Reflections on the World Summit on
Sustainable Development
W$$D:
The Road from Doha to Cancun, via Johannesburg
Professor Jane Kelsey, University of Auckland, presented to the
Institute of International Affairs, Auckland Branch, 2 October 2002
As the United
States (US) government prepares to go to war against Iraq, unilaterally if
necessary, the United Nations (UN) appears practically impotent. The attacks on
September 11 have given the US the pretext for further weakening the formal UN
system of one-country-one-vote and exposed its most powerful forum, the
Security Council, as a façade which has the choice of either legitimating US actions
or being ignored. The US has taken an equally belligerent line on other
multilateral initiatives, such as the Kyoto Protocol and the International
Criminal Court. These developments have been explored in considerable depth by
international commentators, although too little of this analysis has been aired
in New Zealand.
My focus tonight
is a subtler, parallel development that has attracted much less attention. For
several years there has been a clear and systematic strategy to shift
substantive regulatory authority over social, environmental, cultural and
development measures from national governments and United Nations forums to an
increasingly dominant and all-embracing World Trade Organisation (WTO). Over
the past year this repositioning has been driven hard by the US as part of its
‘Operation Enduring Freedom’. In the words of US Trade Representative Robert
Zoellick shortly after the September 11 attacks, showing leadership in the
international economic arena could help restore the ‘might and light’ of
America, build a coalition of countries that cherishes liberty in all its
aspects, and defend those ‘fragile democracies that rely on the international
economy to overcome poverty and create opportunity’.[1]
These two elements - a dominant, expansive WTO and aggressive US unilateralism
– are an alarming combination.
The UN-sponsored
World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg last month was
the latest setting for this strategy. Those who recall the Earth Summit in Rio
de Janiero some ten years ago might have expected this to be another talk-fest
on the traditional ‘green’ issues of deforestation, biodiversity, animal
conservation and fisheries, and ‘brown’ issues like access to health, water and
sanitation. It may have been just that for the participants who remained
blissfully unaware of the battles fought during the preparatory phases and at
the Summit itself over the relationship between economic globalisation and
‘sustainable development’.
For those
seeking to influence this debate, on either side, the Summit was effectively a
battle over which regime would shape the world’s rules on a broad range of
social, environment and development issues. Would it be the comparatively
democratic and broad-based, but highly imperfect United Nations, which lacks
the ability to enforce its aspirational declarations and ambitious targets, or
the market driven and deeply undemocratic World Trade Organisation (WTO) which
has the capacity to authorise economic sanctions against those who breach its
rules? Or, as one Southern NGO put it, would the UN commit suicide by embracing
a privatised model of ‘sustainable development’ whose definitions and
strategies were determined by mega-corporations, the World Bank and the WTO.[2]
Indian
environmental campaigner Vandana Shiva reports that, textually and physically,
the sustainability agenda of Rio was displaced by the commercial and corporate
agenda of the WTO.[3] The voices
of those for whom sustainable development is a matter of life and death - poor
countries, small island countries, indigenous nations, peasant farmers and
local communities – were marginalised and silenced. So were their demands for
debt cancellation, genuine agrarian reform, a human right to food security,
housing and safe drinking water, protection of indigenous rights over
biodiversity, an end to dumping by the major powers, enforceable controls over
transnational companies, and other equally basic concerns. Even the international environmental lobby
was effectively sidelined at the ‘civil society’ venue an hour’s bus ride from
the official meeting. According to Shiva, who shared the opening platform of
the facile ‘Civil Society Dialogue’
with South African President Thabo Mbeki, even his speech was sanitised - a
chilling prediction that ‘global apartheid’ would result if nothing changed was
dropped from the delivery under pressure from the US.
The voices that
dominated the Summit were the major powers, especially the US, European
Commission (EC) and Japan. Sponsors, such as BMW, Hewlett Packard and Daimler
Chrysler, provided an up-market corporate image. The ‘Summit Star’ recorded the
presence of over 700 business executives, 200 companies and more than 100 CEOs.
And why wouldn’t they come in full force, asked Mary Louise Malig, from
Thai-based Focus on the Global South, ‘when the UN’s priorities have shifted
from poverty eradication and environmental preservation to achieving
sustainable development via ‘public-private partnerships’ or as Kofi Annan
calls it, The Global Compact.[4]
The Summit’s
location in post-apartheid Johannesburg underscored this paradox. Days before
the official Summit opened South African police arrested more than 70 peaceful
protestors from the National Land Council and the Landless People’s Movement.
