Human Rights and International Trade: Right Cause With Wrong Intentions

Transcription

1 CUTS CENTRE FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE, ECONOMICS & ENVIRONMENT BRIEFING PAPER Human Rights and Internationa Trade: Right Cause With Wrong Intentions Executive Summary The Word Trade Organisation (WTO), since its inception, has witnessed many efforts by vested interests in deveoped countries to burden the bewidered and incapacitated South with extraneous issues ike environment and abour standards. These demands have been vociferousy rejected by deveoping countries because the rea reason behind them, in most of the cases, is the perception of rich countries that unfair abour and environmenta practices may exist in deveoping countries and these need to be offset by appropriate trade poicy measures in order to eve the paying fied. Human Rights as Non-tariff Barriers: The atest demand in this regard by some groups is to ink human rights with trade. However, there is concern among the producers in deveoping countries that, just ike abour and environmenta standards, this coud aso be used as a new too to deny market access to the products from deveoping countries. They are worried about the potentia of human rights causes in WTO to be misused as non-tariff barriers to trade. The discussion in this paper wi focus on the demand to incude human rights causes in the word trading system and anayse its desirabiity, practicaity and effectiveness. However, the discussion is by no means intended to deny the desirabiity of improving the prevaiing human rights situation. The issue rather is how this can be best accompished. Nevertheess, inking it with trade is certainy not a cever idea. Human Rights and Deveopment: Sustainabe deveopment aims at reaisation of a human rights, which incude civi, cutura, economic, poitica and socia rights, apart from the greatest possibe freedom and dignity of every human being. It is vice versa aso; each individua and a peope aso have the Human Right to Deveop. The other fundamenta human rights are, in fact, inked to and dependent upon reaisation of the human right to deveopment. Right to deveopment is one of the most important human rights, which seeks for the reaisation of a human rights, i.e. civi, poitica, economic, socia and cutura. It emphasises the issues of sef-determination, popuar participation in deveopment, resource sovereignty and internationa co-operation for deveopment. Additionay, the existing Internationa trading rues are not competey bind in this regard and, in one sense or the other, they do recognise the importance of human rights. Given this, there is no need for fresh proposas to incude new rues, which wi restrain trade and, in turn, cause further deterioration of the existing human rights situation. Impracticaity of Linking: Not ony is the inking of trade and human rights undesirabe, in practice aso, it is inappropriate and inequitabe. Some of the practica probems in this regard are, for instance: 1) Genesis of human right in different parts of the Word is different and generaisation in this regard is practicay impossibe, 2) Aowing human rights in the WTO woud give many countries greater opportunities to protect their industries unfairy against foreign competition, 3) Sanctions aways have the potentia to backfire and are in no way a better mechanism to achieve socia objectives, 4) Export production in deveoping countries comprises of ony a sma portion of the tota production and trade rues can affect this portion at the most. Therefore, even if socia causes are inserted in the WTO, ony a miniscue portion of the probem wi be addressed. N o.3/2001

2 Introduction The Word Trade Organisation (WTO) came into force on January 1, 1995, fuy repacing the previous Genera Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). It is committed to improving the standard of iving of the peope of its member countries by estabishing egay binding rues to iberaise internationa trade. As one of the most important and infuentia internationa organisations, the WTO aims to have a more transparent and more predictabe trading system to eiminate trade discriminations and reduce tariffs and other trade barriers. However, the deveoping countries have been getting a raw dea as they have not bean abe to secure the market access, which they expected from the system. Whenever it comes to reciprocating market access to deveoping countries, these economic powers divert the focus of the WTO from impementation of the existing agreements and reducing tariff eves and peaks, by caing for a broader agenda encompassing non-trade issues incuding environmenta standards, abour standards and human rights. Whie tariff reductions are generay considered to generate economic benefits for both the deveoped and deveoping countries, the benefits of incuding these other issues are much more debatabe, and the justification for using trade sanctions to pressurise countries to adopt certain standards is not accepted by most deveoping countries. This whoe debate on inking non-trade issues with trade is caed inkages. Though the issue of inkages has been controversia since the GATT was signed in 1947, it got a renewed thrust in ate 1980s and eary 1990s. Deveoped and deveoping countries have poarised their positions on the issue and the adamant stance of both the groups was the principa reason of the faiure of the Seatte Ministeria Conference in In the Seatte Ministeria Conference, the US and other supporters