Authorities reject criticism over WTO trade liberalisation

The Swiss economics ministry Monday rejected accusations that the government supported the World Trade Organisation’s “dogmatic and destructive” trade liberalisation.

The Swiss economics ministry Monday rejected accusations that the government supported the World Trade Organization’s “dogmatic and destructive” trade liberalisation. A ministry spokesman said the government was clearly in favour of socially-responsible global economic reforms.

“We naturally do not support mindless liberalisation of agriculture. What we want is deregulation that takes into account the many (social and environmental) aspects linked with agriculture,” said ministry spokesman Luzius Wasescha.

The government statement came in response to a joint news conference by farmers, aid organisations and trade unions, which presented their joint platform in the run-up to the WTO’s ministerial conference in the United States later this month.

The organisations lashed out at the “dogmatic and destructive” policies of the Geneva-based WTO and called for “fair trade” instead of “totally free trade.”

They said the Swiss government’s position at the so-called millennium round of talks in Seattle would primarily benefit multinationals and companies operating on a global basis.

Instead of toeing their line, Switzerland should push its own domestic agriculture concept, which was based on “competition and ecology,” the organisations said.

The economics ministry spokesman rejected the accusations and said that the government had been trying for years to foster discussions at an international level on how best to marry trade liberalisation with socially responsible policies.

The 135-nation WTO talks in Seattle will be aimed at removing barriers to free trade, such as import tariffs, quotas and subsidies for domestic producers. Anti-dumping measures, competition, investments and access to markets will also be on the agenda.

The United States, the European Union and third world nations are still deeply divided over how far, and which way, trade negotiations should go.


From staff and wire reports