Civil Society Open Letter to Secretary John Tsang, Chairman of the 6th WTO
Ministerial, Hong Kong China
Unacceptable Process in Services Talks Continues in Hong Kong
cc. Director General Pascal Lamy, Korean Minister Hyung Chong Kim
Dear Mr. Chairman,
December 17, 2005
It is extremely regrettable that the WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy failed to redress the critiques civil society
raised in the run-up to the Hong Kong Ministerial regarding the highly flawed and undemocratic process of the
services talks in Geneva1.
Even before the problems in the process of services negotiations in Hong Kong, many delegations were angered
by Lamy’s actions just before delegations left for Hong Kong. In transmitting the text to Hong Kong, DG Lamy
deleted the cover note that had prefaced the December 1 draft ministerial document. Many members agreed to
transmit the text to ministers on the belief that the cover note would form an essential part of the draft itself. The
DG decided to remove the cover note without consulting the membership. The cover note stated that “the texts in
all of these annexes were presented on the responsibility of the respective Chairs. They do not purport to be
agreed texts and are without prejudice to the position of any Member”.
The process of the services negotiations in Hong Kong over the past two days has been similarly biased and
undemocratic. Many delegations are extremely unhappy with the process by which the GATS facilitator, Korean
Minister Hyung Chong Kim, is managing:
1) At an open-ended meeting on services on the 16th, the G90 (comprising the Africa Group, the Least Developed
Countries and the Africa, Caribbean and Pacific countries) tabled an alternative services text. Another bloc of
countries including Cuba, Indonesia, Philippines, South Africa and Venezuela issued a letter stating that Annex C,
having not been agreed by Members, is not an appropriate basis for negotiations.
However, in summing the December 16th services meeting, Minister Kim said that only 15 countries in their
intervention had concerns with the text and wanted it reopened, whilst 26 countries wanted Annex C maintained.
The Minister had counted the G90 as one Member!
2) Minister Kim then went on to suggest that if the membership still had not reached consensus on new GATS
language by December 17th, he would simply remove the brackets to Annex C: I suggest we organize small
groups to find an agreement and I suggest that if no agreement were to be found in the next 24 hours, I will
remove the brackets in the ministerial draft. In addition to removing the brackets, Annex C will remain as it is.2
This echoes the same arguments made by the Chair of the Council for Trade in Services (CTS) in Geneva,
Mexican Ambassador Fernando De Mateo, when he allowed himself the prerogative in October, to put into the
1
The exchange of letters between Director General Pascal Lamy and civil society organizations can be found at
www.tradeobservatory.org.
These letters were written to Lamy when in Geneva, the Chair of the Council for Services, Mexican Ambassador Fernando de
Mateo, had tabled a draft Ministerial text which contained many elements pertaining to complementary approaches, such as
quantitative, qualitative, sectoral and modal targets which the majority of the Membership did not agree with. Only after six
weeks of very heated opposition by almost 80 countries did the Chair drop quantitative targets from the text. However, he left
intact language on sectoral/ plurilateral and modal targets which the majority still opposed. As a result of tough negotiations
in the final General Council of 2nd December, reference to Annex C in para 21 of the draft Ministerial text was placed in
brackets.
2
This is a paraphrase of his exact statement in the open-ended session, based on those inside the meeting.
draft services Annex text many elements proposed by the United States, EC et al. and opposed by other Members,
and then insisted that there had to be consensus before these unagreed elements could be removed.
3) What process would be used to resolve these deep differences between Members’ positions was not clarified to
the whole membership on the 16th. Instead, a drafting committee was subsequently selected by unnamed
individuals and without consultation with the entire Membership. This group convened last evening.
4) Despite the majority of Members disagreeing with the content of Annex C, services negotiations were
conducted in a closed green room last night of about 30 Members, excluding most Members, and in the early
hours of the morning when Ministers are weighted down by exhaustion. Moreover, services issues were not
discussed openly amongst the whole membership till the fourth day of the ministerial.