Later in the Summit some 20,000 people who marched from the depressed township
of Alexandra to the summit venue at elite Sandton were met by some 8000 police
officers, plus tanks, helicopters and barricades. This was not simply a
showpiece for the international media. When I was in Johannesburg in April this
year community groups opposing privatisation had already mobilised against the
termination of water and electricity services for non-payment, and associated
outbreaks of lethal disease such as cholera.
What was
originally billed as ‘Rio + 10’ – an opportunity to stock take and move forward
a decade after the Rio Summit had produced its Agenda 21 for sustainable
development – had become ‘Doha + 10’, a reference to ten months from the
launching of a new round of free trade negotiations at the WTO ministerial
meeting in Doha in October 2001.
This was clearly
articulated in the Summit’s two main documents - the Plan for
Implementation/Action and the Political Declaration. The critical and most
controversial area was Section IV: ‘Sustainable Development in a Globalising
World’ (along with the human rights section which addressed women’s rights and
abortion). Both documents ignore the controversy that continues to rage over
impacts of globalisation on ecological sustainability, environmental dumping,
social justice and poverty elimination. They simply reiterate the assertion in
the WTO’s founding document that trade liberalisation enhances sustainable
development. The prime advocates of that position throughout the Summit, known
as the Juscanz group, were Japan, US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
That does not
mean that these claims were uncontested. Stand-offs over trade, finance and
governance occurred throughout the preparatory process and the Summit itself.
Almost always these were resolved by opting for the lowest common
‘market-friendly’ denominator. Several landmark achievements of Rio, notably
the endorsement of the precautionary principle, were seriously weakened. Moves
to reinforce the Biodiversity Convention, especially the recognition of
recognise national sovereignty over biological resources and benefit sharing
with the original holders or country of origin, were neutralised by the US, who
advocates the primacy the WTO’s agreement intellectual property rights (TRIPS).
Concerns expressed by agencies such as the World Health Assembly, UN Commission
on Human Rights and UNCTAD about the social impacts of WTO agreements on
development rights to education, water, health care and medicines were
similarly ignored.
Wording that
would have explicitly subordinated the Multilateral Environment Agreements
(MEAs) to the WTO rules (a position strongly advocated by Australia) was only
excised after last-minute, impassioned interventions from Ethiopia (whose
delegate chairs the Africa Group in the Convention on Biological Diversity),
Norway and several Caribbean countries. This was a pyrrhic victory. The only
reference to the MEAs – which many rather optimistically view as the only real
counter-balance to the Multilateral Trade Agreements - was still tied to the work
programme of the cynically named WTO ‘Doha Development Round’. Last minute
concessions to the EC at Doha had mandated the WTO to undertake a unilateral
exercise to clarify the relationship between MEAs and the WTO agreements. The
MEA secretariats only have observer status in these discussions, which are led
by ministers of trade, not environment. The Doha mandate insists that the
outcome must not diminish members’ rights and obligations under the WTO
agreements. In other words, any conflicts must be addressed through changes to
the MEAs. Any environmental measures that are permitted under the limited WTO
exceptions would need to be the least trade restrictive possible to achieve
their objective. WTO panels of trade experts have already found against the
precautionary principle. Restrictions on genetically modified products and
compulsory labelling may well be outlawed.
These outcomes
dovetail with the report from the Economic Strategy Institute released in May
2002 entitled Reconciling Trade and the
Environment in the WTO, which some commentators consider articulates the WTO’s
attack on the MEAs. Its author suggests that the
WTO could become an effective forum for resolving the relationship between the
requirements of WTO trade rules and international environmental law. He argues
that the international community has two options: the status quo or negotiating
a WTO agreement on Trade and the Environment, and concludes ‘It's not a matter
of whether the WTO takes up the environment but how.’[5]
Doha+10 had a
second, equally important dimension - the privatisation of the Rio agenda, and
the empowering of transnational corporations to define the meaning of
sustainable development in their industries and the acceptable solutions.
