Evo Morales on the WTO’s Round of Negotiations

International trade can play a major role in the promotion of economic development and the alleviation of poverty. We recognize the need for all our peoples to benefit from the increased opportunities and welfare gains that the multilateral trading system generates. The majority of WTO members are developing countries. We seek to place their needs and interests at the heart of the Work Programme adopted in this Declaration. Doha World Trade Organization Ministerial Declaration, November 14, 2001

With these words began the WTO round of negotiations seven years ago. In reality, are economic development, the alleviation of poverty, the needs of all our peoples, the increased opportunities for developing countries at the center of the current negotiations at the WTO?

First I must say that if it were so, all 153 member countries and in particular, the wide majority of developing countries should be the main actors in the WTO negotiations. But what we are seeing is that a handful of 35 countries are invited by the Director-General to informal meetings so that they advance significantly in the negotiations and prepare the agreements of this WTO "Development Round".

The WTO negotiations have turned into a fight by developed countries to open markets in developing countries to favor their big companies.

The agricultural subsidies in the North, which mainly go to agricultural and food companies in the US and Europe, will not only continue but will actually increase, as demonstrated by the 2008 Farm Bill<1> in the United States. The developing countries will lower tariffs on their agricultural products while the real subsidies<2> applied by the US or the EU to their agricultural products will not decline.

As for industrial products in the WTO negotiations, developing countries are being asked to cut their tariffs by 40% to 60% while developed countries will, on average, cut their tariffs by 25% to 33%.

For countries like Bolivia the erosion of trade preferences due to the overall lowering of tariffs will have negative effects on the competitiveness of our exports.

The recognition of asymmetries, and the real and effective special and differential treatment in favor of developing countries is limited and obstructed when implemented by developed countries.

In the negotiations, there is a push towards the liberalization of new services sectors by countries when we should be definitely excluding basic services in education, health, water, energy and telecommunications from the text of the WTO’s General Agreement on Trade in Services. These services are human rights that cannot be objects of private commercial relations and of liberalization rules that lead to privatization.

The deregulation and privatization of financial services, among others, are the cause of the current global financial crisis. Further liberalization of services will not bring about more development, but greater probabilities for a crisis and speculation on vital matters such as food.

Continued>>>

http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/1387/1/

NAFTA and CAFTA agreements.

BTW it used to be that our nation's policies were formulated through enactments of "Acts" which require a two thirds vote of Congress

But when we put through NAFTA, it was only a trade "agreement" requiring only a fifty one per cent majority.

Interesting, isn't it??

We are a nation whose citizenry is more often than not affected by agreements, or even worse, by agencies.

And the agencies are simply devices by which the President can see to it that certain people oversee our lives (Google and read the tale of Ronald Reagan and his appointment to the FDA - when Monsanto wanted their sugar substitute NutraSweet approved.)

Inside: we are bamboozled and befuddled by the media cacaphony of continuous bullshit. 90% of americans would have no fucking clue what Morales is talking about.