press Service, September 15, 2003
In addition, UK’s representative, Patricia Hewitt on an interview on BBC Radio 4 on the
morning of September 15, 2003, also highlighted just a partial reaction, implying that everyone
(i.e. the rich countries) were ready to make a concession, and that it was totally surprising and
unfathomable as to why the poor countries could not agree. (These were not her exact words, but
the main thrust of her point as I interpreted it, listening to her speak.) UK’s Channel 4 news
programme also highlighted on the same day that the U.S. spun the reasons for the failed talks as
all other nations not trying to negotiate, while the U.S. tried its best.
There were “deals to be done” as some delegates such as Hewitt had said, but as the Channel 4
program highlighted, if the stance this year by the developing countries is not seen in a wider
historical context it looks like they were stubborn and not prepared to negotiate and balance off
concerns. In a wider historical context, the poorer countries have always lost out in these
“negotiations”, so the temptation to brand poor countries as not wanting to participate or not
wanted to “deal” fairly has to be resisted.
Indeed, perhaps even opposite to the interpretation of Hewitts' stance, some development
organizations suggest that it wasn’t the poor countries who were stubborn, but the rich ones.
The British newspaper, The Guardian, reported that international development organization
Oxfam blamed the U.S. and E.U. for the collapse. “Oxfam said the refusal of the EU and US to
cede any ground to developing countries on agriculture — and Europe’s attempt to force a global
investment and competition treaty on to the table — had forced poor countries to walk out.” The
Guardian adds further that the collapse could be a blow to the world economy, which is already
fragile.
In addition, another Guardian article reports another organization, ActionAid who say that the
victory for poor countries might be hollow because all that has happened is that there will be
no change to the unfair rules that allow rich countries to continue to subsidize their farmers at the
expense of millions of poor people, though on the positive side, further deals have not made that
would have made a bad situation far worse.
How could it be that some of the most senior ministers from rich countries such as Lamy,
Hewmitt and others could make such comments that ignore the views and concerns of the third
world? From one angle, these people are just doing their jobs: representing their countries
interests. In the world of realpolitik power is a factor that the modern economic theories don’t
seem to account for.
From a historical perspective, Cancun is also an example of continued attempts by the rich
countries to siphon wealth from the poor. Being locked into this process for centuries, perhaps
many politicians from the rich world today do not see a way out or even realize these aspects.
George Monbiot, writing in The Guardian recognized that the stance of the poor countries was a
A threat to the rich, which, historically has been enough reason for the powerful to attempt to
do whatever they can to ensure they remain influential. In fact, he is quite blunt about it.
Referring to Thomas Hobbe’s 1651 work Levaithan, Monbiot notes that
the nasty and brutish behaviour of the powerful ensures that the lives of the poor remain short.
At the talks in Cancun, in Mexico, Lamy made the poor nations an offer that they couldn’t
possibly accept. He appears to have been seeking to resurrect, by means of an “investment
treaty”, the infamous Multilateral Agreement on Investment. This was a proposal that would
have allowed corporations to force a government to remove any laws that interfered with their
ability to make money, and that was crushed by a worldwide revolt in 1998.
In return for granting corporations power over governments, the poor nations would receive
precisely nothing. The concessions on farm subsidies that Lamy was offering amounted to little
more than a reshuffling of the money paid to European farmers. They would continue to permit
the subsidy barons of Europe to dump their artificially cheap produce into the poor world,
destroying the livelihoods of the farmers there.
— George Monbiot, A threat to the rich, The Guardian, September 16, 2003
(For far more detailed insights into these historical aspects and how this has led to the extreme
disparities seen in the world today, and how it has influenced, shaped and impacted the world
system today, see the Institute for Economic Democracy web site. For more about the
Multilateral Agreement on Investment that was derailed in 1998 that Monbiot was referring to,
see this site’s MAI page.)
Monbiot’s observation on what is now possibly happening is interesting to note too. He tries to
see some positive outcomes here in the long term for poor countries, and is quoted at length:
...something else is now beginning to shake itself awake. The developing countries, for the first
time in some 20 years, are beginning to unite and to move as a body.
That they have not done so before is testament first to the corrosive effects of the cold war, and
second to the continued ability of the rich and powerful nations to bribe, blackmail and bully the
poor ones. Whenever there has been a prospect of solidarity among the weak, the strong — and
in particular the US — have successfully divided and ruled them, by promising concessions to
those who split and threatening sanctions against those who stay. But now the rich have become
victims of their own power.
Since its formation, the rich countries have been seeking to recruit as many developing nations
into the WTO as they can, in order to open up the developing countries' markets and force them
to trade on onerous terms. However, as the rich have done so, they have found themselves
massively outnumbered. The EU and the US may already be regretting their efforts to persuade
China to join. It has now become the rock — too big to bully and threaten — around which the
unattached nations have begun to cluster.
Paradoxically, it was precisely because the demands being made by Lamy and (to a lesser extent)
the US were so outrageous that the smaller nations could not be dragged away from this new
coalition. Whatever the US offered by way of inducements and threats, they simply had too
much to lose if the poor countries allowed the rich bloc’s proposals to pass. And their solidarity
is itself empowering. At Cancun the weak nations stood up to the most powerful negotiators on
earth and were not broken.
The lesson they will bring home is that if this is possible, almost anything is. Suddenly the
proposals for global justice that relied on solidarity for their implementation can spring into life.
While the WTO might have been buried, these nations may, if they use their collective power
intelligently, still find a way of negotiating together. They might even disinter it as the
democratic body it was always supposed to have been.
The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund had better watch their backs now. The UN
security council will find its anomalous powers ever harder to sustain. Poor nations, if they stick
together, can begin to exercise a collective threat to the rich. For this, they need leverage and, in
the form of their debts, they possess it. Together they owe so much that, in effect, they own the
world’s financial systems. By threatening, collectively, to default, they can begin to wield the
sort of power that only the rich have so far exercised, demanding concessions in return for
withholding force.
So Pascal Lamy, “our” negotiator, may accidentally have engineered a better world, by fighting
so doggedly for a worse one.
— George Monbiot, A threat to the rich, The Guardian, September 16, 2003
Whether Monbiot’s optimism for the third world is premature is hard to judge. But noting the
hypocrisy of the arguments of the rich countries compared to their actions and then the
possibility of this coming back to them is interesting.
For now, activists and third world/social justice and development organizations are on the whole
happy that the talks ended in this way because it showed that the poorer countries can resist the
pressures of the richer ones. In the long run though, this has raised questions about the future of
the WTO itself. Whether those fears are just exaggerations or not is hard to tell. However, it
would seem that in some form (hopefully democratic) global rules for trade and therefore maybe
an organization to help see that, are needed. To some, the WTO could still be the answer, while
to others it is to be scraped and replaced completely.
For Foreign Trade Minister for the Netherlands, Karien Van Gennip, for example, the WTO is
the way. Talking to IPS, her following comments could be applied to others who feel some other
organization can do the job instead, as underlying this all is that trade should be about creating
prosperity, not an ends to itself: “trade is not an objective in itself. Trade needs to play its role in
creating prosperity as a precondition all over the world. To that end, the WTO is the vehicle and
the Doha Development Agenda the map ahead.”
But as well as raising the issue to do with trade (or lack of it) between the rich and the poor, or
between North and the South, South-South, or trade between poor countries themselves
should also be strengthened, as the same IPS report also highlights. In addition, in the Behind
Consumption section on this site, for example, it has been hinted at for a while, how damaging
some aspects of North-South trade relationships have been in those cases where the economies of
poor countries are so dependent on richer markets, and that local markets and economies cannot
get started.
Without international rules on trade, especially ones that are fair and democratically agreed to,
you could end up with the old power games of colonial and imperial times. Rich countries could
vie for bilateral agreements with poor countries in various ways and a plethora of those could get
very complicated, and in their worst forms very ugly, as history has warned us with at least two
disasters of massive proportions when trade disputes between more powerful countries impacted
their economies severely enough: the great European/World Wars...
Back to top