Demands from poorer countries and critics outside the Summit for enforceable
international rules to regulate the activities of transnational corporations
were swept aside. Instead, the Summit endorsed a critical shift from Type-I
treaties that are binding under international law to ‘Type-II stakeholder
partnerships’ between the private sector, governments and selected
(corporate-friendly) NGOs. This complements the UN Secretary-General’s
much-criticised Global Compact whereby major corporations, such as Nike and Shell,
are authorised to use the UN’s logo as a seal of approval in return for
voluntary and self-policing compliance with UN standards on environmental
protection, labour practices and human rights. At a time when business ethics
and accountability are in tatters, and the corrupt practices of Enron,
WorldCom, Arthur Anderson, Vivendi and many more dominate the headlines, the position
of the UN Secretary General has become seriously compromised.
The TNCs’ lobby,
rebranded under names like the World Business Council for Sustainable
Development (WBCSD), Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development, and Business
Action for Sustainable Development, loudly proclaimed their conversion to
social responsibility. A classic example of corporate ‘greenwashing’ was a report
from the ‘prime movers’ in the WBCSD, the Chairmen of DuPont, Shell and Anova
Holdings. In Walking the Talk: The Business Case for Sustainable Development these
leading industrialists argue that
not only is
sustainable development good for business, the solving of environmental and
social problems is essential for future growth. . . a global
partnership—between governments, business and civil society—is essential, if
accelerating moves towards globalization are to maximize opportunities for
all—especially the world’s poor. The solution provided by Walking the Talk is to mobilize markets in favour of sustainability, leveraging
the power of innovation and global markets for the benefits of everyone—not
just the developed world. This means a further liberalization of the market—a
move that would be condemned by anti-globalization protestors.[6]
Indeed! The New
Zealand branch has eagerly embraced the new agenda. The NZ Herald reports that 50 senior company players attended a
‘Walking the Talk’ forum in Auckland in late September which ‘focused on the
implications for business – and the
opportunities – arising from the World Summit on Sustainable Development in
Johannesburg’.[7] More
conferences are to come, presumably linked to the Labour government’s Third Way
strategy of public/private partnerships.
Social
responsibility has become code for corporations assuming more control over resources, not less. Privatisation of the
financing, delivery and regulation of environmental creates lucrative new
opportunities. The pathways to sustainable development of energy, housing and
food and meeting targets for clean drinking water and sanitation were all
market driven. Again, this leads straight back to the WTO. Current negotiations
to extend the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) aim to increase
market access for transnationals to countries’ core services. A related move
mandated at the Doha ministerial, under pressure from the EC, explicitly aims
to liberalise trade in environmental goods and services. Both moves feed, in
turn, on World Bank ‘development’ plans and public private partnerships as the
preferred vehicle. The stakes for transnationals like as Monsanto are enormous,
as one of its senior executives explained in 1999:
what
you are seeing is not just a consolidation of seed companies, it’s really a
consolidation of the entire food chain. Since water is as central to food
production as seed is, and without water life is not possible, Monsanto is now
trying to establish its control over water. During 1999, Monsanto plans to
launch a new water business, starting with India and Mexico since both these
countries are facing water shortages.[8]
The WSSD seal of
approval will make it much harder for those countries, NGOs and people
campaigning to prevent this happening and have water, food, housing and
sanitation protected as human rights rather than tradeable commodities.
Further
reinforcement of this repositioning came in the proposals for financing of
sustainable development. The WSSD text promoted market-based, private sector
financing through public/private partnerships, especially in the priority areas
of water, energy, health, agriculture and biodiversity. It sat comfortably
alongside the Bank’s Private Sector Development Strategy and the Bank’s role as
lead agency in the Global Environmental Facility. It sat comfortably with the
World Bank’s latest World Development
Report: Sustainable Development in a Dynamic World.[9]
There was no space for poor countries’ reality to intrude. The representative
of St Lucia, speaking for the small island states, objected in vain that the
‘WTO has no soul’, and that the World Bank's demands that they place control of
resources such as water and electricity in the hands of transnational companies
made it impossible to implement their policies for renewable energy.[10]
The obvious
alternative to enable states to finance these developments without dependency
on the Bank or the transnationals—cancellation of unpayable and often
unconscionable debt—had already been ruled out by the UN Conference on
Financing for Development in Monterrey, Mexico in March 2002. There would be no
new or additional funding to address the critical issues of disaster relief,
ODA and debt cancellation beyond the much-criticised HIPC (Highly Indebted Poor
Countries) initiative. The US had made it clear that bilateral aid would be
tired to policy conditionalities. 'Sustained
growth and poverty reduction is impossible without the right national policies.
