Oleh : DATO SERI DR MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD
Tempat : LANGKAWI, KEDAH
Tarikh : 19-11-2000
Tajuk : THE LANGKAWI INTERNATIONAL
DIALOGUE (LID 2000)
Penyampai : PM
When we last met here in Langkawi, we spoke of pro-
activity and representation, of empowerment and
international regulations that are fair and just. The
year that has passed has not diminished in any way, our
fervour for doing what is right. Because when we don't
do right for ourselves, we cannot fault others when
things go horribly wrong.
2. Pro-activity is necessary because the stakes get
increasingly higher, because one wrong move could
result in the loss of lives and livelihood, of
sovereignty of nations, of the right to call our
country our own. Pro-activity calls for a careful
assessment of what is real and what is hype. It
requires us to seek the truth and not take it for
granted that others are telling us the truth.
3. It has often been said that the only permanence is
change, and at present this phenomenon called
`globalisation' promises to change economic, political
and social landscapes the world over. Likewise, we are
made to believe that globalisation is in fact driven by
irrefutable economic laws and irrepressible market
forces. All nations big and small must accept or
accommodate it, that it is impossible to resist or even
modify. In fact the Director General of the World
Trade Organisation (WTO) likened the stopping of
globalisation `as trying to stop the rotation of the
earth'.
4. Why are they trying so hard to pass this as `the
truth'? Because its repetition and reinforcement
`intimidates' us into thinking that they know better,
and this intimidation prevents critical analysis.
5. The truth is there is indeed very little `free
market' element in this brand of globalisation. It has
been deliberately shaped to fulfill the requirements of
the principal players, a process greatly aided by
political powers bent on creating international
conditions conducive to their needs.
6. It is indeed baffling that in the face of the
onslaught of such diverse economic and political
strategies for economic domination, any effort on the
part of developing nations to slow the advancement of
trade liberalisation is automatically labeled as
`barriers to business' or `market distortions'.
7. All around us double standards abound. During the
seven-year long Uruguay Round of GATT, a number of
developed nations (i.e. the US, Europe and Japan)
secured special terms for their textile and
agricultural sectors. As global trade increasingly
endangers their supremacy in these areas, they have
resorted to a range of tariffs and non-tariff barriers,
including quotas and so-called voluntary export
restrictions. They have also introduced their own Rules
of Origin, to identify where a textile or clothing
product comes from, thus changing the conditions of
competition and adding to the restrictions against the
low-cost textile exports of other countries. South
Africa's `free trade' agreement with EU excluded 46 per
cent of South Africa's agricultural products. Why?
Because they directly compete with European producers.
And is this not market distortion?
8. A full two-thirds of international movements in
goods and services actually take place as intra-firm
and inter-firm transactions through mechanisms not even
remotely resembling that of an open global competition.
Is this not unfair practice?
9. The Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights
Agreement (TRIPS) protects the rights of corporations
but allows for patenting of the shared knowledge of
indigenous communities. The implication for developing
countries is the loss of billions in rent transfers to
rich countries, as trans-national corporations (TNCs)
will continue to control virtually all the patents of
developing countries.
10. In the interest of this so-called `level playing
field', the WTO wants all countries to stop subsidising
farmers, and through the 1996 Farm Bill, the US reduced
direct subsidy payments. However, through its `Green
Box' policies, exemptions are provided for direct
income subsidies to U.S. agro-exporters because they do
not constitute production subsidies and are therefore,
`non-trade distorting'. I fail to see the logic of this
equation, purportedly made in the name of fair trade,
but perhaps more disturbing is the prospect of a policy
statement that perhaps mathematically tallies, but send
small farms and farmers all over the world to an early
grave.
11. And what about the movement of people? A full neo-
liberal economics should not restrict productive
factors to just financial investment and capital
equipment. What about geographical labour mobility? The
inconsistency in the treatment of labour, for most
parts originating from less developed countries, as
against financial and technical factors, largely the
domain of industrialised nations, is glaring. As very
aptly put by Martin Khor of the Third World Network,
"liberalisation if it benefits me, protectionism if it
benefits me".
12. So why bother with the rhetoric of 'a better
quality of life for all humanity' and 'an equal
footing' when it is really all about money and market
domination? As was very clearly stated by the Office of
the United States Trade Representative and Related
Entities, regarding its trade policies in the Asia
Pacific:
....We must, therefore, continue to identify those
markets that present growth opportunities, ensure
access to those markets, and do so in such a way as to
create enduring relationships that foster not only
short-term economic prosperity, but also our long-term
economic security. A failure by the United States to
participate in and shape these efforts could
significantly diminish the opportunities for U.S. firms
and workers as we enter what some are calling the
"Pacific century." Thus, the United States has been
pursuing an activist trade policy in the Asia Pacific
region aimed at further opening these fast growing
markets, and expanding opportunities for American
companies and workers...