“Watchlist” Of Critics
Perhaps shocking to some, and not surprising to others, has been that according to a document
leaked and made public by the Mexican newspaper, Reforma, leading up to the meeting the
Mexican police and military had a watchlist of people to observe very closely at the meeting.
Some of the people on the list include prominent, outspoken and even popular critics of various
aspects of the global system. For example, as reported by the citizen watchdog organization,
Council of Canadians:
• Noam Chomsky, MIT Faculty and outspoken critic of U.S. Foreign Policy (U.S.);
• Ralph Nader, consumer advocate and former leader of the Green Party (U.S.);
• Ignacio Ramonet, Editor-in-Chief of the widely respected Le Monde
diplomatique (France);
 • Lori Wallach, Director of Global Trade Watch, a division of Public Citizen
(U.S.);
• Waldon Bello, Economist and director of Focus on Global South (Philippines);
• Vandana Shiva, Director of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology
and Ecology (India);
• Barbara Stocking, Director of OXFAM Great Britain;
• Maude Barlow, National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians;
Maude Barlow’s reactions (also in the previous link) perhaps sums up some of the reactions to
this:
“This is sickening,” says Barlow. “We are listed for no other reason that we disagree with the
powers that be on the effects of economic globalisation. The message is clear: if you have a
dissenting opinion from your government’s, then you are a potential threat.
“On the other hand, what can you expect of an organisation that decided to hold its previous
gathering in a place, Qatar, where protests are illegal? The ironic thing is that WTO officials are
always offended when we remind them how their organisation is working against democracy...
What could be more undemocratic than putting a tag on opponents of your philosophy, of your
ideology?
“The fact of the matter is, the WTO proceedings are highly controversial and the whole
international trade debate should be transferred to the public and political stage, from where it
has consistently been absent. The WTO negotiations will be affecting millions of citizens
without them having much of a say on the desirability of the WTO policies. No one should be
surprised that much of civil society feels excluded and powerless.”
— Maude Barlow on the Mexican authorities “watch list” for WTO Meeting, Council of
Canadians, August 19, 2003
Throughout history, powerholders have tried various ways to stifle dissent. As critics of the
current form of globalization are growing and their voices are trying to be heard more and more,
so are the means to try and silence such critique.
• In recent years, global protests have highlighted various concerns at the
impacts of what appears to be overly corporate led and oriented
globalization, even though large protests have been occurring for decades.
• At the same time, the protests have been met with violence (or themselves
have turned violent).
• Since the terrorist attacks on the U.S. on September 11, the world over,
security organizations have been put on higher alert, but as was also seen in
Doha at the fourth WTO Ministerial Conference, terrorism and other factors
were raised as excuses to undermine protestors and critics of the current
form of globalization in various ways.
• This is a large topic itself but one place to find out more is this sites section
on global protests.
Back to top

