WTO: Getting the jargon right
|
COMMENTS 
On the shaky terminological grounds of the WTO and its alphabet soup of acronyms such as NAMA and TRIPS, rests the future of 800 million farmers, industrial workers and artisans in India alone. Developing countries must be empowered to decipher the jargon
Ask Sompal Chaudhuri, a farmer in western Uttar Pradesh, what he thinks of the WTO and he will tell you that those three letters, in a language he does not understand, have something to do with dwindling demand for the mustard oil seed he grows.
Beyond that, WTO, or for that matter that whole alphabet soup of acronyms -- TRIPS, TRIMS, NAMA, RoO, ATC, GATS and SPS -- make no sense whatever. "I just hope that our babus (bureaucrats) understand these things and get us a better deal, but it seems they know little about farming and have even less interest in trade."
"The complexities of the WTO are not understood even by well-educated individuals," says Pradeep S. Mehta, secretary general of the Consumer Unity and Trust Society (CUTS) International, a research and advocacy-oriented non-governmental organisation based in the Indian city of Jaipur and specialising in World Trade Organisation issues.
Mehta recalled an instance when a senior civil servant from the government of India asked him what the word "acquis" meant.
"I too was frankly stumped," said Mehta because the word could not be located in a dictionary of legal terms. Eventually we discovered that acquis is a French word referring to the total body of law in the European Union that has been cumulatively assembled so far.
It is on such shaky terminological grounds that the future of large numbers of people -- some 800 million farmers, artisans and industrial workers in India alone -- are going to be decided, thanks to the regulations they seek for the movement of goods and services across international boundaries.
But the jargon is unavoidable, says Mehta: "Each discipline demands expertise and deals with subjects that are inherently complex, even esoteric, and cannot be simplified beyond a point."
He notes that a word like "necessity" may draw its etymological roots from words such as "necessary" or "use" but in the context of the WTO, the same word has definite legal implications and its meaning has to be drawn from the realms of jurisprudence.
"Jargon is inevitable," concurs economist Bibek Debroy, who has authored and edited eight books on WTO-related subjects since 1992. "But there would be no contradiction if one simultaneously argues that there is a strong case for simplifying trade related issues for a wider audience."
Take the noun "non-paper", which sounds like an oxymoron (a word or phrase that is apparently incongruous or contradictory), but is often used as a diplomatic technique.
In the WTO, when a country presents a non-paper it means its government has made a certain submission during negotiations or discussions to which it is not bound. In other words, a so-called non-paper contains a specific viewpoint of a government at a particular juncture that could change subsequently.
Biswajit Dhar, professor at the Centre for WTO Studies at the Indian Institute of Foreign Trade in New Delhi, is of the view that excessive use of jargon at the WTO often mystifies the real issues and concerns of large numbers of people.
"Developed countries make attempts to have their way in trade negotiations by using words and phrases that cannot be easily comprehended by representatives of less developed countries," says Dhar.
He points out that many of the 148 member countries of the WTO do not have the resources and experts to study and understand the complex factors that determine the direction and flow of world trade. Therefore, they cannot participate in negotiations as equals.
Developed countries have succeeded in imposing stringent intellectual property rights on pharmaceutical products and food safety standards on items exported by developing countries, Dhar says, which effectively deprives these countries of easy access to the markets of wealthy nations.
Mehta is of the view that it is not easy to simplify the nitty-gritty of trade rules without making them overly simplistic. "Four years ago, we translated a book on GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the predecessor to the WTO) from English to Hindi and had found the going extremely difficult."
Even the title of the CUTS publication 'Unpacking the GATT' had to be translated to 'GATT ke rahasya', which literally means 'Mysteries of GATT'.
Debroy thinks the Indian government is doing much more than it did in the past to make its position on WTO issues public by providing more information on its websites.
As executive head of a powerful chamber of commerce in New Delhi, he says industry associations need to go beyond large cities and reach out to people in small towns, adding that the business press in India often does not explain issues -- for example, what the "Swiss formula" on farm subsidies implies.
Civil society organisations are perhaps best placed to explain the implications of WTO regulations to ordinary people, Debroy feels. He adds a caveat that NGOs should differentiate between facts and opinion, news and views -- which, in his opinion, they sometimes do not.
Dhar says all stakeholders must consciously start addressing the deficit in communications as far as the WTO is concerned. "Lack of clarity on trade related issues leads to a lot of misunderstanding and even the spread of falsehoods," he says.
The WTO is often unfairly portrayed as the villain or is held responsible for all kinds of ills of developing countries, including the fact that thousands of farmers have committed suicide in the southern Indian state of Andhra Pradesh -- a state which has taken heartily to globalisation -- because of their inability to repay loans.
Says Dhar: "Even if some of us are of the view that the WTO system has so far tended to benefit the developed world rather than developing countries, my opinion would be a bit more nuanced."
Dhar said the Geneva-based international body still has the potential to uphold the interests of developing countries and play an important balancing role in rapidly expanding global trade.
But if it is serious about that role, it could start ensuring that the representatives of less developed countries are suitably empowered to negotiate with officials of developed countries who are better acquainted with the intricacies of WTO negotiations -- as well as the jargon deployed by them, Dhar said.
Further reading:
World Trade Organisation
(http://www.wto.org/)
A Guide to 'WTO-Speak'
(http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min99_e/english/about_e/23glos _e.htm)
Consumer Unity and Trust Society, CUTS
(http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min99_e/english/about_e/23 glos_e.htm)
Centre for WTO Studies
(http://www.iift.edu/iift/wto/index.asp)
Hong Kong People's Alliance
(http://daga.dhs.org/hkpa/)
Centre for Trade and Development (Centad)
www.centad.org
(IPS, December 2005)