By Gustavo Capdevila
GENEVA, Sep 14 1999 (IPS)

The world’s principal consumer organisation declared its disappointment in the results of world trade liberalisation, and announced that its support for a new round of multilateral trade talks depends on how consumers will be treated.

Consumers International, which represents 247 consumer organisations from 211 countries, said it would back a new round of negotiations if “crucial changes” are made in the way the World Trade Organisation (WTO) manages the trade liberalisation process.

Louise Sylvan, vice-president of Consumers International, said her organisation will not expanded the talks to include other issues until pending obligations are met, referring to the promises made during the co-ordination of the world’s trade agreements, known as the Uruguay Round.

After considerable debate, Consumers International agreed with the Uruguay Round’s objectives because it understood that the agreements could bring substantial benefits to consumers, said Julian Edwards, the organisation’s director general.

But because many consumer-related commitments have not been honoured, Consumers International is now saying “no,” at least until the problems have been resolved, he said.

This week in Geneva, the consumers movement presented its campaign for the WTO Ministerial Conference to be held in the U.S. city of Seattle, Washington, Nov 30 to Dec 3.

There, WTO ministers will make a decision on further trade negotations, already dubbed “the Millennium Round.”

But before beginning any new negotiations, “the weaknesses of the existing regime must be reviewed and corrected,” said Consumers International, placing the blame on the WTO for some of the problems.

The stated mandate of the WTO is to promote sustainable consumption and raise living standards throughout the world by promoting and regulating trade on the global market, according to the consumer organisation.

But the WTO has ignored some of its commitments and has continuously favoured the interests of transnational corporations, often at the expense of the most vulnerable consumers in the poorest countries, said Consumers International.

The organisation called on the WTO to review its original goals and ensure that its places the same importance on consumer rights as it does on corporate interests.”

The conflicts transnational corporations maintain against governments “undermine the rights of consumers,” says a Consumers International report.

“When big corporations have problems exporting because of a country’s consumer protection legislation, they use the threat of action through the WTO to intimidate governments to bypass or change their laws,” says Consumers International.

The consumers movement said industrialised nations had rarley implemented the commitments they agreed to in the Uruguay Round, which has resulted in the unequal distribution of the benefits under the WTO trade regime.

The organisation cited the example of Africa, where in the last 20 years, consumption per capita has fallen 20 percent.

But in addition to hurting consumers and the imbalance in poor countries, Consumers International criticises the WTO for its operating methods and for the way it handles critical social issues.

The most worrisome issues are related to the transparency and ongoing processes of the WTO, including access for civil society and non-governmental organisations, said Sylvan, who also heads the Australian Consumers Association.

Unlike other inter-governmental agencies, Sylvan said, the WTO does not allow non-governmental organisations to observe its proceedings.

Consumers are unable to participate in making decisions that affect international trade, Sylvan pointed out.

A critical question for the WTO involves its conflict resolution mechanism, under which governments exchange merchandise, but often included in the deals they make are consumer rights or health protection regulations, said Sylvan.

She said her organisation objected to the way WTO tribunals handled the dispute between the European Union and the United States about exporting U.S. beef treated with hormones to the European market.

The European Union maintained that it had the right to protect its consumers by adopting precautionary measures, such as banning hormone-treated beef imports, even though scientific evidence is not yet resolved, said Sylvan.

The case shows that in the WTO’s conflict resolution mechanism, trade is more important than the consumers’ right to be protected against potential harm.

Consumers International demanded that the Ministerial Conference in Seattle include a commitment to ensure that the multilateral trade system adopt the principles established by the United Nations to protect consumers.

Excerpt: