Preamble

Based on the thesis that free trade was of good for all humankind the WTO tries to impose free trade as a goal per se. This thesis is refuted by reality: in spite of trade liberalization or because of it, the last two decades have produced globally many more losers than winners in the affluent society. While the winners are in the first place transnational corporations of the North, the clear losers are women living in the global South.

AGEZ holds that trade cannot be a goal as such. Trade is an instrument which serves us to reach goals the definition of which must remain in the hands of politics.

Free trade among equal partners may raise prosperity in some cases, but certainly not among unequal partners: among highly industrialized national economies on the one hand, and countries with an agrarian structure forced to exploit their natural resources on the other hand. Whenever inequalities are leveled with equalities, inequality is always rising. Consequently, the liberalization rounds held so far have not brought about general prosperity. The per capita income of 80 states is lower today than it was ten years ago. Africa’s share in world trade fell from six to two percent since the sixties. On the black continent de-industrialization and the break-down of the domestic markets are being commented on. In Latin America the exploitation of raw materials and an intensive export-oriented agriculture are threatening the national economies with a throwback to the primary sector. The blatant increase of poverty and marginalization of wide social sectors especially in countries in the South have a specific effect on women: 70 % of the absolute poor worldwide are women.

In the past years the sector of transnational agricultural and modern biotechnology companies has been witnessing a frightening tendency to concentrate and merge resulting in the control of the worldwide most important seeds for food crops by fewer than ten companies. This tendency is linked to farming methods that require a high level of resources and energy, industrialization and genetic engineering. They are thus in no way sustainable and pushing back traditional organic farming methods. Many fertile and productive fields are becoming scarce and no longer providing the local population with basic food stuff. In a mid-term or long-term perspective this would threaten the food security and the food sovereignty of the South. The tendency seen in several Southern countries to promote cash crops instead of subsistence farming and food production for local consumption is only one symptom amidst an alarming development. The disastrous ecological and social consequences of an export-oriented economic policy are well known and documented and must be taken into consideration at last by decision makers in politics and economics.

In almost all countries of the world the majority of farm workers are women. But this fact is never taken into consideration in the different bodies and discussion rounds, neither topically nor structurally. Together with the lacking transparency of WTO decisions and strong discriminatory tendencies vis-à-vis "economically weaker" countries, AGEZ considers this a being one of the most serious democratic deficits not only of the AOA (Agreement on Agriculture) but also of other WTO agreements.

In accordance with peasants, farm workers, landless people and local small producers we demand that in the further negotiations on agricultural trade, the subsidies on exported farm products produced in bulk in the North ("industrialized countries") should be prohibited. On the one hand the markets in the North should open up substantially for products from developing countries, on the other hand developing countries should not be pressurized to liberalize their markets. We demand that a food-security box which would serve as a mechanism for developing countries be installed, in order to protect their people from starvation. AGEZ calls upon policy makers to add to the GATT-principles a guiding principle similar to the precautionary principle which permits all member states to implement protective and special measures for the areas of agriculture and food sovereignty concerning production (ecological and social) as well as trade policies.

We are also convinced that agriculture should not be negotiated within WTO!

In the next round of negotiations and in view of a future-oriented agriculture and a sustainable food security worldwide, it will be decisive to see which development will be initiated for biotechnology. In the course of biotechnological and genetically engineered innovations there will be a run on patents on living modified organisms, parts of them or their characteristics, which must be clearly rejected. Worldwide exclusive rights for commercial use and application of biodiversity would thus be concentrated in the hands of only a few actors. We consider this not only a threat to the food sovereignty of vast sectors of the population but principally an attack on social, cultural an economic basic rights, therefore we advocate the withdrawal of patentability of living organisms.

In view of these biopolitical developments AGEZ demands that further WTO-agreements be tuned to the rules laid down in the Biosafety-Protocol and within the frame of CBD (Convention on Biodiversity) as well as to other Rio-Conventions.

None of the member states should give to individual actors exclusive rights on living organisms. The TRIPS-agreement which is founded on unequal power relations and unequal interests of the parties concerned must be revised. Living organisms, biodiversity and any life can never become private property – if necessary, all these ambitions must be denied legal protection.

The TRIPS-agreement is also questionable from the gender-specific point of view, as it pushes indigenous women and peasant women in the South away from their traditional living space where they exercised some power. In addition, their capacities which have been developed over centuries, their knowledge and their experiences are being exploited and commercialized without any scruple.

For several years it has been known now, that in the USA, in Europe and in other countries patents on genetically manipulated seeds have been submitted which are steering, impeding or chemically controlling the plant growth and its capacity to germinate. So-called GURTs are imposing chemical, contractual or monetary conditions on seeds, which on the one hand, are threatening farmers’ existence, who are the economically and politically weakest sector in a globally organized production process, while on the other hand they are endangering the food security of the poorest groups worldwide. We consider the GURTs as an attack on the right to feed ourselves. About 1,4 billion people who are living mostly in rural Third World regions rely on homegrown seeds which have been developed through local selection and breeding processes. AGEZ therefore demands that patents on techniques such as GURT must be prohibited worldwide and no patents be issued on living organisms, parts of them or on their characteristics.

