|
It is ironic that the talks would stumble over a safeguard measure. Safeguards have been a
permanent feature of the multilateral trading system. They were part
of the GATT 1947 agreement in its Article XIX, which was developed in
the Uruguay Round with the creation of the Safeguards Agreement.
Even if the use of safeguards has been limited and has only had a minimal impact on
overall trade flows, it has always provided a political response to
domestic fears about trade opening commitments.
In fact, trade opening in sensitive sectors has often been accompanied by "safety nets" to
reassure constituencies about multilateral commitments to trade
opening.
A special safeguard was created in the Uruguay Round to provide a safety net to WTO members
agreeing to transform existing quotas on textiles into tariffs which
they also agreed to reduce. Also in the Uruguay Round, a safeguard
measure was created for those developed and developing countries
which agreed to "tariffy", that is convert agriculture quotas
into equivalent tariffs, and then cut them.
In fact, part of the discussions in July centred successfully around the request by many
developing countries that this Uruguay Round special safeguard be
eliminated for developed countries after a transition period.
If I have gone at length over this matter, it is because I do not think that the Doha Round
should collapse over this issue. I am convinced that - as powerful
and as important as this issue may be - the experience of the
global trading community over this issue must be put at work to find
a compromise.
Genuine floods of imports, especially if these stem from unfair conditions, need to be
tackled and the mechanisms to do so need to be workable.
At the same time, safeguards should not be used to disrupt normal trade, in particular
since many of those to be affected are other developing countries for
whom Doha also needs to be a development round.
Nor should they be used as a substitute for adequate domestic policies in the agriculture
sector. A fine balance is required and the search for it requires
that our negotiating resources continue at work.
After the failure to achieve modalities at the end of July, many were the voices of those
who pleaded for what had been achieved to remain on the table. A lot
of work had gone into issues such as tropical products, preference
erosion, LDC related issues or bananas.
All members have committed to do so. There is now far too much on the table,
particularly for developing countries, to give up on these
negotiations. (Written by WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy in Business
Daily Africa)
August 18, 2008
|
