WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/MIN(05)/ST/67 
15 December 2005 
 (05-6033) 
MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE 
Sixth Session Hong Kong, 13 - 18 December 2005 Original:  Spanish 
 
  
CUBA 
 
Statement by HE Mr Ricardo Cabrisas
 
Minister of Government, Executive Committee of the  
Council of Ministers  
  
 The economic and social situation of the vast majority of the Members of the WTO is today 
more dramatic and untenable than it was wh en we met in Doha in November of 2001. 
  At that time, we came together to take up a broad balanced work programme to face the 
challenges that were up before the multilateral trad ing system.  We decided then to seek suitable 
solutions to implementation-related issues, establis hing a first due date for this commitment by no 
later that 2002, we were to assist in the balanc ing of the inadequacies and imbalances resulting from 
the Uruguay Round, the scope and consequen ces of which are still being felt today. 
  We agreed in Doha to carry out a fundamental  trade reform in agriculture, with strengthened 
rules and specific commitments that would subs tantially improve market access, reduce export 
subsidies and domestic support, and prevent restrict ions and distortions in the world agricultural 
markets.  Above all, we agreed that special and differential treatment for the countries of the third 
world would form an integral part of the negotiations , taking into account at the same time their needs 
in development matters, such as food security and rural development,   We also recognized the vulnerability of th e least developed countries (LDCs), committing 
ourselves to take on their growing marginalization in international trade and formulating commercial 
responses that would allow for a greater integr ation of small vulnerable economies in trade. 
  On market access for non-agricultural produc ts, we agreed in Doha that the reduction 
commitments were completely cognizant of the n ecessities and interests of underdeveloped countries, 
particularly the LDCs, and which, conse quently, did not entail total reciprocity. 
 
 Negotiations on services, besides having the agreed upon objective of promoting the economic growth of all trading part ners, were to contribute to the development of the countries of the 
South.  
 Once again, at that time we reaffirmed that the provisions on special and differential treatment 
are an integral part of the WTO Agreements and we  agreed to examine them in order to strengthen 
them and make them more precise, more efficient and workable.  We even called it the "Development 
Round".   These same purposes were reaffirmed in the Decision adopted by the General Council on 
1 August 2004, known as the "July Package". 
 WT/MIN(05)/ST/67 
Page 2  
 
  The results that are presented to us today at this Sixth WTO Ministerial Conference are far 
from accomplishing the objectives we set for ourselves in Doha.  Instead of advancing, we are in fact 
going backwards.    The four years that have gone by since Doha  have only increased both frustrations and the 
unfulfilled commitments on the part  of the developed countries. 
  The main developed nations are becoming more and more protectionist.  Increased tariff and non-tariff barriers are set on the agricultural expor ts from underdeveloped countries.  Many of which 
are dependent on a few products, in particular raw mate rials, for their export income and to deal with 
the structural adjustments imposed on them by the International Monetary Fund;  thus, the spiral of 
poverty continues growing.   The third world countries are being forced to open their non-agricultural product and services markets.  By doing so, they are obliged to abandon  their industrialization processes, the margin of 
manoeuvrability in their development policies in serv ices is diminished and they become obliged to 
open a large part of their markets to the devel oped world, in exchange for supposed profits. 
  It is sufficient to recall that the subsidies in the member States of the Economic Cooperation 
and Development Organization (OEC D) amount to $350 billion yearly and this limits access to their 
markets of products that are vital to the third world.   The most dramatic example is the case of cotton.  
The protectionist policies of developed countries cost the nations of the South no less than 
$100 billion a year;  this is double what they recei ve as Official Development Assistance.  This 
panorama prevents the achievement of the Millennium  Development Goals that were proclaimed in 
the year 2000.  
 It seems that there are those who have forgotte n that the current supporters of free trade were 
at some point of their development the champions of protectionist policies, many of which they still retain, especially the technical barriers to trade.   These realities have turned the free trade disc ourse, presented as an infallible formula for 
development, into empty rhetoric, useful only to  mask the profit-making interests of developed 
countries and their transnational corporations. 
  It is claimed that the increase of international trade is the source of great profits, but are we able to confirm the fact that the growth of worl d production and trade has been equitably spread out, 
in a just manner, among the members of the WTO?  The answer is simple:  categorically not.  The 
figures speak for themselves. 
  In its 2005 Report, the IMF reports that th e 29 most advanced economies of the world 
produce 54.6 per cent of global wealth and generate 71.8 per cent of the exports of goods and services 
worldwide.  By contrast, the 146 underdeveloped na tions, whose population makes up four fifths of 
the world population, generate only 45.4 per cent of the world gross domestic product and only 
28.2 per cent of the world exports of goods and services. 
  It is not necessary to supply figures in order to assert that in the countries of the South, Members of the WTO, as a whole, poverty has increased, economic and social indicators have 
deteriorated and instability rocks the third world. 
 
 There are, in fact, other solid facts that rebu ff the rhetoric of the free trade discourse.  An 
example of this is the fact that for 45 years an economic, commercial and fina ncial blockade has been 
imposed on Cuba by the United States which violates the most elementary rules of this so-called free 
trade and extends its control to other countries, thus obstructing commercial relations between them 
and my country.  This has been acknowledged by th e General Assembly of the United Nations, which  WT/MIN(05)/ST/67 
 Page 3 
 
 
 just a few weeks ago called for this illegal and ge nocidal policy to be ended, with a show of 
182 votes.   The introduction of liberalizing reforms to achie ve economic growth is nothing more than a 
mechanism that is used by the countries that truly benefit from the prevailing multilateral trading 
system to reach their goals more quickly.  The reality  is quite different.  On the basis of the current 
rules, international trade is increasingly inequitabl e and is deepening the inequalities existing between 
and within nations.   The results of four years of negotiations in the WTO to strengthen the special and differential 
treatment given to underdeveloped countries, are vi rtually nonexistent.  The solution to the problems 
and vulnerabilities of small countries is still on the back  burner.  The links betw een trade and debt and 
finance and between trade and technology transfer ha ve not been dealt with sufficiently, despite the 
fact that it is vital that they be analysed in order to identify the factors that have the greatest effect on 
the development of underdeveloped countries. 
 
 Cuba feels that it is necessary to give the debate  in the WTO a new direction.  It is imperative 
that developed countries are ordered to effectivel y fulfil all signed commitments and adopt measures 
necessary to modify existing agreements, thus wipi ng out the inequalities imposed by the political and 
economic pressure of the main industrialized countries.  
 Only in this way can we hope for a multilate ral trading system aimed at:  stamping out 
protectionism and unilateral measures;  at halting the growing proliferation of non-tariff barriers;  that 
helps to find a solution to the external debt owed  by developing countries and LDCs;  that increases 
the flow of technology to these nations;  that ta kes measures to ensure that small and vulnerable 
countries are better incorporated into world trade;  that makes the existing stipulations regarding 
special and differential treatment more effective;  and that, in short, reduces the gap between the 
North and the South, by allowing the third world coun tries legitimate space in which to develop their 
national policy objectives.   The European Union's discriminatory policy re garding sugar and bananas has a particular 
effect on the small economies of the Caribbean.  C uba lends its support and solidarity to the just 
demands made by these countries. 
  In order to find solutions to the serious pr oblems that the majority of underdeveloped 
countries face, a multilateral trading system aimed at  sustainable development is needed.  In this 
sense, the WTO, as a central component of this syst em, requires a radical reform that will allow it to 
respond to the interests of the large majority of its Me mbers.  It is Cuba's opinion that this is the way 
that we should give our debates a new direction.   The world also needs new and effective polic ies, whose primary objective is the social 
development of the peoples that today are at a di sadvantage, which are neither based on neo-liberal 
doctrines or exclusively on trade to try and r esolve the most pressing problems of third world 
societies.  Solidarity is needed, which will lead  to new forms of integration that, as with the 
Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, are aimed at finding a real solution to the problems that 
touch the human race.   Since Seattle the demands of underdeveloped countries have gone una nswered due to the 
intransigence of the developed countries.  We have had it of all the broken promises.  There is now so 
much injustice, inequality and exploitation in the world that it is becoming unsustainable.  The 
struggle for a better world is our only chance to save it. 
__________