Facing widespread protests across India and significant opposition in the national parliament before coming to Hong Kong, the Indian Commerce Minister, Mr. Nath has again been challenged on his mandate and stance on negotiations regarding the controversial services text.

“There is nothing in this disastrous text for India and the other developing countries. The consequences of it are irreversible and this minority government, which Mr Nath represents, does not have the political or moral mandate to sign away our rights forever. That is why we are giving him this urgent message in Hong Kong,” said Shalmali Guttal of Focus on the Global South. More than 90 Indian groups endorsed the letter.

Before arriving in Hong Kong, 115 Indian groups representing trade unions, social movements and NGOs sent an open letter to over 450 Members of the Indian Parliament (MPs) questioning the minority government’s stand and mandate in the GATS talks. In the Parliament, several MPs questioned the delegation’s negotiating strategy that compromises India’s public interests as well as alienates its long established allies.

Paragraphs 19-21 in the main body and Annex C, which comprise language on the liberalisation of services, are the most controversial sections of the Draft Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration.

Annex C has several problems. The principal one is that it changes the rules in the midst of the game. Developing countries agreed to the GATS because of its flexible nature and this text contains language that completely reverses this mechanism.

Reports indicate that sectors such as finance, telecommunications, energy, water, education and health will be particularly targeted in sectoral negotiations in 2006.

“People of India reject liberalisation of essential services. The minority government cannot hide behind World Bank/IMF driven trade liberalisation of services and call it ‘autonomous liberalisation’ to now accept services liberalisation through the GATS in the WTO,” said Vandana Shiva of the RFSTE.

Further, the language in the modal section (Paragraph 1), which was mainly drafted by India, will be used by countries with export interests to demand mandatory qualitative and quantitative targets for services liberalisation.

Also questionable are India’s purported gains in Mode 4, which are concentrated on an elite section of professionals. It is understood that the US Congress will not provide USTR Robert Portman with the mandate to link temporary movement of labour into trade agreements such as the GATS.

Finally the text mentions that countries should look at a possible framework for liberalising government procurement, an issue that was rejected by virtually the entire developing country membership in Cancun.

In the letter Mr. Nath was urged to reject this text unconditionally and join hands with other developing countries that are calling for the same: “India has been in the forefront of defending third world interests in the WTO and this Ministerial Conference offers you an opportunity to stand up for the South.”

Tremendous pressure is currently being exerted on the 80 odd developing countries from Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean who are principally opposed to the text to remain silent and withdraw their opposition. Attempts are also being made by rich nations to obtain the assent of developing countries, especially LDCs, through hollow offers of aid for trade.

Source: Focus on the Global South. www.focusweb.org