Attac fordert Welthandelssystem basierend auf Kooperation statt Konkurrenz
Während in Genf noch um die so genannte ?Doha Entwicklungsrunde? gefeilscht wird, sieht das globalisierungskritische Netzwerk Attac die Runde als längst beendet: ?Sollte es tatsächlich zu einem Abschluss der Verhandlungen in Genf kommen, wären einmal mehr Kleinbauern und Kleinbäuerinnen, lokale Unternehmen sowie die ArbeiterInnen in Süd und Nord die grossen VerliererInnen. ?Von Entwicklung der armen Regionen kann keine Rede sein ? entwickeln würden sich nur global agierende exportstarke Konzerne?, warnt Alexandra Strickner, Obfrau von Attac Österreich. Agrar-, Industriegüter und Dienstleistungskonzerne ? einige von ihnen sind die Architekten der verschiedenen WTO-Abkommen ? dürften sich einmal mehr über Gewinnzuwächse freuen.
Rund 70% bis 80% der Menschen in den Entwicklungsländern leben noch immer von der Landwirtschaft. Durch den Abbau bzw. die Abschaffung von Zöllen wird den Kleinbäuerinnen und Kleinbauern jedoch die Lebensgrundlage entzogen, da sie ihre Produkte auf lokalen Märkten nicht mehr verkaufen können: Billige Lebensmittelimporten aus der EU und den USA überfluten die weniger stark entwickelten Länder, eine hohe Abhängigkeit von Lebensmittelimporten ist die Folge. ?Das ist fatal: Sobald Lebensmittelpreise wie jetzt stark steigen, nimmt der Hunger zu. Die Abhängigkeit vom Weltmarkt und den Weltmarktpreisen ist weder für Bauern/Bäuerinnen noch für KonsumentInnen gut und wünschenswert?, so Strickner. ?Zur Lösung der Hungerkrise braucht es daher nicht noch mehr Freihandel, sondern eine Agrar- und Handelspolitik, deren Kern Ökologisierung, die Versorgung der Menschen mit gesunden Lebensmitteln, sowie existenzsicherende Einkommen für Bauern und Bäuerinnen sind?, so Strickner.
Ähnlich verhält es sich mit dem Abbau von Zöllen für Industriegüter: auch hier würde es in vielen Entwicklungs- und Schwellenländern zu einem massiven Verlust von Arbeitsplätzen kommen. Die Exportweltmeister innerhalb der EU würden zwar davon profitieren - aber auch in Europa würden die ArbeitnehmerInnen durch die Zunahme von Billigimporten aus Drittländern und dem weiteren Abwanderungsdruck von Unternehmen keinen Vorteil aus einer weiteren Marktöffnung ziehen. Der Druck auf Löhne und Sozialleistungen wird weiter zunehmen.
Attac fordert angesichts der aktuellen Krisen eine tiefgreifende Neuausrichtung des Welthandelssystems und der europäischen Aussenhandelspolitik: weg von einem Konkurrenzmodell hin zu einem kooperativen Welthandelssystem. Als Sofortmaßnahme in der akuten Nahrungsmittelkrise müssten Entwicklungs- und Schwellenländer die Möglichkeit haben, ihre bäuerliche Landwirtschaft mit Zöllen oder anderen Importbeschränkungen zu schützen, um die Abhängigkeit von teuren Nahrungsmittelimporten zu verringern und die regionale Selbstversorgung zu stärken.
Für Rückfragen:
Alexandra Strickner, 0664 104 84 28
Zitate von Pressekonferenzen und Materialen zivilgesellschaftlicher Organisationen aus Entwicklunglsändern, die in Genf anwesend sind:
Why the WTO is bad for Developing Countries ? Video von philippinschen sozialen Bewegungen zu den Auswirkungen von Freihandel in ihrem Landhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNaBuy0vraI
Pressekonferenz BauernvertreterInnen, 24. Juli 2008.
Vijay Jawandhia, Shetkar Sangathana Kisan, India:
The WTO promised that it would give export markets to agricultural producers from developing countries. But that has not happened in cotton. We need the right prices in the international markets. This has not been achieved by the WTO.
Because of cheap food over the past decade, many countries stopped their own production. Today prices are high and we cannot afford to buy food. The WTO philosophy allows subsidies to American farmers that discourage poor farmers from producing food. We want protection to produce our own food.
Jaime Tadeo, National Rice Farmers Council and members of La Via Campesina, Philippines:
When I heard this morning that the G6 plus China were making decisions on behalf of all people from around the world, I was very disappointed. This is not legitimate.
Fourteen years after WTO?s formation, trade has changed, imports have increased, and exports have decreased for the Philippines. The WTO has brought nothing but hunger to Philippine farmers. Philippine agriculture is bleeding profusely. And yet, agriculture in the Philippines is strategic to food security and unemployment. Our only hope is that the Special Products and the Special Safeguard Mechanism that is being promoted by the G33 will remain strong.
?Sago Indra, Indonesian Peasant Movement (Serikat Petani Indonesia) and member of La Via Campesina, Indonesia:
"Liberalization of food and agriculture means increasing exports of food and agriculture from one country to another and across continents. This requires a lot of energy and a lot of fuel. It can only be carried out by agribusinesses and so the benefit only go to business, not to farmers.
Liberalization is causing developing countries to open their markets, while the imported foods that comes into the developing countries is highly subsidized.
We have the food crisis, the hunger crisis and the energy crisis, and the WTO is responsible for all of these. We demand that agriculture is kept out of the Doha Development Round.
"Tobias Reichert, Germanwatch, Germany
"Neither the US or the European Union are offering to cut real spending on farm support. They are offering a limit that is well below the current limit allowed in the WTO, but way above the current spending.
Whilst the EU and U.S. have agreed to eliminate their export subsidies, both have shifted their support programs so that supposedly it is "minimally trade-distorting." The EU is currently spending over 50 billion euros in the WTO's Green Box of domestic support. This is supposed to be minimally trade-distorting. But most of the money, around 80 percent, goes to the biggest farmers in Europe who are also exporting their agricultural goods. So, there may be less direct support for exports, but there is way more indirect support to export-oriented farmers.
"Pressekonferenz ? Gewerkschaften zu NAMA Verhandlungen 23. Juli 2008
Ruben Cortina, Argentine Federation of Commerce and Services Workers and president of UNI-Americas:
?We are deeply concerned by the latest push to conclude the Doha round. If we sign this agreement, Argentina could lose two hundred thousand jobs in the textile and clothing sector alone. Last night we met with our delegation, and honestly we do not see the light at the end of the tunnel ? we are deeply concerned about jobs and prospects for development.
It seems that nobody wants to carry the burden of the failure of the round. The prospect that Pascal Lamy will propose a text by Friday is very real, and it goes against the fundamentals of a democratic process. You cannot force countries to agree to something as important as this in 24 hours ? there are millions of people, flesh and bone, who will be affected by this.
Rudi Dicks, Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU):
We are in a particular state of development in relation to jobs and poverty and the negotiations do not take this into account. South Africa has an overall unemployment rate of 42%. The average tariff cuts being floated in Geneva can be deceiving as they do not necessarily show the sensitivities of different sectors. In South Africa, these include textiles, rubber, clothing, footwear, automobiles and chemicals. The proposed cuts would be even deeper because they are the sectors that are creating the largest number of jobs and that have the most prospects for employment growth.
If our countries accept what is on the table it will cause a serious employment crisis. The pressure that is being put on the South African government will ultimately be borne by our workers and our members. We simply cannot allow that.
Felipe Saboya, United Confederation of Workers/ Central Única dos Trabalhadores (CUT):
Discussions about the coefficient sometimes hide the real impact of the cuts. A coefficient of eight for developed countries represents a 28 per cent cut in tariffs. The lowest coefficient being offered to developing countries is 19 which represents a cut of between 55 and 65 per cent. This is clear evidence that there is in fact no commitment to the "less than full reciprocity" principle that is meant to be in the negotiating mandate.
When are the negotiators going to wake up to the fact that we are talking about different levels of development and we simply cannot have a one size fits all approach.'
'During the Uruguay round, the last time Brazil made significant tariff cuts, we lost 1.320 million jobs. Since then we have started recovering but all the gains of the past few years could be significantly threatened.?
Arsenio Tanchuling, Southeast Asia Fishers for Justice (SEAFISH), Philippines:
'We call on the trade negotiators to ensure fishery products are exempted from the cuts under the NAMA negotiations. According to FAO, from being a net exporter of fish, the South-East Asian region will become a net importer of fish over the next decade, putting the livelihoods of 200 million people who live off fisheries at stake. This is unacceptable and contrary to the gains achieved during the 2005 Hong Kong Ministerial.