More Information
• Third World Network
 • WTO Observatory
• Corpwatch
• FoodFirst.org
• Focus on the Global South
• South Centre
• International Centre for Trade and Development
• Global Economics subsection from the ZNet web site
• Global Trade Watch from Public Citizen
• WTO Cancun Special Coverage from Inter Press Service
• The Battle over Trade from the BBC
• Spotlight on Cancun from OneWorld.net
• From this web site:
○ Free Trade and Globalization
○ Corporations
○ Causes of Poverty
○ Sustainable Development
○ Third World Debt
Back to top

Where next?
This article is part of the following collection:
• WTO Doha “Development” Trade Round Collapse, 2006
• WTO Meeting in Hong Kong, 2005
• WTO July 2004 Package of Framework Agreements
• WTO Meeting in Cancun, Mexico, 2003
• WTO Meeting in Doha, Qatar, 2001

Share this page with:

Bookmark or share this with others using some popular social bookmarking web sites:
• Facebook
• StumbleUpon
• Google
• del.icio.us
• Digg
• Reddit

Link to this page from your site/blog

 <p>Anup Shah, <a href="http://w

Copy/paste the following HTML code to your page:

… to produce this:
Anup Shah, WTO Meeting in Cancun, Mexico, 2003, Global Issues, Updated: September 18,
2003
Alternatively, copy/paste the following MLA citation format for this page:
Shah, Anup. “WTO Meeting in Cancun, Mexico, 2003.” Global Issues, Updated: 18 Sep. 2003.
Accessed: 27 Feb. 2010. <http://www.globalissues.org/article/438/wto-meeting-in-cancun-
mexico-2003>