insisted on incusion of abour standard causes in the trade aws whie the deveoping countries opposed any such move. In the recent past, however, the internationa trading system has been criticised for its insensitivity towards human rights. A category of critics asserts that WTO rues do not aow one country to impose trade sanctions to put pressure on another country that is considered to be vioating human rights and, hence, the WTO rues shoud be modified to incorporate human right concerns. This category of critics and some human rights groups, supported by domestic business obbies in the North, have started putting forward a demand to incorporate human rights causes in the WTO system, which essentiay means punishing those countries with poor human rights record by means of trade sanctions. However, these groups have negected the fundamenta issue of poverty, which is directy reated to the human rights situation and cannot be eradicated by trade sanctions. Furthermore, there is concern among the deveoping countries that, just ike abour and environmenta standards, human rights woud aso be used as a too to deny market access to the products from the deveoping countries. Numerous exampes of deveoped countries using spurious standards to deny 2 market access to imports of sensitive products demonstrate that these standards may simpy be hidden forms of protectionism. The discussion in this paper wi focus on the desirabiity, practicaity and effectiveness of human rights causes at the WTO. However, the discussion is by no means intended to deny the desirabiity of improving the prevaiing human rights situation. The issue rather is how this can be best accompished. Nevertheess, inking it with trade is certainy not a cever idea. What is important in the immediate issue of inkages is that trade shoud be based on equitabe terms and used as a means of eradicating poverty, which utimatey eads to improved human rights. However, using sanction-based measures to achieve socia objectives woud ony worsen the situation. If these objectives snatch the deveoping countries right to deveop, then poor peope wi never be abe to come out of the vicious circe of poverty, which itsef is a serious vioation of human rights. Reaisation of Human Rights and Deveopment Sustainabe deveopment is a arger issue which incorporates efficient aocation of the word s resources, socia and poitica we being of a individuas and peopes, actions to protect environment, poverty aeviation and so on. It aims at reaisation of a human rights, which incude civi, cutura, economic, poitica and socia rights, as we as ensuring the greatest possibe freedom and dignity of every human being. It is vice versa aso; each individua and a peope aso have the Human Right to Deveop. The other fundamenta human rights are, in fact, inked to and dependent upon reaisation of the human right to deveopment. In order to have a better understanding the foowing categorisation woud be hepfu, wherein experts have divided human rights into three important categories: Civi and Poitica Rights These rights incude the we-recognised human right to ife, i.e. not to be subjected to torture, not to be hed captive in savery, not to be deprived of freedom of expression, freedom of thought, conscience and reigion, peacefu assemby and freedom of association, and the right to vote. Right to Work This category of human rights incudes the right to work i.e. to just and favourabe conditions of work, form and join trade unions, strike, socia security, an adequate standard of iving, incuding adequate food, cothing and housing, the highest attainabe standard of physica and menta heath, education, take part in cutura ife, and benefit from the protection of the mora and materia interests resuting from one s own scientific, iterary or artistic production. Right to Deveopment The third important category of human rights is the right to deveopment, which seeks for the reaisation of a human rights, i.e. civi, poitica, economic, socia and cutura. It emphasises the issues of sef-determination, popuar

3 participation in deveopment, resource sovereignty and internationa co-operation for deveopment. This is, perhaps, the most difficut chaenge to current economic poicy and practice. Human Rights Linkages in Internationa Trade Rues Human rights, in their broadest meaning, covering poitica, economic, gender, socia, civic and minority guarantees, have meant securing for a peope the right to ive a ife of dignity. Internationa trade essentiay eads to an expansion of peope s capabiities to afford a ong, heathy and productive ife and thereby contributes to deveopment and the human rights situation. The WTO was created with the objective of increasing internationa trade and removing existing barriers and thereby improving the quaity of ife of a. It is certainy important to ensure human rights in a parts of the word. However, incorporating sanction-based-causes in the WTO wi diute its existing agenda of enhancing trade and greaty reduce the benefits of the freer trade expected to foow from the word trading system. Furthermore, inkages may actuay have an adverse impact on the human rights of poor peope as with more and more trade barriers and restrictions, the poor countries wi never be abe to come out of the vicious circe of poverty. Additionay, it shoud be remembered that the existing Internationa trading rues are not competey bind in this regard and, in one sense or the other recognise the importance of human