Archive - Mayo 2013

In a letter to the Director-General dated 25 June 2012, global civil society groups said that the "WTO Panel on Defining the Future of Trade", more than half of which is composed of representatives of the business sector, "does not have the global legitimacy of the stakeholders - those who will be impacted by the future of trade negotiations within the WTO - to be able to propose a legitimate path forward for future WTO negotiations."

Global Civil society groups warned that new guidelines for the accession of the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) could seriously harm, rather than help, the LDCs in their accession process, and governments should oppose the current package and send it back for re-negotiation and improvement.

The damaging effects of Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) and the investment chapters of North-South Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) were highlighted at a World Trade Organisation (WTO) Public Forum event on "Investment provisions and agreements: What is the right 21st century approach?" jointly organised by Our World Is Not for Sale Network, the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), and Public Citizen on Tuesday, 26 September 2012.

South Africa's Deputy Director General from the Department of Trade and Industry, Mr. Xavier Carim, remarked that 'South African government's experience has shown that there was no clear relationship between signing Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) and increased inflows of FDI' at a WTO Public Forum event on international investment agreements organized by OWINFS on 25 September 2012.

At a lively session organized by OWINFS on 26 September, 2012 as part of the WTO’s Public Forum, Ambassadors of developing countries and other experts presented their views on the impasse in the WTO’s Doha negotiations, the “new trade narrative” promoted by major developed countries, and the need for an alternative narrative that reflects reality, from the perspective of developing countries.

In a presentation at the UNCTAD’s Trade and Development Board panel discussion on 18 September by Ambassador Faizel Ismail, Permanent Representative of South Africa to the WTO argue that the recent attempts by some policy makers to use the concept of Global Value Chains (GVCs) to make a case for increased trade liberalization is deeply flawed for three reasons: First because it attempts to bring back the notion of a self-regulating market that is disembedded from society and divorced from the asymmetries in economic power that characterize today’s interdependent global economy; Second, because it attempts to revive the discredited Washington Consensus; and third because it does not provide a framework for helping developing economies develop beyond their current comparative advantages.

In a presentation at the UNCTAD’s Trade and Development Board panel discussion on 18 September by Ambassador Faizel Ismail, Permanent Representative of South Africa to the WTO argue that the recent attempts by some policy makers to use the concept of Global Value Chains (GVCs) to make a case for increased trade liberalization is deeply flawed for three reasons: First because it attempts to bring back the notion of a self-regulating market that is disembedded from society and divorced from the asymmetries in economic power that characterize today’s interdependent global economy; Second, because it attempts to revive the discredited Washington Consensus; and third because it does not provide a framework for helping developing economies develop beyond their current comparative advantages.