. /.WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/MIN(03)/ST/96
12 September 2003
(03-4865)
MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE
Fifth Session
Cancún, 10 - 14 September 2003Original:  English
ZIMBABWE
Statement by H.E. Dr Samuel Creighton Mumbengegwi
Minister of Industry and International Trade
I wish to join all those who have taken the floor before me in thanking the Government and
people of Mexico for hosting this most important Conference, and for their mindful hospitality and
the excellent facilities they have put at our disposal.  May I congratulate you, on your election to leadour deliberations, which I very much trust will be fruitful for all of us.
We join others in warmly welcoming the new Members to our Organization, Cambodia and
Nepal.
My country is a Member of the WTO because we believe in a rules-based multilateral trading
system.  That system should be equitable and balanced, with all Members as its architects.  We are
committed to work hard to attain such a system.  The trade issues confronting us today are as
enormous as they are full with huge implications for the development ambitions of the majority of not
only Member countries but, preponderantly, of humanity as a whole.  All of us have political
pressures to deliver meaningful trade returns with which we can build better lives for our nations.
Yet, much to the developing countries' dismay, de veloped countries seem bent on providing subsidies
to their economic players further to condemn us to perpetual trade disadvantage.  Whilst their
subsidies may buy them political insurance, they should not expect us to go along when we too wish
we could, likewise, shield ourselves from similar pressures and fall outs.  The very survival of our
predominantly rural and peasant farmers is at stake if we cannot agree to a fair agricultural trade
framework.  Yet the Chairman's text parades for all to see that we remain divided between those whocan, and do, subsidize production and exports and those of us, the developing and least-developed
countries, who should want to subsidize but cannot.
As we continue to engage our developed partners in these negotiations, we are further told
that we should open our markets for industrial goods in return for some movement on agriculturalsubsidies reforms by them.  So, where we thought we could protect our nascent industries with some
moderate measures, we are asked to forego industrialization and remain purchasers and perhaps never
to become competitive vendors ourselves for an indefinite time-frame.  This is unacceptable to my
delegation.
We are also informed that stupendous wealth could be realized by us in the services sector.
The offers, so far, from developed countries are woefully unambitious.  They are giving us nothing in
the area of Mode 4 where our vast advantage is in the provision of unskilled and semi-skilled workers.
Remedies for the erosion of preferences which could ensue from new undertakings do not give us
much comfort, much less peace.  The bitter medici ne from multilateral financial institutions is still
palpable within many of our countries.  We are tired of policy experiments which invariably leave us
worse off, only to have those very same institut ions offer us meaningless "mea-culpas" for theirWT/MIN(03)/ST/96
Page 2
shortcomings.  Let us negotiate meaningful tariff reductions with the promised "less than full
reciprocity" for the weakest among us.
Our developed country partners talk of ambition and compromise.  How come all too often it
is the developing countries that end up compromi sing to accommodate the wishes of the powerful
developed?  The Doha Declaration was pretty ambitious yet we realize that our developed partners
were only giving lip-service to most of their promised undertakings there.  For example, on special
and differential treatment, the Declaration called for provisions which would be "precise, effective
and operational."  Now, the so-called early-harvest 25 proposals out of the 88 submitted by
developing countries are shown to be empty shells, devoid of any economic value.  Why do our
developed partners consistently stonewall on issues of such importance to us, yet they are relentlessly
pursuing us to give in on issues of critical importance to them?  Clearly, they do not wish us tobecome meaningful competitors.
Finally, let me touch on the so-called Singapore Issues - the new but not so new issues.  The
Marrakech Agreement setting up the WTO makes it clear in its preamble that our Organization is to
facilitate trade in goods and services.  But new issu es are now all the rage with our partners.  Let us
abide by the undertakings made at Doha - there is no consensus on the four issues, and therefore
negotiations cannot commence on these issues.  Most of us want the "educative process" to continue
so that we fully understand the implications of obligations on the new issues.  Commencing
negotiations on the basis of some vague "opt-in, opt-out" understanding is not an answer either.  We
have enough on our agenda to occupy us for a while yet.  We do not wish to be burdened afresh.
Let me assure, you my delegation will cooperate with you for a fair outcome which is
balanced.  As we all know, an unbalanced vehicle eventually crashes - let us not turn the WTO into
such a vehicle.
__________