rights. In fact, if we want to anayse them from the human rights point of view, the existing trade rues can be divided into two categories, one which aready have some human rights dimension and two which have the potentia to act against human rights. The first category of rues incude the Preambe to the Word Trade Organisation, which paces expicit importance upon raising standards of iving, ensuring fu empoyment and a arge and steadiy growing voume of rea income. However, the ega status of preambuar text tends to be more decaratory than binding. But, the possibiity of increased reference to the socia purposes indicated in the preambuar paragraphs of the WTO agreements is open. Box 1 describes the other reevant Artices of Genera Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which have some human rights dimensions. The second category incudes agreements ike Trade- Reated Inteectua Property Rights (TRIPs), which do have an adverse impact on the human rights of the poor peope. For instance, the TRIPs agreement directy threatens the right to access to appropriate heathcare and, in turn, the right to heath. TRIPs was incuded in the WTO at the behest of the US and other deveoped countries, mainy because of obbying by mutinationa companies and against the strong objections of deveoping countries. Box 1: GATT artices having human rights dimension 1. Artice XX of GATT aows for certain specific exceptions to the rues, which woud otherwise be in breach of the terms. The exceptions with some potentia reevance to human rights are the foowing: Exception (a) is reated to measures necessary to protect pubic moras. According to the experts, the term pubic moras may be sufficienty wide as to encompass human rights issues, and that the exception may extend to measures intended to protect pubic moras in other countries as we as one s own. Exception (b), on measures necessary to protect human, anima or pant ife or heath, have got more direct reationship with the protection of human rights. It has to be interpreted very restrictivey, and with a particuary strict interpretation of the requirement that any such measures must be necessary for the stated purpose ony. Exception (e), reating to the products of prison abour, has a cear but very imited human rights dimension. Exception (f), reating to the protection of nationa treasures of artistic, historic or archaeoogica vaue may, arguaby, have significance for the enjoyment of the right to take part in cutura ife. Again, however, any significance woud be imited to its very specific subject matter. Exception (g), reating to the conservation of exhaustibe natura resources, may have an indirect effect upon the future enjoyment of the right to an adequate standard of iving, by promoting sustainabe resource usage. Exception (i), invoves restriction on exports of domestic materias necessary to ensure the essentia quantities of such materias to a domestic processing industry during periods when the domestic price for such materias is hed beow the word price as part of a government stabiisation pan. Exception (j) is Essentia to the acquisition or distribution of products in genera or oca short suppy... Exceptions (i) and (j) may aso, indirecty, protect and promote economic and socia rights, by protecting domestic industries and consumers in certain circumstances. 2. Artice XVIII of the GATT deas with assistance to deveoping countries. A consideration of the various specia measures in the WTO for assistance or specia consideration to deveoping countries and an anaysis of their effectiveness are beyond the scope of this artice. However, to the extent that such measures may hep promote the advancement of deveoping countries and protect their popuations from the negative economic and socia consequences of rapid trade iberaisation, they may have, at east indirecty and potentiay, positive human rights impications. 3. Artice XXI aows for measures, which a country considers necessary, reating to its essentia security interests, concerning fissionabe materias, or the materias from which they are derived, or the traffic in arms, ammunition and impements of war. These provisions have obvious indirect consequences for the enjoyment of human rights, insofar as they aow for the contro of armaments and materias, which might resut in serious and argescae vioations of human rights through confict. 4. Artice XXI aso provides an exception for measures taken in pursuance of a country s obigations under the United Nations Charter for the maintenance of internationa peace and security (i.e. trade contros mandated by the UN Security Counci). 3

4 The TRIPs agreement obiges a member countries to protect inteectua property rights. It has specia impications for human rights when the technoogy of producing ife saving drugs, for instance drugs for AIDS, is controed by a handfu of pharmaceutica companies that can charge prices way above what poor peope can afford (See box 2). In a reated case, which has been brought before the WTO dispute settement pane, the US has chaenged Brazi s 1996 industria property aw, which imposes a oca working requirement, stipuating that a patent sha be subject to compusory icensing if the subject matter of the patent is not worked in Brazi. The US caims that this discriminates against US owners of Braziian patents whose products are imported into, but not produced in, Brazi, as we as curtaiing the excusive rights conferred on these owners by their patents. The US caims that this