These two catchwords are being thrown into discussions by various parties in a controversial and frequently also in purposely confusing way. The North is constantly blaming the South of "protectionism" when countries are trying to protect their national economies from an accelerated liberalization. At the same time the industrialized countries do not speak openly about the protectionist measures they are applying in order to obstruct or prevent exports from the South from getting to the North. If the North opened up its markets for the South this would certainly be more beneficial for the South than any development cooperation.

Given this background we must take a closer look at the discussion on the so-called social standards. The call for social clauses is not only coming from Northern NGOs, but also from President Clinton and recently even from the WTO. But Southern governments are rejecting them as they are considered there to be a new form of protectionism. However, often the fact is overlooked that the so-called developing countries are rejecting the social clauses not because they do not consider them to be meaningful but because they fear more economic losses resulting from the implementation of the latter.

Trade Unions and NGOs in the South also see this danger, but most of them advocate the demand for keeping minimum social clauses – contrary to their governments – such as laid down by ILO (International Labour Organisation): freedom to associate, right to collective bargaining, abolition of any form of forced labor, stop to child labor, abolition of discrimination on the job and when choosing a profession. This does not mean that uniform minimum wages should be introduced worldwide.

When preparing for Seattle AGEZ demanded to include the social clauses in the agenda. The EU-Council took up this concern, not so the Austrian government:

"The Council agreed that the EU should strongly support the protection of core labour rights. In this context, the Council discussed in detail the role that the WTO should play to promote the observance of core labour rights as well as the implications of an EU initiative to this end in the WTO. The Council recalled the importance of the Singapore declaration and agreed that additional initiatives should be taken on the following lines: The WTO should, in cooperation with other relevant international organizations, encourage positive incentives to promote observance of core labour rights. For this purpose the EU should undertake a continuous dialogue with partners in the WTO and in the ILO as well as civil society in order to define and agree approaches which would be in the best interests of those who are really affected by these issues" (quoted from the paper of the Council of the European Union, dated 25 October 1999, document 12092/99, approved by the Council on 26 October 1999).

In this context it is especially important to negotiate the issue of social and environmental clauses as political questions and on a political stage – such as the UNO – and not only on an economical one, such as the WTO, a demand already raised by the Third World Network. This means that the WTO would be included in international negotiations and agreements and not vice versa.

The WTO agreements have sharply aggravated the social contradictions between the North and the South, between the poor and the rich in different countries and between men and women. The effects of the so-called free trade on millions of peasants, on the development perspectives of Southern countries and the preservation of the environment are very negative.

As far as democratic policies are concerned the WTO shows severe deficits. There is neither a transparency in the decision making processes nor a true participation of the people affected, not even of the elected national parliaments.

The WTO was punished in Seattle for playing the game of the rich right from the beginning, without involving the public and civil society. Transnational companies and governments manipulated by them are even denying civil society its democratic legitimacy.

As far as economic policy is concerned the dictatorship of world trade will continue – with or without WTO, until WTO will successfully be forced to comply with the rules and framework conditions of a civilized society based on human dignity. Many of those rules and framework conditions are already laid down in UN-covenants and the conclusions of the NGO summit meetings in Rio de Janeiro, Vienna, Copenhagen and Beijing. But real politics show clearly that the WTO is a truly inappropriate place unfit to realize all demands raised there, especially as WTO has its own arbitration courts in case of conflict.

All demands raised by us and geared to global justice and a sustainable economy cannot be met within the present WTO structure. It is an instrument of neo-liberal dogmas which are constantly marginalizing more and more people worldwide. A global debt relief for developing countries and the introduction of a tax on currency flows would be important steps for achieving social justice. But none of these demands is echoed within the present WTO.

For AGEZ the following goals are to be prioritized when shaping world trade: poverty reduction, a more just distribution of affluence applying criteria which follow gender concerns and class, ethnic, cultural and geographical points of view, together with a sustainable economic development without exploitation of the social and ecological resources of humankind.

There are examples where these goals could be reached, at least on small scale: groups of people in many regions of the South who apply a subsistence economy, indigenous people and women’s networks have created models of an autonomous and sustainable economy and trade based on centuries of experiences. With the FairTrade mechanism another model for economy and trade was created which is following these goals and which has proven that it can be applied in practice. It is based on a sustainable economy, on fulfilling social and environmental minimal clauses and on minimum prices which guarantee a life in dignity to producers and workers. All over the world you will find movements of landless people and peasants who are striving for a humane economy and who are openly opposing the destructive WTO-policy and feel strengthened by the Seattle events.

At the same time the WTO structure as such must be changed – civil society is asked to make its contribution. The aim is transparency of all decisions and the democratic codetermination of relevant social groups, the orientation of its work following aspects of gender relevance, social compatibility and sustainable development and guaranteeing conformity with the valid international human rights and environmental rights.

Vienna, 13 September 2000