Are parliamentarians aware of the power they could wield on the economic scene?
|
The trade negotiations held by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in Cancun ended in failure. Officially, nobody is to blame, but in the corridors ministers, commissioners and WTO officials are wondering how they will be able to convince the more sceptical stakeholders and various pressure groups of the benefits of trade liberalisation and the importance of concluding the Doha round before the deadline expires.
There is no denying that the ever-widening gap between some of the pressure groups which accuse the WTO of every ill besetting the Third World, and the ministers who came to negotiate a global accord in the name of the WTO member countries. In an age of global information technology, it is a fact that information about the WTO and the status of the trade negotiations is not getting through to the average citizen, or barely. The demonstrations in Cancun and the suicide of a desperate Korean farmer attest to this communication failure.
The reasons for such misunderstanding and its various consequences are varied. But if the WTO did not exist, somebody would have to invent it, if only to regulate the law of the trade jungle. As some people point out, the WTO is the only place where all countries can make their voices heard on an equal footing, and where decisions are taken by consensus. If the talks collapse for good, international trade will be governed by bilateral agreements, leaving the strongest to dictate their wishes to the most vulnerable.
In order to encourage people to gain a better understanding of the role of the WTO, and help their respective ministers identify some of the reasons behind their anger, parliamentarians must take action. But are they truly aware of the power they wield? Judging by the presence of the 320 MPs from 70 countries who came to Cancun, many of whom were members of their respective delegations, the answer is yes. However, their part in the multilateral trade negotiations is still in its early days. The onus is on them to show creativity and prove to their respective governments that they cannot be sidestepped in helping citizens and negotiators hammer out the compromises which will enable all to enjoy the benefits of fairer trade. The challenge is there, and should be taken up before the next ministerial conference.
L.B.
|