By Jonas Gahr Store and - -
OSLO, Aug 11 2008 (IPS)

There is a clear lesson to be drawn from the unsuccessful WTO negotiations held in Geneva July 21-29: the world is witnessing a shift of power in the arena of the world economy and world trade as new states with growing economies and political ambitions are asserting themselves, writes Jonas Gahr Store, Foreign Minister of Norway. In this analysis, Gahr Store writes that we could have paved the way for the next major round of negotiations, on climate change in Copenhagen next year. Perhaps I was present at the collapse of a world order, the author writes, but at the same time, I witnessed the birth of a new world order where all countries are present and demand their rights, and that requires an almost unlimited willingness to negotiate, make compromises, and find sustainable solutions. We must use our failure in Geneva as a spur for the development of a world order that involves more states, a shift in the power balance, and essential new tasks relating to climate change, the environment, labour rights, and the fight against poverty.

For nine days I was part of a series of contests of strength in today’s world of power politics. But rather than on a battlefield, they were taking place around the negotiating table where rights and obligations in world trade are meted out.

For seven years, the countries of the world have been negotiating an agreement intended to promote trade, cut tariffs, and remove other barriers to trade, with a special emphasis on opening up opportunities for developing countries, which were for the first time the focus of a round of trade negotiations. The rich countries were to take on greater obligations, and the poorest countries were to be shielded. The developing countries were to be helped to build their own capacity for trade – Aid for Trade. Tariffs for fish and industrial products were to be cut.

And for the first time, agriculture was put firmly on the agenda: the rich countries were to cut domestic production subsidies, export subsidies, and tariffs. Countries with rapidly- growing economies were to be given better market access.

The WTO was to find a package solution to all these issues. The organisation has 153 members and makes decisions on the basis of consensus. This is a hugely complex process, in which all countries must make a contribution and all gain something. There have been many ups and downs over the years.

In Geneva, we met for one last effort. India and China were demanding a safeguard mechanism that would be triggered by a surge in agricultural imports. The US felt the proposed conditions that would trigger the mechanism were too lenient and so would limit trade. The US and other countries, including Australia, New Zealand, and Brazil, want increased market access for exports from their efficient agricultural sectors. Many developing countries are justifiably concerned about the consequences. We tried to find a compromise, but the US and India refused to give way. WTO director-general Pascal Lamy had to recognise that we had come to a dead end, at least for now.

Even more important, we could have paved the way for the next major round of negotiations, on climate change in Copenhagen next year. In negotiations focusing on development and poverty, the rich countries must be prepared to shoulder greater burdens while the developing countries must accept their share of responsibility.

Perhaps I was present at the collapse of a world order. But at the same time, I witnessed the birth of a new world order where all countries are present and demand their rights, and that requires an almost unlimited willingness to negotiate, make compromises, and find sustainable solutions.

Only a few years ago, it was the US and the EU that decided the outcome of such conflicts. If they agreed on a solution, it was generally accepted. Those days are over. Now, nobody can ignore countries like India and Brazil. Together, they speak on behalf of about 100 developing countries.

And for the first time, there is a newcomer in the circle of major countries that call the shots – China. China speaks as a developing country, and together with India it has been demanding rights for the developing countries.

Even though these two countries have lifted millions of people out of poverty, there are, for example, many more people living in poverty in India than in the whole of Africa. But there is much more to China. In private talks with colleagues from Asia, I have heard that it is not exports from the US and the EU they fear most but the Chinese export juggernaut.

At the other end of the scale, countries in West Africa are counting on the WTO to pressure the US into reducing the high level of subsidies for exports of cotton, which are wiping out the cotton industry in poor African countries.

We recognise that the situation is serious, but responsible leaders must also look to the future. We must not lose everything we have achieved through negotiations over the last seven years. None of the solutions we have agreed on in this period will take effect until we reach agreement on the entire package. So we must make every effort to resume the negotiations once the dust has settled from this collapse. And we must retain the WTO as a key organisation in the world economy.

