One should probably start an argument on the issue of the Group of 21
proposals with a statement from Oxfam International's 2002 report Rigged
Rules and Double Standards: "the problem is not that international trade is
inherently opposed to the needs and interests of the poor, but that the
rules that govern it are rigged in favor of the rich.' Starting from this,
I aim to prove not only that WTO's role is almost exclusively in favor of
the rich, but also that the important players in the WTO system do not
abide by the very rules that they have created.
The recent Cancun round of negotiations within the WTO, regarding
especially agricultural subsidies, showed that finally the developing
countries starting with giants such as India and Brazil, preponderantly
agricultural countries with significant contribution to world trade, backed
up by China, could finally make a common point and a stand still against
the European Union and the United Stated. The strange and somewhat
revolting point of discussion is that, while boasting liberalization and
free trade, the EU and the United States spent an approximated $300 billion
in subsidies, almost all of them going to agriculture. Isn't a subsidy a
way to ignore the free trade boasted as the main program by the WTO' Of
course, you do not use taxes to raise imported goods prices, but you follow
a reverse pattern and use subsidies to lower national goods prices and make
them more competitive on the foreign market. The agricultural problem is a
first concern for the G-21 demands and it should be noted that these
demands are not necessarily for lowering custom taxes or creating a
privileged position for the developing countries in the group, but for
respecting the conclusions of former WTO negotiations. If we are to
liberalize trade, how can this be done in an environment of high subsidies
from developed countries' How can we, th...