Globalisation and the Treaty of Waitangi
Globalisation and GATT: A new form of colonialism.
Globalisation in its contemporary form heralds a new form of colonialism as the colonisation by countries during the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries gives way to the colonisation by trans-national companies (TNCs) during the last half of the Twentieth Century. It is the goal of GATT and the other related agreements to make the world one single market with no barriers to the How of goods, services and capital. This is based on two ideals; that exports are good, imports are bad; and that free trade benefits all, provided every country is involved. In practice it will be the TNCs that will gain the most, as free trade will allow them to increase their profits by seeking new products and markets around the world, unhindered by regulations. Those who will lose the most are the underdeveloped countries and the indigenous peoples of the world who are already marginalised within their own countries.
The Uruguay round of the GATT talks included three new agreements covering services; General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATs) the related Trade Related Investment Measures (TRIMs), and Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs). Also being proposed is a “free trade policing organisation”, called the World Trade Organisation (WTO), to enforce the agreements after they have been ratified. TRIMs require the elimination of a range of investment controls such as requirements for local content, technology transfers, exchange restrictions, restrictions on foreign ownership etc. This would have the effect that after a phase-in period, foreign firms would be treated no differently from local ones. For example it would prohibit the use of domestic subsidises or quotas to protect the local entertainment industry. This agreement protects any patent for a minimum of 20 years, copyright for fifty years, and trade marks for seven years; the last two renewable indefinitely. TRIPs promote the commodification and privatisation of knowledge that has often been stolen from indigenous peoples. This move was condemned by an international conference of indigenous peoples who signed the Mataatua Declaration on Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous Peoples at Whakatane in June 1993. It declares, “that Indigenous Peoples of the world have the right to self determination; and in exercising that right must be recognised as the exclusive owners of their cultural and intellectual property.”
These GATT agreements have nothing to do with free trade but every thing to do with protecting the TNCs. Some of the consequences of this agreement are: that it would make it illegal for indigenous people to use traditional plants and medicines if they were patented; make it possible to patent life forms and human gene lines; and prevent governments from using compulsory drug licensing, drug importation from cheaper sources or generics to save money.
World Trade Organisation
Its responsibilities are to supervise the implementation of GATT agreements in member countries. All necessary steps must be taken to amend domestic laws so that they conform with the GATT and related agreements. The WTO can approve retaliation and other trade sanctions in respect of trade policies that are incompatible with GATT. In this context any country that seeks to impose environmental standards or controls above internationally agreed minimum standards may be guilty of restrictive trade practices and punished by sanctions. All member countries are entitled to participate in the WTO and have one vote, so in appearance there is democracy and equality between sovereign states. In practise this will be another arena of world politics that the rich countries of the North will dominate to the disadvantage of those countries without the political, economic, or military leverage.
Many of the changes required by GATT have already been implemented by the past Labour and present National governments with the consequent reduction in the health, wealth, and education of the average person, in particular the Maori. The GATT agreements will also mean that any policy return to self reliance though import controls and restrictions on foreign ownership etc may be punishable by international sanctions, in effect making the economic policies of structural adjustment irreversible. The agricultural export gains for NZ with the ratifying of GATT as promoted by the Government may not eventuate, and if they do they are unlikely to be sufficient compensation for the consequent loss of national sovereignty.
Treaty Implications
Manuka Henare says, “Maori as a nation (ie. Declaration of Independence) did not have any significant input into the GATT negotiations.†Jane Kelsey states, “Virtually every aspect of the GATT involves a serious conflict with Crown obligations and Maori rights under the Treaty of Waitangi.†These include:
• protection of taonga and wahi tapu from exploitation;
• control of land, forests, fisheries, waterways, ngawha, or pouamu;
• access to resources through customary rights or availability for return to tangata whenua as compensation;
• control of the indigenous knowledge of medicinal plants, waiata, whakairo, whakapapa.
Maori were not consulted or included in the government’s GATT negotiations. The government clearly formed the view that Maori had no legitimate interest in the Uruguay round. The Maori Congress in February 1994 expressed its concern at the lack of any negotiating mandate from Maori; the lack of information about the implications of the agreement or the offers being made by government; the incompatibility of Maori cultural concepts and values of reciprocity with the free trade model; the attempt of the powerful countries to continue to build their wealth on the spoils of colonisation. The mana i te whenua and tino rangatiratanga guaranteed in the Declaration and the Treaty embody the right of Maori to define and control what is of spiritual, cultural, economic and social significance to them. GATT seeks to commodify all their taonga into a form capable of exploitation and profit, and subordinates the authority of tangata whenua to the highest bidder. The government has chosen to ignore these implications. The irony is that the Crown, in asserting its sovereignty over Maori may now have lost its own sovereignty.
Comments via Facebook