vioates artice 27.1 and 28.1 of the TRIPs agreement. A ruing on the case is expected by eary Measures demanded by the US might handicap the successfu Braziian programme to combat AIDS, which is argey based on Brazi s abiity to manufacture affordabe drugs for AIDS treatment. The US action wi aso intimidate countries that woud ike to take up Brazi s offer to hep them produce AIDS medicines. One shoud not forget that the present industria countries did not have any patent or IPR aws, or aws as strict as wi now be imposed through TRIPs, during their industriaising period. And, this enabed them to incorporate technoogy designs originating from abroad into their oca systems. A tighter inteectua property regime inevitaby raises the price of technoogy transfer, often excudes deveoping countries from critica knowedge sectors such as computer software and generic drugs and threatens sma farmers contro over their production processes. Technoogy upgrading is crucia to moving into a positive spira of economic growth and deveopment In deveoping countries, there are aready many barriers to access to appropriate heath care, which incude nonaffordabiity of drugs, poor infrastructure, poor diagnosis and inadequate financing. The TRIPs agreement further aggravates the situation and, utimatey, eads to a range of very negative consequences for the economic and socia rights of the poor and marginaised peope. Given their professed concern for human rights in deveoping countries, it is perhaps surprising how human rights groups in the deveoped countries, that otherwise support inkages have given itte attention to the human rights impact of the TRIPs Agreement. Hence, there is itte justification for incusion of new human rights rues, which wi restrain trade in the WTO, given that a 141-member states have there own egay binding human rights duties and responsibiities within their countries' constitutions. Moreover, for the betterment of the masses iving in deveoping countries, an honest review of existing unequa agreements ike TRIPs is more important than demanding new causes. 4 The Probems: Linking Trade and Human Rights neither easy nor Desirabe The demand to ink human rights with trade sounds innocent enough, but it is not. The intentions with which these demands are being raised are highy ambiguous and, in most of the cases, motivated by economic reasons. These fears about non-trade issues are compounded by the fact that the deveoped countries are foowing doube, standards on the issue, ignoring vioations in their own countries in spite of having the resources and capacity to dea with them. For exampe, European trade unions have opposed heath warnings on cigarette packets and imits on tar and nicotine eves for cigarettes destined for foreign markets. Deveoped countries coud do more to protect human rights by inking trade and poverty reduction. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Deveopment (OECD) countries are committed, to reducing the eve of goba poverty by haf by 2015, yet there has been itte progress in this regard. Deveoped countries coud hep by bringing down barriers to deveoping countries exports and reducing the debt burdens on these countries and aowing the free movement of abour between countries. If the rea motivation for trade-human rights inkages was concern for peope s wefare, deveoped countries woud have taken action on these rea issues. Not ony is the tie-up of human rights and trade undesirabe, in practice aso, it is inappropriate and inequitabe to ink human rights with trade. Some of the practica probems with the sanction-based system in the internationa trading rues are: 1. Genesis of Human Rights is Different Different parts of the word having different cutures, traditions and ifestyes have different definitions of human rights as we. Universaising human rights in these circumstances is practicay not possibe and efforts in this regard woud ony ead to universaity of the privieged ony. Objections have been raised against the specific rights which refect western cutura bias, for instance, the right to poitica puraism, the right to paid vacation and most troubesome of a, the rights of women. It is next to impossibe to have universa women s rights in the face of widespread divergences of cutura practice. In some societies, for instance, marriage is not a contract between two individuas but an aiance between famiies and the behaviour of the womenfok is centra to a society s perception of its honour. Simiar is the argument with the vaues and mora preferences, which cannot be the same in different parts of the word. Moreover, powerfu countries wi be abe to impose their vaues but weaker ones are ess ikey to do so. 2. Trade Protectionism In many cases, deveoped country governments adopt these positions in response to obbying by powerfu

