WTO talks need to be open and transparent

Speech by Sajjad Karim MEP delivered to European Parliament on Mon 3rd Apr 2006

The WTO has taken concrete steps to improve the transparency and democratic participation in its decision making processes. Yet, there remain basic flaws, which many of my contributions to this report have sought to address.

In Hong Kong, some 450 meetings were organised, yet elected observers were invited to just a handful of them. Only two featured the whole WTO membership, and the majority were exclusive and secret "Green Rooms."

This may make for "efficient" negotiations, but leaves little opportunity public oversight of the most vital institution in the global trading system. This culture of closed decision-making is a major setback in the fight to peel back the layers of secrecy, one which parallels our own struggle with the European Council.

Whilst conference leaders congratulated themselves for a "transparent and bottom-up" process, there are no records or minutes of these meetings. Who said what, which countries were invited or present, will never be known by the public. These concerns only increase with the organisation of "Mini Ministerials" and "Super Green Rooms," where the majority of developing countries are either uninvited or unable to attend.

Increasing membership and consensus-based decision-making, whilst seemingly more democratic, still does not compensate for the influence of industrialised countries compared with their developing counterparts. Despite over three quarters of the membership being developing countries, the WTO still pits heavyweights against flyweights.

Lack of access, led to the collapse of talks in Seattle and Cancun, when ministers exercised their democratic right: and said "no." Yet, lessons were not learned, and the 2005 talks were still structured so discussions took place in different sites, at the same time.

This benefits the large EU and US delegations, but leaves some developing country ministers, those unable to split themselves in two, feeling helpless, often knowing less than the omnipresent NGOs and Corporate fat-cats.

NGOs have forged a greater role for themselves in the WTO negotiations on the basis that they represent "civil society." But do they? Who are their constituents and how can they possibly benefit from narrow, single-issue-driven campaigns? More importantly, how can democracy prevail when non-elected, NGOs enjoy more privileged access to the key players than democratically elected representatives?

The Commission may have made conscious efforts to communicate with observers in Hong Kong, but that is no substitute for the direct input of elected Parliamentarians to redress this clear democratic deficit.

Most Member governments are elected and democratically accountable but still, WTO negotiations are rarely transparent. Governments seldom explain to their public, or even their own parliamentarians, what is being negotiated and why.

This sets the WTO beyond public scrutiny and leaves it to us, the elected representatives, to make sense of what little information is "leaked" and conduct the necessary broad-based domestic discussions of trade developments, which deepen public understanding.

If the trading system is to promote fairness and equality, as the EU intends it to do, it is vital that its institutions are transparent and that democratically elected representatives play a full and meaningful part in negotiations. EU trade negotiators must communicate clearly with members of this house so that together we can work constructively to inform all WTO stakeholders of the decisions being made in their names and, collectively, we can build a strategy for preparing EU industries to face the challenges of the 21st Century.