STATEMENT
BY SIR RONALD MICHAEL SANDERS
CHIEF FOREIGN AFFAIRS REPRESENTATIVE OF ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA
TO THE MEETING OF HEADS OF DELEGATION
OF THE 5TH WORLD TRADE ORGANISATION (WTO) MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE
ON SATURDAY 13th SEPTEMBER 2003
TO CONSIDER THE SECOND DRAFT MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
IN CANCUN, MEXICO

Mr Chairman,

I speak first to the process of this Conference.

My delegation attended the open-ended sessions of the groups on "NAMA", "The Singapore Issues", "Development", and "Other Issues".

We have to say that we do not recognize in this text the consensus that we heard articulated in those groups on "Development", "Small Economies" and "The Singapore Issues".

Indeed, what we see in the new draft text is both unsatisfactory and disappointing.

And, on Cotton, we believe the response to the arguments put by developing countries, particularly Africa, is insulting and unworthy of this organisation.

My delegation made the point repeatedly in this Conference that, as a very small open economy which is fully liberalised in terms of imports from all over the world, and one which has no significant exports of agriculture or manufactured goods, we do not use tariffs as a protectionist measure.

For us, tariffs are revenue measures without which government could not deliver the goods and services our people have a right to expect. Our words appear to have fallen on deaf ears and this nails the lie to the claim of equality of membership of this Organisation.

There is nothing in this document that addresses our high tariff dependency and the importance of ensuring that we, and other small economies in a similar situation, are not forced to reduce or eliminate them to the detriment of our economy.

Paragraph 15 of Annex B does no more than offer a promise to "consider" our situation at some time in the undefined future.

During this Conference, we also made it clear that with respect to the Singapore Issues, as a small state of less than 100,000 people, we are gravely constrained in both human and financial resources.

We find it difficult to meet the significant costs and to cope with the considerable loss of revenue that are consequences of the commitments we have already made.

Therefore, we cannot agree to Annexes D and E, nor can we agree to Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the draft Ministerial text.

We did not hear any explicit consensus to proceed with these matters during the Group discussion on them, and we reject absolutely any proposal that any negotiating group on these issues should be appointed.

Mr Chairman, my government has a duty of care to its people. Were we to accept this document, we would fail in that duty, and we would deserve our people's condemnation.

For we would not only have gained no relief for them or any prospect of such relief, we would have condemned them to a life of perpetual underdevelopment.

And, that my delegation will not do.

Therefore, Mr Chairman, with the greatest respect, I have to advise that this draft Ministerial text does not enjoy the support of my government. We urge substantial change in the interest of democracy and justice.