. /.  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/MIN(05)/ST/133 
17 December 2005 
 (05-6155) 
MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE 
Sixth Session Hong Kong, 13 - 18 December 2005 Original:   English 
 
  
BELIZE 
 
Statement by the Honourable Godfrey Smith
 
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Tourism  
  
I thank you and the Government of Hong Kong for hosting this Sixth Ministerial Conference 
and for the warm hospitality and the high leve l of organization for which you are renowned. 
The existing multilateral trading regime is failing Be lize.  It is failing us because its decisions 
are engendering the collapse of our commodity export industries:  sugar and bananas.  Thousands of 
jobs can be lost, livelihoods destroyed and social cohesion ruptured. 
The failure of the regime is because of a structur al defect in its rules-based architecture.  The 
defect is that human development objectives are not included as actual obligations in the WTO's rules 
and agreements. 
Without these incorporated in the rules, trade liberalization becomes an end in itself when it 
should be a means to an end.  That end is the improvement of the living conditions of our people 
through economic growth that can flow from international trade. 
Let us therefore be clear about one thing.  If the system is to work for us it needs to 
operationalize asymmetrical rules and agreements th at are precise, effective and which favour its 
small, vulnerable and poorest Members. 
Such rules should include not only special and differential treatment but also long-standing 
tariff preferences, flexibility in choo sing which agreements to sign and even a special agreement on 
commodities. 
It might be recalled that the Declaration rela ting to intellectual property that restricted 
developing-country access to cheaper medicines wa s finally addressed – albeit partially – shortly 
before the Cancún meeting after developed world corporations were shamed and pressured into 
coming around. 
I mention this to highlight the fact that exis ting rules can be reviewed and changed and that 
when they are, as in the TRIPS public health issu e, it literally meant the saving of countless lives in 
the developing world. 
As developing countries, we have different ec onomic structures, constraints and development 
priorities.  The potential benefit and cost of trad e liberalization varies widely among us.  Hence the 
need for asymmetrical rules.  A one-siz e-fits-all approach simply cannot work. 
But even with pro-development rules we woul d be unable to harness the potential of trade 
liberalization and penetrate world markets without  the necessary trade-related assistance to develop WT/MIN(05)/ST/133 
Page 2  
 
 our exporting infrastructure, meet technical sta ndards, boost productions and enhance our marketing 
capacity. 
These are the issues that need to be addressed  upfront if this Round is to be honestly 
described as a development round. 
Let us be reminded of this:  the developed countries only dismantled trade barriers as they 
became richer and some of those who attack EU trade preferences are themselves beneficiaries of 
similar preferences under other initiatives. 
Yet the developed countries remain intransigent , monolithic in their refusal to address the 
development issues in any meaningful way.  This is the reason why the Round has produced insubstantial results since Cancún.  Let it therefore never be said that the failure of Hong Kong should 
lie at our doorstep. 
It would have perhaps been more appropriate if, rather than the symbolical magic wand 
introduced at the inaugural session, a club had been  raised over our heads instead, for we are being 
coerced into accepting trading outcomes that are inimical to our national interests. 
The developed countries refusal to squarely address the development issues also exposes the 
hypocrisy of their so-called recommitment to th e Millennium Development Goals undertaken at the 
United Nations Summit last September. 
How can we be expected to make any genuine progress toward the eradication of poverty if 
our means of livelihood are being systematically dismantled? 
We know that aid is a prerequisite for enhanci ng our trading capacity.  We have been insisting 
on it for years.  But have received mostly pr omises of aid.  You will understand our scepticism 
therefore if we view the latest aid for trade proposal  as a thinly-veiled attempt to buy us out.  Or, even 
more cynically, divide us by triggering a race for aid.  
Let us know the amount of aid, the allocati on mechanism, its duration and how it will be 
administered.  But, most importantly, any Aid for Tr ade initiative must ensure that small, vulnerable, 
preference-dependent Members like Belize, which are not LDCs, are also major beneficiaries. 
Aid cannot replace a truly pro-development negotia ting outcome.   It should therefore not be 
used as an incentive to force us to  accept an outcome that is contrary to our development priorities. 
In any event, trade-related assist ance is an integral part of the Doha Work Programme.  The 
2001 Doha Ministerial Declaration is equally clear on this.  Aid for Trade is therefore our right and 
should not be held out as a bargaining chip. 
Belize reaffirms its commitment to a rules-based  multilateral trading system.  But the rules 
must be fair and equitable.  "Fair and equitable" has a meaning.  It means an outcome at the end of 
this Ministerial Conference that substantially ad dresses the commodity issues, preference erosion, and 
the loss of long-standing preferences in respect of sugar and bananas. 
Without such an outcome, in the words of leading Belizean labour unionist, George Frazer:  
"we shall not be moved". 
__________