Other options
Find this page/site useful?
• Let a friend know
• Subscribe to the RSS web feed
• Follow this site on Facebook
• Follow this site on Twitter
Other options
• Printable Version
• Get Free Email Updates
• Support this site
• Feedback

Author and Page Information

• by Anup Shah
• Created: Saturday, August 30, 2003
• Last Updated: Thursday, September 18, 2003
Back to top
Navigation
Top of Form
Search this site
 01657743115360 UTF-8 w hy did india

Bottom of Form

Share
• Facebook
• StumbleUpon
• Google
• del.icio.us
• Digg
• Reddit
• Email
• Feed
• Facebook
• Twitter
Get free updates
Page-related navigation
Page Options
• Printable Version
• Email Page to a Friend
Related Articles
• Doha Round Collapse
• Hong Kong WTO Meeting
• July 2004 Framework
• Cancun WTO Meeting
• Doha WTO Meeting
Related Issues
• Free Trade (14)
• Global Financial Crisis
• Neoliberalism
• Criticisms of Free Trade
• WTO
• Doha Round Collapse
• More articles…
Economics, Trade (67)
• Global Financial Crisis
• Poverty Facts and Stats
• Structural Adjustment
• Poverty Around The World
• 25,000 Child Deaths Today
• More articles…
Site Navigation
Advertisements
Most Popular Pages
• Poverty Facts and Stats
• Global Financial Crisis
• Causes of Poverty
• Climate Change and Global Warming
• Environmental Issues
• Racism
• World Military Spending
• US & Foreign Aid
• Poverty Around The World
• Women’s Rights
Recently Updated
• Obesity
• Conservation
• Haiti
• Racism
• COP 15—Copenhagen
• Iran
• Climate Change Intro
• Poverty Around The World
• Women’s Rights
• AIDS around the world
Useful Resources
• Videos
• News Headlines
• Books and Reading List
 • Links and Resources
• Favorite Quotes
“Bad ideas flourish because they are in the interest of powerful groups” — Paul Krugman
© Copyright 1998–2010

The G20 (Group of 20, also variously G21, G22 and G20+) is a bloc of developing nations
established on 20 August 2003. The group emerged at the 5th Ministerial WTO conference,
held in Cancún, Mexico from 10 September to 14 September 2003. The G-20 accounts for
60% of the world's population, 70% of its farmers and 26% of world’s agricultural exports
[1]
.
[edit] History
Its origins date back to June 2003, when foreign ministers from Brazil, India and South Africa
signed a declaration known as the Brasilia Declaration[2][3], in which they stated that “major
trading partners are still moved by protectionist concerns in their countries’ less competitive
sectors [...] and emphasized how important it is that the results of the current round of trade
negotiations provide especially for the reversal of protectionist policies and trade-distorting
practices [...] Furthermore, Brazil, India and South Africa decided to articulate their initiatives
of trade liberalization”.

Currently, the group consists

of 23 nations:
1. Argentina
2. Bolivia
3. Brazil
4. Chile
5. China
6. Cuba
7. Ecuador
8. Egypt
9. Guatemala
10. India
11. Indonesia
12. Mexico
13. Nigeria
14. Pakistan
15. Paraguay
16. Peru
 17. Philippines
18. South Africa
19. Tanzania
20. Thailand
21. Uruguay
22. Venezuela
23. Zimbabwe

Nonetheless, the “official” appearance of the G-20 occurred as a response to a text released
on 13 August 2003 by the European Communities (EC) and the United States with a common
proposal on agriculture for the Cancún Ministerial. On 20 August 2003 a document signed
by twenty countries and re-issued as a Cancún Ministerial document on 4 September
proposed an alternative framework to that of the EC and the United States on agriculture
for the Cancún Meeting. This document marked the establishment of the G-20. The
original group of signatories of the 20 August 2003 document went through many changes,
being known as such different names as the G-21 or the G-22. The title G-20 was finally
chosen, in honor of the date of the group's establishment.
Since its creation, the group has had a fluctuating membership. Previous members have included:
Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Peru, and Turkey. As of October 2008, the
group had 23 members.
[edit] References