5) The practice of “confessionals” convened by the facilitator, whereby members individually give their bottom
lines and concerns to a few individuals (the facilitator Kimg, Secretariat staff Hamid Mamdouh, Deputy Director
General in charge of Services and the Geneva Chair, de Mateo), is highly coercive, non-transparent and
undemocratic. There are even reports that Secretariat Staff Mamdouh had been telling Members that Annex C
already enjoys a high level of convergence and that they should not try to change it.
This undemocratic process is creating a volatile situation whereby the facilitator and those associated with him are
seriously losing credibility with many Members.
Civil society groups also denounce the substance of Annex C and paragraph 21 of the Ministerial text referring to
sectoral and modal objectives. This language will be the entry point for sectoral negotiations after Hong Kong. It
will completely erode the flexibility enshrined in the GATS for developing countries. Instead, they will be forced
into market liberalization before their local suppliers are able to withstand competition, with anti-development
consequences. We also oppose the inclusion of language launching ‘rules’ negotiations to establish disciplines on
domestic regulation of the service sector and to revive the attempt to add procurement negotiations to the Doha
agenda after this item has been resoundingly rejected and removed from the process.
We call for an end to the non-participatory, exclusive and undemocratic processes in Hong Kong, and for Annex
C to be dropped from the Ministerial Declaration.
Signatories
Action Aid International
Africa Trade Network
AIDC, South Africa
Alliance for Democracy, USA
Alliance for Progressive Labor, Philippines
ARENA, New Zealand
Association of University Staff, New Zealand
Attac Austria
Attac Denmark
Attac France
Attac Germany
Attac Japan
Australian Fair Trade and Investment
Network
Berne Declaration, Switzerland
Blue Planet Project, Canada
Both ENDS, Netherlands
Brazilian Network for People’s Intergration
(REBRIP)
BUND, FoE Germany
Canadian Labor Congress
Canadian Teachers’ Federation
Canadian Association of University
Teachers
Canadian Federation of Students
Center for Encounter and active NonViolence, Austria
Center for Policy Analysis on Trade and
Health (CPATH)
CGIL Scuola, Italy
Coalition Against Water Privatisation, Ghana
Council of Canadians, Canada
CRBM/Mani Tese, Italy
Development Fund, Norway
Dutch GATS Platform, Netherlands
Economic Justice Africa
Econews Africa
Education International
Fair, Italy
Fédération Syndicale Unitaire, France
Friends of the Earth International
Food and Water Watch, USA
Foundation for Gaia
Focus on the Global South, Thailand, India
and the Philippines
Gender and Economic Reforms in Africa,
Ghana
GermanWatch
Gerechtigkeit Jetzt, Germany
Global Exchange, USA
Global Network, Africa
IBON, Philippines
IFG, USA
Institute for Global Dialogue, Africa
Institute for Global Justice, Indonesia
Initiative Colibri, Germany
Institute for Agriculture and Trade
Policy, USA
Institute for Social and Economic Studies
(INESC), Brazil
Intl Brotherhood of Teamsters, USA
Intl Forum on Globalization, USA
IGTN - Intl Gender and Trade Network
K.U.L.U. – Women & Development,
Denmark
Mexican Action Network on Free Trade
Management and Organisational
Development for Empowerment, Philippines
National Family Farm Coalition, USA
National Teachers’ Association, Taiwan,
ROC
National Tertiary Education Union, Australia
The Oakland Institute, USA
Observatori del Deute en la Globalitzacio
(Barcelona)
Philippine NGO Coalition for Food
Sovereignty and Fair Trade
Philippine NGO Council for Food Security
and Fair Trade
Polaris Institute, Canada
ProNatura, Switzerland
Public Citizen, USA
Public Services International
RMALC, Mexico
Roba dell’Altro Mondo, Italy
SEATINI, Africa
SOMO, Netherlands
Sierra Club, USA
Third World Network
Trade for Development Centre, Pakistan
TradeWatch, Italy
URFIG, France
War on Want, UK
Women in Development Europe (WIDE)
World Development Movement, UK
World Economy, Ecology and Development
(WEED), Germany
Worldview, The Gambia