“Today’s massive leak of the
WTO’s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) negotiation documents
exposes the so-called Doha ‘development’ round as the sham we've always said it
was," says Professor Jane Kelsey from the Action, Research and Education
Network of Aotearoa (ARENA).
The extent of the EC’s
demands that the world’s poorest countries open their services to Europe’s transnational
firms has shocked even veteran analysts of the GATS negotiations.
A British-based development
agency, the World Development Movement (WDM), and the international secretariat
of public services unions, Public Services International, (PSI) have condemned
Europe’s promises to protect and promote the interests of poorer countries as
“empty rhetoric”.
Almost 90 per cent of the
109 countries targeted by the European Commission are classed as ‘developing
countries’ or ‘countries in transition’.
Water and other
environmental services are the EC's major targets in 72 countries, including
New Zealand. This includes poorer
nations whose present non-profit water delivery systems operate effectively. Other services under attack include energy,
transport, retail, finance, tourism, construction, along with restrictions on
foreign investment.*
“This raises serious
questions about what the New Zealand Government is up to,” Kelsey says.
"The GATS
‘consultation’ document tells us almost nothing. We know demands have been made
in North Asia, South Asia, South East Asia, Latin America, the South Pacific
and Africa. We know also that the
government is pressing poor countries to open up their postal services to
Transend, despite the debacle in South Africa.
"Beyond that, the
document simply says it has ‘recognised the special circumstances of developing
countries in its requests and tailored them appropriately, while seeking an
overall gain for our national interest’.
“It’s time the Government
stopped hiding behind the WTO’s shredded veil of secrecy and released the
formal documentation for us to assess what they really are up to, and what that
could mean for poorer countries, the people of the Pacific and the world,” Jane
Kelsey said.
Ends: Text 318 words. Contact Professor Jane Kelsey by ringing 021 765 055; (09) 373
7599 x 88006 (wk) or (09) 579 1030 (home)
* Ed Note:
Initial analysis by WDM and PSI shows these ‘requests’ want to remove
existing beneficial development laws and regulations that interfere with
maximum foreign profit. For example:
In Cameroon, at least one new local job must be created for every US$10,000 of
foreign investment. In Botswana,
nationals have priority in buying assets owned by foreigners. In El Salvador there is a 50% ceiling on
remittance of profits abroad. In the
Philippines, foreign investment buying real estate must have 60% local capital,
and in Chile: foreign investors must employ 85% of staff of Chilean
nationality.