Was geht uns der WTO-Deal von Bali an?

Originalaussendung von Matthias Reichl, 8.12.2013 –

Was ein Ire, ein Italiener, ein Neuseeländer, ein Thai und ein Franzose nicht schaffte, gelang dem brasilianischen Diplomaten Roberto Azevedo – als sechster Generalsekretär der WTO – das erste weltweite WTO-Abkommen durchzuboxen und die „Doha-Runde“ zu „retten“.(Auch wenn in diesem Abkommen nur 10% der sogenannten Doha-Entwicklungsagenda steckt, v.a. Freihandel, Landwirtschaft und Ernährung.)

Brasiliens Wirtschaftspolitik im Inneren hat sich den globalisierten Großmächten geschickt angepasst. Als Mitglied bei den G20 hat es den Aufstieg zu den „Global-Playern“ geschafft – um welchen Preis? Das fragen sich nicht nur globalisierungskritische NGOs, sondern alle „Globalisierungsverlierer“, eine überwältigende Mehrheit der Weltbevölkerung.

Dass schließlich auch die Vertreter von Kuba, Venezuela, Bolivien und Nikaragua nach 15-stündiger Verhandlungs-Gehirn-(und Kopf-)Wäsche ihre Einwände aufgeben mussten, illustriert treffend das
„Demokratieverständnis“ von Global Playern.

Für uns Globalisierungsgegner – bzw. -kritiker – bedeutet dies, dass wir unseren jahrzehntelangen gewaltfreien Widerstand fortsetzen und intensivieren müssen. Denn in den bilateralen und multilateralen Verträgen steckt auch ein Abbau unserer demokratischen Rechte (z.B. auf Boykott, Streik, Blockaden, Informations- und Versammlungsfreiheit).


Auswahl von Zusatzinformationen und Medienberichte zur WTO-Konferenz
in Bali, 3. – 6.12.2013,
zusammengestellt von Matthias Reichl, 8.12.2013:

Call to action for 9th WTO Ministerial Conference in Bali, December
2013 – Stop Expansion of the WTO and Shut Down the Corporate “Trade”
Attack: Food, Jobs, Peoples’€™ Rights and Sustainable Development First!



Zusammenfassung in Deutsch:



Stop Transnational Corporations! Demands increase for international
mechanisms to punish transnational corporations’ crimes. 6.12.2013.



Attac: Bali-Paket ist Desaster für eine gerechte Welthandelsordnung



WTO: Erstmals globales Abkommen erzielt
Durchbruch bei Konferenz auf indonesischer Insel Bali 
/ Kritik an
US-Embargo gegen Kuba / Demonstrationen für gerechte Weltwirtschaft,
Neues Deutschland, 7.12.2013


‘Rank Hypocrisy’: WTO Deal Bows to Wealth, Squashes the Poor
US and EU called out for protecting their own subsidies while
demanding world’s poorest citizens be pushed back into starvation
– Jon Queally, staff writer



WTO agreement condemned as deal for corporations, not world’s poor
First global trade deal in 20 years to boost world commerce ‘favours
big business at the expense of developing countries’
Phillip Inman and agencies, theguardian.com, Saturday 7 December 2013
10.06 GMT



Bali package (Closing) Statement by Mr Roberto Azevêdo
Director-General — WTO


Holy See’s Permanent Observer: WTO deal “historic”
2013-12-07 Vatican Radio
Full text:





1. Whatever the expectations with which African countries came to
Bali, they are leaving virtually empty-handed. There is hardly
anything of substance in the just adopted Bali package that
addresses Africa’sdevelopmental imperatives.

2. The agreed text on trade facilitation is the very opposite of what
African countries need to address the fundamental and peculiar
challenges that they face in moving goods and services across national
borders. The text imposes obligations on all countries to adopt
customs procedures which are standard in the advanced industrial
countries, and which most of the big emerging economies have already
voluntarily adopted, and which are commensurate with the stage of
economic development. African countries on the other hand, have to
undertake massive legislative, policy and infrastructural changes to
live up to these standards. However, the prior understanding to
provide commensurate policy, technical, institutional and financial
space and support for African countries to meet these changes was not
adequately addressed in the text. If anything, the even weaker
commitments agreed at the start of the Bali meeting were diluted even
further – e.g. references to financial support have been removed
from the text. Furthermore, the new binding rules adopted take away
even the means by which African countries can mobilise their own
resources to meet these new changes. Above all, rather than simplify
customs procedures, the text introduces new processes which stand to
give foreign corporations undue influence in the customs of African
countries and diminish the roleof domestic customs operators, further
undermining African agenda of boosting intra-African trade and
regional integration.

3. On agriculture and food security, the compromise deal, that is the
peace clause, will protect the existing food security programmes of
those countries that can already afford it. Poorer African countries
who have the need to, but have not yet mobilised the finances to start
these programmes, are restrained. Other issues that affect
agriculture in Africa such as subsidies an dumping have been
effectively sidelined.

4. With regards to the special package for Least Developed Countries,
what have been agreed in the Bali package are essentially best
endeavour clauses which little operational value. Indeed these
provisions are a further weakening of the commitments that these
countries have won on the same issues in earlier Ministerial
Conferences. On cotton, which has been Africa’s litmus test of
equity of the multilateral system, the Bali package only promises
consideration of further action on earlier commitments. This is
similar for other issues such as duty free quota free, and rules of

5. Thus, on balance, African countries are leaving Bali essentially
with diluted rhetoric on the issues of interest to them, while being
encumbered with the onerous terms demanded by the developed countries.

6. Paradoxically, African Ministers have enthusiastically welcomed
the package as meeting all their needs. Sadly, this underlies the
fact that at this Ministerial, African Ministers can be said to have
colluded with themarginalisation of the interests of their people by
developed countries. As in other instances, this contributes to,
rather than challenge, the systemic tendency of World Trade
Organisation to exclude the effective articulation of the trade and
non-trade concerns of ordinary people other than through further
neo-liberal measures.

7. All these demonstrate the level of challenge that African citizens
face in holding their governments to delivering the needs of their
people. As civil society, meeting this challenge is our common task
for the future.

8. We will expect our States to wake up, go back to the drawing
board,take the negotiations seriously as having grievous implications
for their people, and revisit the numerous proposals for redressing
the imbalances in the multilateral trade system, arrest the
introduction of new issues that expand and deepen the inequity of the
WTO, and to deliver development for Africa’s peoples in
international trade.



Matthias Reichl, Pressesprecher/ press speaker,
Begegnungszentrum fuer aktive Gewaltlosigkeit
Center for Encounter and active Non-Violence
Wolfgangerstr. 26, 4820 Bad Ischl, Austria,
fon: +43 6132 24590, Informationen/ informations,
Impressum in: http://www.begegnungszentrum.at

Kommentar verfassen

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:


Du kommentierst mit Deinem WordPress.com-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Google Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Google-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )


Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )


Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s