5 domestic interests. Trade unions in deveoped countries, for exampe, have been vociferous in caing for the introduction of abour standards at the WTO. They argue that the poor working conditions in deveoping countries aow these countries to produce goods more cheapy and, therefore, constitute an unfair competitive advantage for their exports. However, most research that has been conducted on this topic suggests that poor working conditions are not correated with competitive advantage in production. Aowing human rights in the WTO woud give many countries greater opportunities to protect their industries unfairy against foreign competition. Just ike environmenta causes, under the pretext of human rights concerns, some countries might penaise others nations that do not import certain goods from their domestic industry by enacting new reguations. 3. Labour Rights Faws are Everywhere Deveoped countries think that everything at their end is right and everything in deveoping countries is wrong. Nonetheess, in many cases, their own poicies or actions have ed to deterioration of human rights. New Zeaand, the staunch Wefare State, for instance, has introduced the Empoyment Contracts Act, 1991, which promotes individua empoyment contracts at the expense of coective bargaining. It does not require to be pubicised under secrecy causes either. Even the ILO has found New Zeaand s egisation contrary to ILO conventions. The US abour aws have a provision that aows empoyers to repace striking workers and dispace permanent workers, which ceary nuifies workers right to strike. Simiary, the UK introduced eight pieces of egisation between 1980 and 1993, which have piecemea taken away the rights and functions of trade unions. Under these egisations, sympathy strikes or soidarity strikes are prohibited, trade union members may be denied wage increase for refusing to sign individua empoyment contracts and workers coud be back isted by empoyer organisations for further recruitment. Nonetheess, even if sanction based mechanisms are incorporated in the WTO, it is very unikey that smaer and poorer countries wi be abe to use them against powerfu economies and aso expect them to be effective. 4. Sanctions do Backfire Sanctions aways have a great potentia to backfire and are in no way a better mechanism to achieve socia objectives. Consider, for exampe, just one aspect of human rights: Chid abour. There is a big hue and cry about South s chid abour in rich countries, but none of them have ever tried to go to the root of the probem. Sometime back, import sanctions were imposed on the carpet industry empoying chid abour in some South Asian countries. As a resut, chidren abrupty were thrown out of the industry and the North was happy to note that the have removed chid abour. However, the chidren, working earier in the reativey safe carpet industry, ended up working in more hazardous units. Some of them who coudn t manage to get jobs turned into beggars, thieves or prostitutes. 5. Different Priorities There is aso a North-South argument on the issue. Human rights are seen ony as a cover for western interventionism in the deveoping word. Deveoping Box 2: TRIPs oaded against the poor The precise effects of TRIPs wi vary across countries, nonetheess the average price increases for pharmaceuticas coud be in the range of percent for many ow-income countries. This is a cear threat to the right to access to appropriate heathcare. The appication of strengthened patent rues to medica products is aready causing serious probems, notaby in reation to the treatment of HIV/AIDS. Patented versions of anti-retrovira therapies which are used to keep HIV in check, and other drugs effective against the diseases which accompany HIV and cause opportunistic infections, typicay cost between 3 and 15 times as much as their generic equivaents. In countries with arge numbers of HIV-sufferers and chronicay over-stretched heath budgets, price differentias can mean the excusion of miions of peope from effective treatment. The probem extends beyond HIV. Prices for non-patented (generic) versions of antibiotics used to treat major chidhood kiers such as diarrhoea and chest infections are often marketed at prices ess than one-eighth of those for equivaent patented products. It is hard to argue that HIV/AIDS does not represent a nationa emergency in South Africa, where it is projected to reduce ife-expectancy by 20 years by 2010, or in Thaiand, where there are amost one miion sufferers. Yet in both cases, efforts to provide cheap generic medicines have been met with ega chaenges mounted by formidaby powerfu corporations. In Kenya, one quarter of the adut popuation is HIV-positive, but fewer than two percent receive anti-retrovira treatment. If the country were abe to import the drug fuconazoe, used in the treatment of cryptococca meningitis (an opportunistic infection associated with HIV/AIDS), from Thaiand, it coud reduce the annua cost of treatment from over US$3000 to US$104. However, the patent hoder for the drug, the Pfizer Corporation, appied pressure to stop such imports taking pace. More recenty, pharmaceutica giant GaxoSmithKine (GSK) has chaenged importers of medica products in Ghana and Uganda. Their crime : seeking to import copies of the firm s patented Combivir, an anti-retrovira for the treatment of HIV/AIDS, at haf the price of the brand-name product. These are not isoated cases. The impementation of WTO patent rues is taking pace against the backdrop of a sustained campaign ed by the pharmaceutica industry, which may we erode the pubic-heath protection offered by safeguard provisions. This campaign has been ed by the Pharmaceutica Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), one of the word s most poiticay infuentia and we-financed industria obbies. The primary source of PhRMA s power is its infuence over the office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), which has repeatedy backed its caims with the threat of trade sanctions under Section 301 of nationa trade egisation. Source: Oxfam 5