Where governments have implemented real policy changes, we will provide
significant new levels of assistance'.[11]
Underpinning
these concerns about the substance of the text was a deep disquiet that the
UN’s comparatively open processes had been subverted at the preparatory stages
and the summit itself by the kind of manipulation and backroom dealings that
have discredited the WTO. Venezuela’s President Chavez, speaking for the Group
of 77 poorer countries, condemned the Summit a ‘dialogue of the deaf’, and
objected that most heads of state and governments had no influence on the Plan
of Implementation. The Summit Declaration was first distributed just three days
before the Summit, no meeting was held to discuss it and the revised draft was
only circulated during the final plenary. Delegates familiar with the WTO
expressed dismay that the infamously undemocratic Green Room process had
crossed over to the usually open and participatory UN system, especially on the
globalisation issue.[12]
Why should we in
New Zealand be concerned about these developments? There are at least three
related reasons:
1. There is a
clear determination to subject social, environmental, cultural and
developmental regulations to the rules and rulings of the WTO. This not only
disempowers other international institutions that have a more balanced social
mandate and could potentially develop alternative progressive models of
development. It also makes the WTO the supreme body to determine and enforce
global rules.
It is important
to understand the implications of this for international politics and law.
Since the WTO was established in 1995 there have been consistent and
well-documented complaints of bullying, manipulation and breaches of the WTO’s
own rules by major governmental, institutional and private sector players.
Before the fourth ministerial meeting of the WTO in Doha in November 2001,
poorer countries were promised that their complaints about the democratic
deficit at the WTO and the unfairness of agreements negotiated during the
Uruguay Round would be addressed. Instead they faced a sustained campaign that
was designed to break their resolve, foment division, and undermine the
credibility of their negotiators in Geneva. This was a concerted response,
facilitated by Director General Mike Moore, to successful moves by poorer
countries to caucus more effectively, build their capacity and make strategic
interventions through well-briefed ambassadors in Geneva. The Zimbabwean
ambassador explains: The major countries
realized they could not beat the Geneva process. Developing countries had built
capacity in the Geneva process. Realising that they could not put their agenda
through Geneva, they started to have meetings amongst a small group of
members’.[13]
Two
mini-ministerials were held for selected countries. These were designed to
build a critical mass through bilateral deals that would make opposition harder
to sustain. At the Doha meeting itself, the chair of the WTO General Council,
Hong Kong’s ambassador Stuart Harbinson, tabled an unbracketed text of the
Ministerial Declaration that indicated a consensus existed, where there was
none. Poorer countries’ concerns had been excised. The need for ‘flexibility’
was invoked to break the WTO’s own procedural rules. Further
‘mini-ministerials’ and ‘Green Room’ meetings of selected countries that
excluded the majority, went all night and were convened with little notice, if
any. Those selected to chair the crucial committees were mostly ‘friends of the
(new) round’. Those who remained resistant risked being labelled enemies of the
US and friends of terrorism. Some ambassadors who stuck to their positions were
ordered by their capitals to back down, after ‘diplomatic’ pressure on their
governments from the US and others. By the time the Doha meeting ended, a day
later than scheduled, back-room dealing had subordinated almost all the
concerns of poorer countries to the demands of the major powers.
The small number
of accredited NGOs present at Doha were quarantined from the
real business of the meeting and outnumbered by the industry organisations and
corporate lobbyists who attended as accredited ‘civil society’ representatives.
Holding the meeting in Qatar ensured that there was no risk of disruption and
only small, spontaneous and symbolic protests.
Since then the
same arguments and behaviours have been evident at the UN-sponsored Conference
on Financing of Development in Monterrey and the WSSD in Johannesburg. The APEC
meeting in Mexico later this month will be focused on preparation for the next
WTO ministerial meeting to be held in Cancun, Mexico in a year’s time. The
parallel CEO’s Summit and APEC Business Advisory Council meetings will
doubtless push hard for further endorsement of the public/private partnership
agenda.
Back at the WTO
in Geneva, poorer countries are attempting to assert their democratic right to
establish rules and have them applied. In April some 15 poorer countries, led
by India, submitted a paper to the WTO’s General Council. They demanded a
preparatory process leading up to Cancun that was transparent and open-ended,
and genuinely based on consensus, with any differences be clearly indicated. No
draft ministerial declaration should be forwarded to the Ministerial Conference
without consensus at the General Council.
Procedures at the ministerial meeting must be open-ended with proper
notice and effective participation by all interested members. They insisted on
having some clear procedural guidelines; but consultations promised for August
have not yet occurred. Since then a
group led by Australia, and including New Zealand, has tabled a counter-paper advocating
‘flexibility’. They argue that ‘Prescriptive and detailed approaches to the
preparatory process are inappropriate and will not create the best
circumstances for consensus to emerge in the Cancun meeting’.[14]
A further bone
of contention is the controversial appointment of Stuart Harbinson, the Chair
of the General Council during the Doha meeting, as Chief of Staff to new
Director General Supachai Panitchpakdi. Contrary to understandings that staff
are not involved negotiations, he will continue to chair the pivotal
Agriculture negotiations committee.
Bilateral
pressures are already being reported from various countries, with several high
profile developing country ambassadors being moved to other posts. The
mini-ministerials have also now begun. The Australian government is hosting a
meeting for 23 invited countries in Sydney on 14-15 November. Strong critics,
notably India, are included; while India opposes such meetings, its ambassador
says there is little choice but to attend and try to hold the line. The African
countries that have been invited are US-friendly and can potentially break both
the African Group and the Least-Developed Countries coalition. Agriculture is
bound to be central to the discussions, with attempts to shore up the divided
Cairns Group and sell its message to other countries.
This strategy may
well succeed. If the US and EC can broker a deal like they did with the Uruguay
Round that requires no real concessions from them and maximum concessions from
everyone else, the major powers and their allies, including New Zealand, may be
able to claim a victory. Any gains to countries like New Zealand are likely to
be ideological rather than substantial, and will be secured by significant new
concessions. And they will have achieved this pyrrhic victory within a
chronically sick institution. If the WTO is allowed to extend its mandate with
legitimation from forums like the WSSD, the international arena is going to
become much more fractious, unstable and unjust.
2. These risks
are heightened by the resurgence of US unilateralism on multiple fronts and the
threat to punish any who resist. US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick was
quick to condemn any country that opposed a new round of negotiations at the
Doha Ministerial as giving comfort to the terrorists. The US continues to play
this card. Bush’s latest PAX Americana blueprint the National
Security Strategy, declares:
A strong world economy enhances our
national security by advancing prosperity and freedom in the rest of the world.
Economic growth supported by free trade and free markets creates new jobs and
higher incomes. It allows people to lift their lives out of poverty, spurs
economic and legal reform, and the fight against corruption, and it reinforces
the habits of liberty.[15]
Meanwhile the US
mocks any pretence of a global system of rules. As the Globe and Mail put it last week: In US practice, “free trade” means trade on US terms. It means forcing
its way into markets for services, cultural products and government
procurement. It means protectionism for domestic US industries with political
clout’.[16] Recent
measures, such as steel tariffs, the Farm Bill, the international corporate tax
regime, and more indicate that Bush views the WTO with the same contempt as he
has for other institutions. A more powerful WTO, both driven and undermined by
aggressive US unilateralism, is a very real and frightening prospect.
3. A
continuation of this process will ensure the WTO agenda is pursued without
contest or debate. This is an agenda that intrudes way beyond the old GATT
rules on trade across borders. In WTO-speak trade means not just merchandise
and agriculture but covers essential services such as education, health, media
and energy; food and professional standards; patenting of medicines, technology
or biodiversity; environmental and biosecurity regulations; and much more. As
the new Director General Supachai Panitchpakdi recently remarked: ‘We are now approaching a new era. The WTO is
used to dealing with only external issues and now it is time to deal with the
domestic regulations that impede trade liberalization.’[17]
What
if the WTO, alongside the IMF and World Bank, locks every country into this
model that doesn’t work? The
eruptions that are occurring throughout South and Central America fundamentally
challenge the belief, intrinsic to the WTO, that neoliberal and neoclassical
economics can be de-linked from the social, economic, political contexts in
which they are given effect. Even the Financial
Times recently recognised the risk that people will rebel and confront
their governments with social, economic and political crises that force them to
rethink:
Latin
America is in turmoil. In recent weeks, there have been anti-privatisation riots
in Peru and Paraguay, violent strikes in Ecuador and financial crises in Brazil
and Uruguay, . . . Argentina’s economic crisis continues to fester. The
region’s creeping political contagion may be less virulent than the financial
crisis of the 1990s, but could yet prove more damaging. More than a decade of
market-friendly reforms, analysts fear, may be in peril.[18]
If we add to
this volatile mix the global economic impact of US imperial pretensions and the
pursuit of wars apparently without end, and the impact in the US itself, we
have a very frightening scenario. A recent assessment suggests $200 billion
would be siphoned from the US economy to pay for the war against Iraq if
Germany refuses to endorse co-funding by the Europeans. Selwyn Manning of Scoop predicts the possible effect
within the US:
Forget Medicaide, forget
government assisted housing programmes, forget moves toward education equality,
and most destructively, a predicted end through necessity to United States
industrial protectionisms, removal of subsidies to heavy industry and commodity
producers . . . Faced with economic collapse, the ‘American People’ would face
failing consumerism, a domestic economy in freefall, societal chaos, and the
further collapse of the United States’ pillar institutions’.[19]
Lest New
Zealand’s free traders see this as a virtue, they should reflect on where that
leaves a highly globalised New Zealand economy and its role as a cheerleader
for this model within the WTO and at the UN.