Thus, we must use our failure in Geneva as a spur for the development of a world order in keeping with a new age. One that involves more states, a shift in the power balance, and essential new tasks relating to climate change, the environment, labour rights, and the fight against poverty. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Jonas Gahr Store and - -
OSLO, May 1 2007 (IPS)

According to a new report from Handicap International an estimated 400 million people in 25 countries are directly or indirectly affected by unexploded cluster munitions, writes Jonas Gahr Store, Foreign Minister of Norway. In this article, the author writes that wars and conflicts always hit civilian populations hardest. Certain types of weapons, such as landmines and cluster munitions, affect civilians particularly severely. While an international ban on landmines has been introduced, there is as yet no corresponding ban on cluster munitions. This we need to change, because unexploded munitions from cluster bombs is really anti-personnel landmines in disguise. According to the United Nations Development Programme, 27 countries are currently affected by cluster munitions. Such munitions create severe humanitarian and development problems, besides maiming and killing civilians: agricultural areas cannot be cultivated without risk to life and health, and refugees are unable to return to the homes from which they fled. As a first step towards an international ban on cluster munitions, Norway hosted an international conference in Oslo on 22 and 23 February 2007. A total of 46 of the 49 participating countries endorsed the Oslo Declaration on cluster munitions, which advocates a ban on cluster munitions by the end of 2008.

As a first step towards an international ban on cluster munitions, Norway hosted an international conference in Oslo on 22 and 23 February 2007. A total of 46 of the 49 participating countries endorsed the Oslo Declaration on cluster munitions, which advocates a ban on cluster munitions by the end of 2008. The next gathering took place from 23 to 25 May 2007 in Lima, Peru, where additional countries joined the process, bringing the total to more than 70. New ambitions were announced, such Peru’s goal of making Latin America the world’s first zone free from cluster munitions. Real progress has been made in the span of only three months.

Wars and conflicts always hit civilian populations hardest. Certain types of weapons, such as landmines and cluster munitions, affect civilians particularly severely. While an international ban on landmines has been introduced, there is as yet no corresponding ban on cluster munitions. This we need to change, because unexploded munitions from cluster bombs is really anti-personnel landmines in disguise.

According to the United Nations Development Programme, 27 countries are currently affected by cluster munitions. Such munitions create severe humanitarian and development problems, besides maiming and killing civilians: agricultural areas cannot be cultivated without risk to life and health, and refugees are unable to return to the homes from which they fled. Some countries, such as Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam, continue to experience these kinds of problems more than 30 years after cluster munitions were used in their territories. More recently, the use of cluster munitions in the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon has demonstrated the devastating consequences such weapons have for civilian populations.

The efforts over many years of humanitarian and human rights organisations that support clearance programmes and provide assistance to victims have helped to put this issue on the international agenda. Norway is one of the countries now calling for a solution to this humanitarian problem.

There is currently no specific prohibition against the use of cluster munitions, though general principles of international law require that a distinction must be made between military objectives and civilians during attacks and prohibit the use of weapons that cause excessive injury or unnecessary suffering. A number of measures to control the use of cluster munitions have been discussed internationally for many years, but this has not led to concrete steps being taken.

In its policy platform, the Norwegian government stated its commitment to working for an international ban on cluster munitions that mirrors the ban on landmines. In order to get the process underway, I invited United Nations and humanitarian organisations, including the International Red Cross, and nearly 50 countries to the Oslo conference in February 2007 to launch a process towards an international ban.

The most important result of the conference was the Oslo declaration, which contains a commitment to negotiate a new international agreement that prohibits the use of cluster munitions with unacceptable humanitarian consequences, prevents their proliferation, and secures help for people and states affected by them.

Our aim is that this process will lead to an international agreement that bans cluster munitions by the end of 2008. We are aware of the fact that a number of countries are opposed to such a ban, especially those who are large producers or have large stocks of cluster munitions in their arsenal.

So, will it be possible to reach agreement? We believe it is.

Anti-personnel mines presented a similar humanitarian problem. Humanitarian organisations, together with a strong alliance of mine-affected countries and countries engaged in the humanitarian field, succeeded in starting a process that resulted in an international ban on anti-personnel mines in 1997. This year marks the tenth anniversary of the Mine Ban Convention, which 153 countries have ratified or acceded to so far. Anti-personnel mines are now hardly used, large areas have been cleared of mines, and thousands of mine victims and their societies have been helped.

Norway believes that a corresponding international ban on cluster munitions can be achieved through a similar process. This process has begun. With common resolve we will help bring it to a successful end. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt: