精靈之屋

這一陣子信箱躺了許多封有關GATS Campaign 的消息，有些來自於全球反GATS的NGOs，有些是國際自由工聯的討論群組，有些是英國反GATS的團體。主因是反GATS出現曙光。

今年的WTO部長會議雖然沒有具體進展，但是通過的七月套案仍然要求原有的提案繼續協商。以GATS來說，所有NGOs 和發展中國家提出來的批判和建議猶如狗吠火車，WTO僅將協商完成期限由原定的2005年1月延長到5月，也非延不可，因為去年底僅有三十九個國家回覆新一輪協商清單 (initial offer)。NGOs評估今年的WTO會議小輸，因為先進工業國，以美國和歐盟為主，已經從去年坎昆會議得到教訓，不但封閉和NGOs的溝通管道，對付發展中國家也更靈活，在G22中搞分化，試圖把巴西印度拉進談判軸心。今年十月在歐洲社會論壇，有好幾個歐洲反GATS的團體出席，聽起來，她們頗擔心G22的領導國可能拿GATS的議題去交换農業的談判。我上了G22的網站，真的只看到農業議題，看不到其他議題的立場。

這幾天GATS消息火熱，因為G22的立場踩穩，巴西痛斥GATS對發展中國家一點好處也沒有(附件一)。截至目前為止，還是僅有四十七個國家提出清單，相對於一百四十八個會員組織，顯然五月前能否完成進度頗值得懷疑。反對GATS的NGOs主要是歐洲的團體，加拿大和一些設在南方的團體，她們也把一些國家內所進行的游說施壓工作進行一些匯整。

從開始寫論文追這個議題，看到現在，實在覺得有趣，也非常佩服這些NGO。服務業是歐盟的出口優勢，這些團體卻能拋開國家競爭力的迷思，全力投入這場戰役，反對歐盟等先進國掠奪吞食發展中國家的市場。當然她們對美國的跨國公司也極度感冒。這裡頭有一位優秀的女傑，Susan George ，我已經在許多不同的場合陸續聽到她的名號，可見此人之影響力。她目前是TNI-- Transnational Institute 的資深研究員，這個團體總部設在荷蘭，進行許多跨國公司的研究，後來我才發現指導老師居然也曾在那裡出沒過。Susan 也是英國「國際政治經濟期刊」的編輯委員，這份期刊不在SSCI政治類前一百五十名之列，想來以美國學術界來說不入流也。但他們的編委會可是網羅諸多我欣賞的學者，加拿大的Robert Cox, Stephen Gill，美國的華勒斯坦，埃及的Samir Amin等等。以我的眼光來說，這絕對是英國IPE的Number ONE。

蘇珊出身於美國，一九七八年在法國取得政治系博士學位，最後住在法國並取得法國籍，也是ATTAC France的副主席(Association for Taxation of Financial Transaction to Aid Citizens)。我先在歐洲社會論壇聽到她的演講，很有說服力。她舉出目前TNI和其他團體在法國向政府施壓的具體工作。「我們無法向WTO直接施壓，所以必須向政府施壓，要求他們改變立場。We can not target the WTO directly, so we need to pressure government to change position.」簡單一句話，點出在地抗爭的重要性。以法國來說，她們的策略是跟地方政府游說合作，讓地方政府了解GATS的負面效應。目前的成果是，兩百多個 (還是五百多個? 待查) 地方政府和民意代表已經在十二月三日聚會並發表聲明，表達反對法國政府提出GATS回應清單。這真是有趣且靈活的組織模式。

其實，並未完全讀過她的大作，說不上完全認同她的分析見解。吸引我的是，知識份子的角色可以很寬廣。念到博士，沒有在學院教書，投入社會抵抗的運動，她力主的Anti-MAI (多邊貿易協定) 和Anti-GATS運動都戰果輝煌。前者是OECD先進工業國搞出的「太上皇」貿易協定，打算讓所有跨國公司毫無顧忌地進入發展中國家，這個協定後來胎死腹中。後來要是有人問起我博士畢業後打算做什麼，我總也有個「典範」可以拿來說嘴。兼具理論和實踐，一直都是我們追求的目標，共勉。

參考附件: GATS 最新進展 (留意一下印度和巴西立場不同)

Washington Trade Daily
Volume 13, Number 243 Monday, December 6, 2004
Trade Reports International Group

An Open Split in Services Negotiations

Geneva – Signs of deep fragmentation appeared during Doha Development Agenda services negotiations last week – with India joining the call for an ambitious outcome in the long-stalled talks (WTD, 12/4/04).

But in sharp contrast, Brazil maintained that further liberalization of services would not augur well for developing countries.

India's new ambassador Ujal Singh Bhatia warned, however, that if the results in services are not up to par with agriculture and nonagricultural market access in the negotiations, it would be difficult for New Delhi to accept the whole Doha package.

The week-long special services negotiating session concluded Friday amid mounting concern that the talks are lagging badly behind the other two pillars of the DDA negotiations – agriculture and market access for industrials, according to WTO chief services official Hamid Mamdouh.

Without rapid progress in complying with the May 2005 deadline for submission of revised offers as well as movement on rules-related issues, the Doha services negotiations are going to face a serious crisis, Mr. Mamdouh said.

To date only 47 WTO members have submitted their initial offers – and many are of poor quality.

For the first time in the three-year-old talks, there is now a blatant difference within developing country members, noted one Asian trade envoy.

Brazil and India fought together against inclusion of services in the Uruguay Round negotiating mandate in 1986. But subsequent developments following a global boom in the information technology sector during the 1990s and emergence of an army of English-speaking professionals in various services in developing countries – including India – contributed to India's reversal. Services are an increasingly larger part of economic growth in developing countries.

But, Brazil is even more adamant that services be essentially excluded. In a sharp debate Friday over a 16-country joint appeal to speed up the negotiations, Brazil maintained that services trade liberalization has benefitted only industrialized countries.

Taking a pot shot at the United States, Brazil said the ongoing negotiations must address the scheduling ambiguities by the World Trade Organization's committee on specific commitments – a reference to a recent WTO panel ruling against Washington's law against Internet gambling (WTD, 11/11/04).

The United States last week said members should aim for substantial market access in services, insisting that all members stand to gain from further liberalization. Brussels went so far as to warn that if the outcome in services is not ambitious, it would be difficult for Brussels to show flexibility in agriculture.