Moves to extend
the hegemony of the WTO, backed by New Zealand, are not sustainable. The
turmoil that has engulfed South and Central America carries a timely warning -
social and political crises can and do result when people say no to global free
market policies and demand alternatives. Nor is it ethical – assuming such
considerations have any place in international diplomacy these days.
Presumably, the New Zealand government would claim it does; yet it is as deeply
implicated in these abusive practices as the US and Australia.
It is time that
we as New Zealanders understood the broader implications of uncritical free
trade evangelism and how that affects our position in other institutions, and
demand that New Zealand takes a more ethical, balanced and socially responsible
stance as an international good citizen. That means taking an international
leadership role in opposing the war, even if it is backed by a cosmetic
Security Council resolution, and promoting an alternative approach to sustainable
development that empowers people to determine their futures and that endorses
international action to constrain the destructive potential of global capital
instead of giving it free rein.
____________________________________________
1. Washington Post,
20 September 2001
2. quoted
in Third World Network report on WSSD, no2. www.twnside.org.sg
3. Vandana
Shiva, ‘The Great Betrayal. Why civil society walked out and withdrew consent
from WSSD’, 13 September 2002
4. Focus on Trade, no.81, September 2002, www.focusweb.org
5. http://www.econstrat.org/reconciling_in_the_WTO.htm
6. www.greenleaf-publishing.com/catalogue/walk.htm
7. Business Herald, 30 September 2002,
emphasis added
8. quoted
in Vandana Shiva, ‘Monsanto’s Expanding Monopolies’, Research Foundation for
Science, Technology and Ecology, New Delhi, 1999
9. http://publications.worldbank.org/ecommerce/catalog/product?item_id=1017492.
10. Third
World Network report on WSSD, no.1, www.twnside.org.sg
11. George
W Bush, speech to Inter-American Development Bank, 14 March 2002, a component of
the ‘National Security Strategy of the USA’, www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html
12. Third
World Network Report on WSSD, no.2, www.twnside.org.sg
13. Aileen
Kwa, ‘Laying the Foundation for Cancun: Another Doha “Success”?”, Focus,
September 2002, www.focusweb.org
14. WT/GC/W/477,
28 June 2002
15. www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html
16. Globe and Mail,
25 September 2002
17. Xinhua 7 February 2002
18. 29
July 2002
19. Scoop, 25 September 2002
[1] Washington Post, 20 September 2001
[2] quoted in Third
World Network report on WSSD, no2. www.twnside.org.sg
[3] Vandana Shiva, ‘The Great Betrayal. Why civil society walked out and withdrew consent from WSSD’, 13 September 2002
[4] Focus on Trade, no.81, September 2002, www.focusweb.org
[7] Business Herald, 30 September 2002, emphasis added
[8] quoted in
Vandana Shiva, ‘Monsanto’s Expanding Monopolies’, Research Foundation for
Science, Technology and Ecology, New Delhi, 1999
[10] Third World
Network report on WSSD, no.1, www.twnside.org.sg
[11] George W Bush, speech to Inter-American Development Bank, 14 March 2002, a component of the ‘National Security Strategy of the USA’, www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html
[12] Third World Network Report on WSSD, no.2, www.twnside.org.sg
[13] Aileen Kwa, ‘Laying the Foundation for Cancun: Another Doha “Success”?”, Focus, September 2002, www.focusweb.org
[14] WT/GC/W/477, 28 June 2002
[15] www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html
[16] Globe and Mail, 25 September 2002
[17] Xinhua 7 February 2002
[18] 29 July 2002
[19] Scoop, 25 September 2002