November 3, 2001

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew
Minister, International Trade
Department of Foreign Affairs & International Trade
125 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, ON K1A 0G2

RE : WTO Meeting in Qatar

Dear Minister,

The Fourth Ministerial of the World Trade Organization should be an opportunity to address the issues that concern human rights advocates and citizen movements around the world and most particularly in developing countries. It should be an occasion for the WTO to show the world the progress it has made in addressing the many grievances expressed in Seattle two years ago. It should be a time to reflect upon the imbalances which exist in the current international trading regime and take concrete steps to correct them. It should be an occasion for the WTO to declare its commitment to the international legal order that has structured the post-war world, notably the Charter of the United Nations and key international human rights instruments.

Unfortunately, the Qatar meeting is likely to accomplish none of those goals. I bring your attention to the following concerns.

     1.   The Choice of Doha

The Fourth Ministerial meeting of the WTO will take place not only against a backdrop of war, but just hundreds of kilometers away from the build-up of a tremendous military arsenal, the carpet bombing of one the poorest nations on earth, the suspected home of one of the world's most dangerous terrorists, and various covert operations about which we know little. Qatar, as I said when the decision was announced, was never a good choice for holding the Ministerial. It did not have the appropriate facilities to welcome interested civil society delegates (as shown by the very small list of non-governmental organizations to receive accreditation and the restrictions placed on those organizations) and did not permit public demonstrations. That was true even before September 11. But it is obvious that in the current context, many people, including parliamentarians, journalists, civil society representatives and even some government delegates will not travel to Doha for security reasons. Rather than taking these concerns seriously and deciding to postpone the meeting until a more appropriate time and location can be identified, powerful WTO members have been bullish in their insistance that the Qatar Ministerial go ahead. It appears they may even welcome the lack of direct scrutiny which will be applied to the negotiations. This contradicts the commitment made by the WTO and its member states to consultat with civil society and be more transparent in the negotiation process. In Seattle, the more radical demonstrators were wearing gas masks. In Doha, they are being distributed to some official delegations. Surely this is not progress. The strong commitment made by yourself personally, and by the Government of Canada, to increased transparency and improved consultation mechanisms at the WTO, should have compelled our government to call for a change in location for the Fourth Ministerial Meeting.

In past years, Rights & Democracy has sought to identify solutions to the various problems resulting from trade and investment liberalisation. We have done this through a series of seminars and conferences, consultations with experts from various international agencies, research and publications, and via our partnerships with organizations in developing countries. It is our assessment that there is a huge amount of confusion regarding the relationship between international trade law and human rights, and that this should be addressed before any new round of trade negotiations is launched. We therefore join hundreds of organizations around the world and across the country in opposing the launch of a new round of trade negotiations.

     2.   The Primacy of Human Rights

The words "human rights" do not appear in either the Canadian position for Doha or the draft ministerial declaration. Despite many studies by experts and resolutions of UN bodies which underline a concern about the capacity of states to meet their human rights commitments under the current regime of one-size-fits-all globalization, the WTO has failed to address these issues in any kind of substantive or systematic way. Nor has Canada taken any meaningful steps to verify how its commitments under international trade law and the rulings of trade bodies stand up against the commitments we have made on human rights.

instrument…can be established". While this new instrument on cultural diversity is welcome and a cautious approach is a wise one, what are Canadians to make the of our respect for existing instuments, already ratified by Canada, notably the International Bill of Rights? Have we seriously considered some of the conflicts between, for instance : the Canadian position on intellectual property and our obligation to protect the right to health; the Canadian position on agriculture and the right to food; the Canadian position on investment and our obligations to respect the the right to development?

Human rights are not some kind of a side-bar, annex or by-product of a trade agreement. Quite the contrary: the international human rights system, forged in the aftermath of the last world war, provides a legal and normative framework for international economic relations. At the 1993 Vienna World Conference on Human Rights, attended by over 170 governments, states solemnly declared that the protection and promotion of human rights was the first obligation of governments and that human rights were universal, indivisible, inter-related and independent. This was a great victory for the human rights movement and governments owe it to their citizens to follow through on this promise. It is our view that the multilateral system of trade should explicitly foster the realization of human rights rather than undermine the capacity of states to meet their commitments. Until there is serious work done on this issue, nationally, regionally and in the multilateral arena, we are opposed to any new round of trade negotiations or expansion of the WTO's agenda.

     3   Agriculture

Thirty-six million people died of hunger or hunger-related disease last year despite the fact that the world produces enough food to feed more than twice its population. Clearly there is a problem. The WTO Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) sets out to create a rules-based system for trade in food, but in doing so fails to prioritize the human right to food or to adequately recognize the differing economic and environmental conditions of its members. The government of Mauritius makes this point very clearly in its agricultural negotiating proposal to the WTO, dated December 28, 2000. "Given the varying levels of development and the diversity of agricultural situations, each country and each region has its own concerns, particularly so when one considers that the role of agriculture goes beyond the production of food and fibre and covers a list of functions that underpin the socio-economic fabric of rural areas".

Rights & Democracy will release a publication this week that presents a series of interviews with small farmers from 11 countries who illustrate this point in a very personal way. The farmers interviewed in the study are from countries as different as Canada, Mali and the Philippines - but one message is common. Food security and adequate standards of living have become more difficult to attain within the current model of agricultural trade liberalization.

The UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Jean Ziegler, reminds us in his report to the United National General Assembly (November 2001) that the right to food entails obligations on governments to ensure "freedom from hunger for all people at all times". The Agreement on Agriculture should be formulated in consideration of its potential impacts on the right to food and should in no way constrain any government's ability to protect and fulfil that right.

     4.   The Right to Development

Much has been said about Doha being the beginning of a "development round" and developing countries have been forceful in their presentation of the difficulties they are having with existing implementation issues. We share many of those concerns. Again, I believe a rights-based approach would provide a useful focus to the discussion. World leaders gathered at the Millenium Summit in New York last fall declared "We are committed to making the right to development a reality for everyone and freeing the entire human race from want". (A/RES/55/2, para 1) The right to development, which encompasses respect for all human rights and which sees development as a matter of rights rather than charity, also emphasizes the capacity of governments to make their own policy choices and requires a trading system that allows them the flexibility to do so. I was very disappointed that Canada did not support the resolution on the right to development at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights last spring, (E/CN.4/RES/2001/9) partially due to its objection to the paragraphs 21 and 22 requesting that the UN independent expert undertake a preliminary study on the impact of international trade on human rights. This is precisely the kind of work that is required and it deserves Canada's whole-hearted support. Canada's stated commitment to a development round is questionable in view of its voting record at the Commission.

I have included for your reference our publication "Protecting Human Rights in the Global Economy: Challenges for the World Trade Organization" as well as our latest publication : "China's Golden Shield: Corporations and the Development of Surveillance Technology in the People's Republic of China", which casts serious doubt on the argument that more trade leads automatically to more human rights. I shall forward our publication on the WTO Agreement on Agriculture and the right to food as soon as it becomes available.

   Sincerely,

Warren Allmand, P.C., O.C., Q.C.
President