13. The developing economies of the world must wake up
to the reality of what this means to us. We have to
equip ourselves and build our strength because the
failure to do so is tantamount to laying down our
weapons and surrendering our collective destinies. We
must strive for greater technological know-how,
stronger representation in world fora, and for
appropriate institutional, legal, supervisory
international framework. While the developed nations
continuously harp on `human rights violations', the
G77 accurately identifies poverty as the single most
pervasive violation of human rights. And this is not
perpetrated by us.
14. Extreme poverty continues to afflict over one-
fifth of the world's population. The marginalisation of
Africa for example, must be corrected. With almost 10
per cent of the global population, it now has less than
one per cent of global trade, 0.3 per cent of global
manufacturing and 2.4 per cent of global GDP, of which
40 per cent was accounted for by just South Africa and
Nigeria. The fifty poorest countries, while accounting
for 20 per cent of the world's population live only on
two per cent of the world's income. In the 1960s, the
richest 20 per cent of the world's population had
incomes 30 times greater than the poorest 20 per cent.
By 1996 they were 61 times better off. Some 3.9
billion of the world's population live on less than the
equivalent of two US Dollars per day, while the richest
20 per cent absorb 83 per cent of the world's income,
and consume 73 per cent of the world's fossil fuels.
15. To break the vicious cycle of incapacity for
wealth generation and sustainable development,
developing nations must ensure that all available
resources are tapped. It is too easy to forget that
technological application is part `knowledge' but
equally important, is part `exchange'.
16. Smart Partnership practices are instrumental in
ensuring the social accessibility of knowledge. It is
in this spirit that the Group of 77 at the South Summit
in Havana, Cuba, called for greater South-South
cooperation in the area of information technology. The
growth of e-commerce while projected to hit seven
trillion US Dollars by 2004, is a distant shadow to a
vast majority of the world's population. Despite a
growth rate of 15,000 new internet users a day, and 220
million devices accessing the world wide web with
200,000 added each day, it remains that only five per
cent of the world's population, mostly concentrated in
the developed world stand to gain from this boom. For
starters, the top 20 per cent of the world's population
account for 74 per cent of phone lines, against the
bottom 20 per cent having access to only 1.5 per cent.
To say that this ratio must be rectified is a gross
understatement.
17. While effective international cooperation is vital
in bridging the widening digital divide, more
importantly it allows for representation of the views
of the developing world in formulating international
policies on the use and expansion of information
technology. The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
(IANA), for example, has no representation from the
developing world.
18. The larger issue of representation of developing
economies in international fora is one of urgency that
must immediately be addressed. Here again the
implication of a weak economy manifests itself in a
number of ways. While making up three-fourths of WTO
membership, the economic dependence of developing
nations on the larger economies in terms of imports,
exports, aid and security means that their numbers can
never be used to their advantage. This obviously
results in their inability to make their vote count, in
a manner that serves to influence the agenda and trade
negotiations in their favour.
19. Economic limitation means fewer human and
technical resources. It translates into an inability to
cope with the 40-50 meetings held in Geneva each week.
It means less preparation when entering into
negotiations with counterparts from developed nations.
It means settling for what is less than optimum
outcomes in dispute settlements because of a level of
legal expertise that is not up to par.
20. In the face of such shortcomings, developing
countries must strengthen international cooperation to
ensure an effective system of global governance, where
different countries independently of their size or
economic strength, have their say. The network itself
may serve as a surveillance system against the ills
that may infiltrate our economies.
21. The difficulties involved in putting together a
new multilateral structure cannot be underestimated but
it is evident that such efforts do work even though the
process is long and hard. But pulling of wool over the
eyes is no longer feasible. It used to be that parties
are willing to reach any kind of agreement, at the last
hour - no matter how unsatisfactory - just so that `an
agreement is reached'. Now countries are no longer
content with doing that. The Seattle debacle is proof
that developing countries are no longer willing to take
the back seat. Hard lessons have been learnt from the
Uruguay rounds. The merits and intentions of these so
called `mediating mechanisms' of international
multilateral agencies are seriously suspect. While the
proponents of globalisation may argue that it is not a
zero-sum game, the stakes are indeed higher in all
facets of economic activities, be it trade, finances or
economic negotiations.
22. For the next two days we are going to engage in
discussions that will shape the future of our nations
and the destinies of our children. Let this be the most
opportune time for us to carefully ponder if we can
achieve together what we are unable to accomplish on
our own. The spirit of Smart Partnership, far from
being an abstraction, is a workable entity that
promises real, tangible results.
23. I welcome all of you to the second leg of the
Global 2000 - Langkawi International Dialogue and
hereby declare it open.
|
|