 
A column by T. K. Bhaumik, Senior Advisor, Policy, Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) Services Negotiations: A Case of Missed Deadlines
TK Bhaumik says that developing countries are likely to emerge as losers in the services negotiations as they have failed to do their homework and frittered away the advantage that they had.
When the Doha negotiations were launched, the least controversial item in the agenda was services negotiations. There was hardly any debate. A ‘request’ and ‘offer’ approach was easily accepted as the negotiating guideline, as was demanded by the developing countries. It was the simplest of all the mandates. At that time, it was thought that the negotiation would go through without a glitch. In nearly four years since the Doha mandate, there has however been little or no progress on services negotiations. Now it seems that liberalisation on this score will be insignificant.
 The Doha mandate had set timelines for submissions of ‘requests’ and ‘offers’. The deadlines of March 2003 and May 2003 were happily ignored and allowed to lapse, as if they did not matter at all. Not even a word of concern was expressed over missed deadlines. The Doha negotiations have been a story of missed deadlines. It is not surprising that deadlines on services negotiations have been also missed. While attending a meeting that was supposed to look at possible Indian offers on educational services, it was indeed shocking that the meeting started with the confident assertion that there was nothing sacrosanct about the 31 May 2005 deadline for submitting improved offers, and that there was no need to rush.
We were talking of the new deadline of 31 May 2005 as mentioned in the July Framework Agreement of 31 July 2004. Nine months since the July Framework, the general feeling among key representatives of a large and important member country is that there is nothing sacrosanct about the deadline. Services negotiations, in my view, has been a victim of this mindset from the very beginning. Everyone wants the services trade to be liberalised, but nobody wants to open up the market. It's not surprising then that some members have submitted mainly ‘requests’ i.e. requesting other members to open up. But here again, only about 45 out of 148 Member countries (mostly the developed countries) have submitted ‘requests’.
Making ‘requests’ sounds simple, but it is not an easy task. If you have to request me to open up my market, you must know how I have closed my market for you. Most developing countries do not have any idea about barriers to developed country markets. It is not surprising, therefore, that they have failed to make meaningful requests, even as some of them have been flooded with requests from developed countries who have a better knowledge of market barriers in developing countries in each sector. They are better placed to make requests and they have done their homework. However, they have not been very forthcoming in their offers, and now have to make what are called ‘improved’ offers. Especially on mode 4, they have been very miserly and have not offered any meaningful market access offers, on an issue of primary concern for most developing economies.
The developing countries are caught in a bind. The deadline in the July framework is largely about ‘improved’ offers. The developing countries too would have to meet this deadline, irrespective of whether or not they have made their requests so far. The pace of current negotiation is no doubt slow, but the negotiation has to come to an end. When it is concluded, it may be observed that the developing countries have ended up giving more than what they might receive. Again, a question of unbalanced outcome! If it happens, I will put the blame squarely on the developing countries, since they should have taken the negotiations much more seriously and done their homework. There was plenty of time, which they have not effectively utilised. More importantly, the developing countries had asked for a request-and-offer approach to services negotiations but they have failed to take advantage of this.
[www.icfdc.com, 8 May 2005]
|
