|
FINANCIAL WATCH:Should our services sector be on the auction block?
2005-07-06 08:35:32
By Theo Mushi
Civil societies around the world are expressing deep concerns regarding the current round of negotiations on the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) of the World Trade Organization (WTO).
They contend that enormous pressure is being put on these countries to open up their service markets to powerful foreign-based corporations from industrialized countries.
It is revealed that only 50 countries are making offers (counting 25 EU member states as one), when developed countries continue to demand 40 developing countries and 32 less developed countries to make offers to open up their service markets.
The organization’s demands make a mockery of claims that the GATS is a flexible agreement in which countries could elect to put specific services on the negotiating table.
Key sectors in which developed countries are seeking further commitments from developing countries are finance, energy, environment, water, tourism, distribution and transportation services.
These sectors represent crucial and necessary bases for fulfilment of human rights and they provide the fundamental support services required for agricultural and industrial production.
It is insisted by the civil based organizations that GATS is essentially an investment treaty, and is designed to protect investor rights and extend any lock - in liberalization in the service sector of other countries for foreign-based service corporation.
It is asserted that the European Commission and the United States have advocated benchmarks for GATS negotiations and are coordinating these demands through informal ’’ friends’’.
They assert that imposing benchmarks would imply that WTO members would lose the flexibility to decide whether to table offers and engage in commitments or not.
It is contended that the erosion of flexibility in the GATS negotiations alongside the failure of industrialized countries to propose and support significant development oriented proposals in agricultural negotiations and Non Agricultural Market Access (NAMA) negotiations exposes the gulf between rhetoric and reality of the DOHA Development Round.
The civil society organizations note that liberalization commitments in services will undoubtedly have severe impacts upon national development policy options and their implementation.
It is stated that lock-in of deregulation and market access for foreign based service corporations through the GATS will not enhance development goals and priorities in developing countries, or address the needs and concerns of the citizens Foreign direct investment in many service sectors mostly happens through multilateral enterprises taking over privatized public services and existing local companies rather than building up new enterprises.
It is stated that there is little evidence of the creation of new employment opportunities but rather retrenchments and job losses accompanying privatization.
It is also asserted that there is evidence that any extension of services remains limited and essentially restricted to the elite.
When public services such as water, education and health are exposed to liberalization it is contended that the people will suffer the consequences.
They cited the example of Argentina which allowed an essential service like water/waste water to be taken over by the global water Giant Suez.
The country is reported to have experienced rising rates for consumers, broken promises for expanded services, and the construction of a new water treatment plant that dumped raw sewage into Rio de la Plata.
Does the city water lease of DAWASA also fall in this category of liberalization of investment in services by foreign companies?
It is also mentioned that there is a track record that these same service providers demand compensation for their own failures and use trade language to justify their self serving business interests.
Civil society organizations throughout the world are concerned that trade policies should serve the priorities and needs of all peoples in all countries.
They state that as trade negotiators prepare to gather again in Geneva this summer, it is important to stress that civil society organization around the world remain opposed both to the processes and the direction of the WTO service negotiations.
|
