Anti-development stance of the EU and US resulted in collapse of the WTO trade talks, says ActionAid.
So called "development round" ignored the needs of poor countries and especially poor farmers
Contact: Aftab Alam Khan +923008523118
Geneva July 29. Responsibility for the collapse in crucial trade talks in Geneva lies with the EU and US not the developing countries looking to safeguard the interests of their growing industries and poor farmers, ActionAid said today.
Aftab Alam Khan, head of ActionAid’s Trade Policy said the failure of the talks was a result of corporate greed in America and Europe as well as the manner in which the talks were held.
“The responsibility of failure squarely lies with the US, EU who could not think beyond the interests of their huge trans-national businesses that want to grab more and more market opportunities in poor countries,” he said.
“For the US and the EU to blame China and India for the collapse is just laughable.”
“The US and EU pretension to offer 70% and 80% cuts made a mockery of poor farmers. The US suggestion that it would limit its subsidies to $14.5bn, while it currently provides $ 7-8bn annually, meant there was no real cut on the table.”
“Pascal Lamy also bears responsibility for conducting the talks in a way that was far from democratic.”
ActionAid trade campaigner Angela Wauye from Kenya said the US failure to agree a deal over the contentious issue of cotton had also contributed to the break down in talks:
“Cotton subsidies are a litmus test of the development dimension of WTO talks. More than 10 million farmers have lost livelihoods because the American government pays between US$2-4bn subsidies to around 20,000 US farmers,” Ms Wauye added.
ActionAid today also said developing countries were right not to give into heavy handed negotiating tactics by the US and the EU as crucial trade talks collapsed.
Arguing that “no deal is batter than a bad deal,” Aftab Alam Khan said the deal offered to developing countries would have put millions of poor people at further risk.
“Thus is just another example of the intransigence and insensitivity of rich countries, who aren’t interested in the survival of small farmers, workers and jobs in developing countries.”
“The industrial deal on the table was so bad it would have resulted in developing countries being US63bn worse off.
“Any agreement would have resulted in thousands of job losses in industry. Estimates say China, India and Brazil would have lost over 100,000 jobs in the car industry alone.”
He added that the Doha round of talks, which began as a development round in 2001, had disintegrated into a battle over trade.
He also accused rich countries of using heavy handed negotiating tactics to try and force developing countries into a deal which would have only benefited the former.
“Developing countries have to be appreciated for not succumbing to huge pressure from rich countries and Pascal Lamy.”