6 countries, as some argue, cannot afford human rights (what western countries define as human rights), since nation buiding is sti unfinished and suspending or imiting human rights is, thus, the sacrifice of the few for the benefit of the many. 6. Trade Rues Cannot Guarantee Human Rights Export production in deveoping countries comprises of ony 4.5 percent of the tota production and so trade rues can, at the most have a very imited infuence. Therefore, even if socia causes are inserted in the WTO, ony a miniscue part of the probem wi be addressed. Moreover, it is practicay impossibe to measure and reate human rights conditions in a country to trade. Concusions The campaigners for human rights can be broady divided into two camps: 1) those who want governments to write a cause for human rights into internationa aws, especiay trade aws, and 2) those who argue for creating the rea materia conditions essentia for freedom. This freedom, of course, incudes, amongst others, freedom from debt, restrictions on capita and curtaiing trade aws that divest the peope of their sovereign rights. There are aready aegations that WTO s poicies are promoting corporate interests of rich countries. Up to some extent this is correct aso, as the deveoping countries have been getting a raw dea for they are not getting proper market access in the deveoped word. The new issues added in the Uruguay Round are aready resuting in benefits for fewer and fewer peope around the word, and in negative impacts on the human rights of others. Added to this is the demand for non-trade issues ike human rights, environment and abour standards, which further attempts to keep deveoping countries at a disadvantage. The fact of the matter is that when the conditions for the exercise of freedom and, therefore, of human rights exist, the freedom wi be rea and enduring. And, hence, before taking about inking trade and human rights, we shoud focus our energies on eradicating poverty from the word and graduay empowering the peope. Moreover those (mainy a sma-westernised minority) interested in inking human rights with trade aws are in fact motivated more by economic reasons rather than concern for humanity. Ironicay, the origin of the debate on trade and human rights itsef was motivated by protectionism within the rich countries, on the assumption that ax standards in deveoping countries need to be off-set by appropriate trade poicy measures in order to snatch their competitive advantage. It is evident that human rights cost money and resources to make them rea possibiities and these hod itte water for impoverished third word countries, which are strugging hard to get out of the vicious circe of poverty. It is the need of the hour that the rich countries stop raising unnecessary issues, which have a great potentia for being misused to deny market access to products from deveoping countries and to disrupt internationa trade. They, rather, need to show greater sensitivity to the concerns of the deveoping countries and take positive actions through deveopment programmes, aid and other means to rectify probems of chid abour, forced abour and other human rights rather than trade sanctions. What is important in the immediate issue of inkages is that trade shoud be used as a means eradicating poverty, which utimatey eads to improved human rights. However, imposing trade sanctions on economies to try to achieve socia objectives is ikey to backfire. Sanctions are ikey to inhibit deveopment and prevent poor peope from coming out of the vicious circe of poverty, which itsef is a serious vioation of human rights. The WTO is meant for trade and it shoud be eft to do that ony, so that it can achieve its stated goas of raising standards of iving, ensuring fu empoyment, ensuring arge, and steadiy growing rea income and demand etc. The WTO shoud concentrate more on monitoring the honest impementation of existing agreements, rather than going in for more and more new areas. Non-trade issues such as human rights, environment and abour standards shoud be kept away from WTO, as they have great potentia of being misused by vested interests as trade protectionist devices. Recommendations These non-trade issues which are otherwise very important shoud be deat with at proper internationa forums (other than WTO) which are meant especiay for them. Poverty is a major probem in the deveoping countries thus affecting both human rights situation and environment, and it shoud be addressed through cogent and genuine means. Deveoped countries shoud come forward to hep deveoping countries in improving their human rights situation and eradicating poverty, and shoud not attempt to ink human rights to trade. Comments on this paper were received from Ms. Caroine Dommen, Mr. Chidi Ansem Odinkau and others,which have been duy incorporated and are acknowedged gratefuy. CUTS This Briefing Paper is produced by CUTS under a grant from The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, USA to inform, educate and provoke debate on issues of trade and sustainabe deveopment, and economic equity. Readers are encouraged to quote or reproduce materia from this paper for their own use, but as the copyright hoder, CUTS requests due acknowedgement and a copy of the pubication. This Briefing Paper is researched and written by Pradeep S. Mehta of and for CUTS Centre for Internationa Trade, Economics & Environment, D-217, Bhaskar Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur , India. Ph: , Fx: , Emai: cuts@cuts.org; Website: and printed by Jaipur Printers (P) Ltd., M. I. Road, Jaipur