PaRCha - JNU - AISA material - 2005 ID-15248
.
Unfortunately the Indian government has virtually accepted the contents of the earlier discredited text, rejected by most WTO members at Cancun, as the basis for NAMA negotiations. The key issue concerning NAMA is that while developing countries protect their markets through higher tariffs, the main mode of protection for the developed countries is through Non-Tariff Barriers (NTBs), particularly through the use of technical barriers. The proposals of universal binding of tariffs will tie the hands of future governments and compromise Indias right to protect specific industrial sectors and small industries. Steep reductions in tariffs on industrial products will accentuate the process of de-industrialisation, which has already commenced with tough import competition being faced by many sectors in small and medium industries. .
FREE HAND TO CORPORATES THROUGH GATS .
The focus of the GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services) is on the liberalisation and deregulation of the services sector. Over 160 services sectors have been enumerated to illustrate its jurisdiction: basic services such as Water, Education and Health; infrastructure services such as Energy, Transport and Telecommunications; critical sectors such as Financial Services, Banking and Insurance; and the world's largest industry; travel and tourism. .
Nevertheless, the developing countries had succeeded to some extent in building in some safeguards into GATS to protect their interests, in so much as they could decide which sector was to be opened up for negotiations. In keeping with national policy objectives in service sectors, member countries could subject the opening up of service sectors to certain conditions and limitations. These safeguards constituted the saving graces of the otherwise draconian agreement. It is precisely these safeguards which are sought to be removed/diluted by the developed countries in the current phase of negotiations in the name of introducing new concepts such as "benchmarking", "quantitative targets and indicators" for liberalisation, "critical mass" of sectors to be liberalised etc. While developing countries have opposed these moves vociferously, the Indian Government has not been very clear or vocal in its opposition. .
Shamefully, rather than protecting the interests of Indias poor, India is adopting a pro-active stance in the GATS negotiations. India's key area of interest is made out to be in the movement of highly skilled labour through the Mode 4 route, that is to say, movement of persons across the national frontier to provide a service. This only mirrors the demands of big services corporations in the US. The lure of the opportunities for jobs and profits to the elite sections as, for example, in the Information Technology sector, particularly, in Business Process Outsourcing, seems to have taken the driver's seat in the negotiating process. The result is that indiscriminate offers have been made for opening of a large number of service sectors across the board, as demanded by the foreign corporate capital. The interests of the common people are at a discount. As the picture has emerged, for securing the gains foreseen by the rich and elite sections, the costs will have to be borne by the poorer masses in terms of loss of employment and income, high costs of services to be provided by the corporate sector and loss of access to essential services. .
We must tell our Government: No opening up of any sector without national debate and consensus! One Enron is enough. No more Enron like disasters! No to 'benchmarking' and similar other moves! No compulsory opening up of services sectors! Keep water, health, education and retail trade out of GATS! Stop handing over Indian services sectors to transnational corporations for a few thousand American visas! Keep financial and banking sector strictly under national control! MNCs cannot be given national status and 'national treatment'. .
TRIPS: DEMAND COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW .
In 1995, the Indian Government defied the popular consensus and agreed to the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Rights (TRIPS). Today, it is obvious that the TRIPS agreement jeopardizes access to medicines and has a detrimental effect on the dissemination of scientific knowledge and technology in diverse sectors such as software and biotechnology. The Patent .
.
PaRCha - JNU - AISA material - 2005 ID-15248
.
Unfortunately the Indian government has virtually accepted the contents of the earlier discredited text, rejected by most WTO members at Cancun, as the basis for NAMA negotiations. The key issue concerning NAMA is that while developing countries protect their markets through higher tariffs, the main mode of protection for the developed countries is through Non-Tariff Barriers (NTBs), particularly through the use of technical barriers. The proposals of universal binding of tariffs will tie the hands of future governments and compromise Indias right to protect specific industrial sectors and small industries. Steep reductions in tariffs on industrial products will accentuate the process of de-industrialisation, which has already commenced with tough import competition being faced by many sectors in small and medium industries. .
FREE HAND TO CORPORATES THROUGH GATS .
The focus of the GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services) is on the liberalisation and deregulation of the services sector. Over 160 services sectors have been enumerated to illustrate its jurisdiction: basic services such as Water, Education and Health; infrastructure services such as Energy, Transport and Telecommunications; critical sectors such as Financial Services, Banking and Insurance; and the world's largest industry; travel and tourism. .
Nevertheless, the developing countries had succeeded to some extent in building in some safeguards into GATS to protect their interests, in so much as they could decide which sector was to be opened up for negotiations. In keeping with national policy objectives in service sectors, member countries could subject the opening up of service sectors to certain conditions and limitations. These safeguards constituted the saving graces of the otherwise draconian agreement. It is precisely these safeguards which are sought to be removed/diluted by the developed countries in the current phase of negotiations in the name of introducing new concepts such as "benchmarking", "quantitative targets and indicators" for liberalisation, "critical mass" of sectors to be liberalised etc. While developing countries have opposed these moves vociferously, the Indian Government has not been very clear or vocal in its opposition. .
Shamefully, rather than protecting the interests of Indias poor, India is adopting a pro-active stance in the GATS negotiations. India's key area of interest is made out to be in the movement of highly skilled labour through the Mode 4 route, that is to say, movement of persons across the national frontier to provide a service. This only mirrors the demands of big services corporations in the US. The lure of the opportunities for jobs and profits to the elite sections as, for example, in the Information Technology sector, particularly, in Business Process Outsourcing, seems to have taken the driver's seat in the negotiating process. The result is that indiscriminate offers have been made for opening of a large number of service sectors across the board, as demanded by the foreign corporate capital. The interests of the common people are at a discount. As the picture has emerged, for securing the gains foreseen by the rich and elite sections, the costs will have to be borne by the poorer masses in terms of loss of employment and income, high costs of services to be provided by the corporate sector and loss of access to essential services. .
We must tell our Government: No opening up of any sector without national debate and consensus! One Enron is enough. No more Enron like disasters! No to 'benchmarking' and similar other moves! No compulsory opening up of services sectors! Keep water, health, education and retail trade out of GATS! Stop handing over Indian services sectors to transnational corporations for a few thousand American visas! Keep financial and banking sector strictly under national control! MNCs cannot be given national status and 'national treatment'. .
TRIPS: DEMAND COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW .
In 1995, the Indian Government defied the popular consensus and agreed to the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Rights (TRIPS). Today, it is obvious that the TRIPS agreement jeopardizes access to medicines and has a detrimental effect on the dissemination of scientific knowledge and technology in diverse sectors such as software and biotechnology. The Patent .
.