Alþjóðaviðskiptastofnunin - WTO: Samningaviðræður um landbúnað. Committee on Agriculture - Special Session - 27 September 2002 Statement by Iceland
Committee on Agriculture
Special Session
27 September 2002
Statement by Iceland
I wish to begin by thanking you, Mr. Chairman, for your excellent work, as always, in guiding our deliberations, and for what certainly sounded like a very balanced and thoughtful report on our discussions here this week.
I'm prompted by these discussions - and no less those of three weeks ago - to make a statement on the subject of ambition, probably the most frequently used word of our deliberations.
We have heard a number of delegations present their proposals and ideals when it comes to the modalities and outcome of our negotiations and on a positive note there is perhaps some slight movement to be detected here away from the general towards the greater specificity you have requested from us as members. However, given the somewhat radical nature of some positions, it remains as difficult as ever to identify the common ground that will allow us to live up to our mandate and conform to our schedule of work.
A few delegations seem determined to push forward with trade liberalization proposals they extol on the basis of their ambition, at the same time as positions outlined by delegations such as mine are criticized for the lack of their own. It is this which I choose to contest, Mr. Chairman. Like all things, ambition can take many shapes and forms, meaning different things to different people.
It has been said that ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy. Oscar Wilde boldly claimed ambition to be the last refuge of failure. And Longfellow believed that most people would succeed in the small things if they were not troubled with great ambitions. While I think the first two miss the mark somewhat, I wonder if there is a lesson to be learned from that last quote. For it is perhaps in the preservation of these small things – small in the eyes of some at least - that our ambition lies.
We are fully committed to the Agreement on Agriculture, the reform process it has launched and envisages for the future and the mandate given to us by our Ministers in Doha. Our challenge and thus our ambition lies in participating and eventually completing that process without sacrificing a number of core values to which we adhere, alongside trade liberalization. Our ambition is to provide our population with a secure supply of safe food. Our ambition is to maintain the viability of our rural areas. Our ambition is to promote environmental values such as afforestation and soil conservation. Our ambition is to preserve cultural heritage and agricultural landscapes. And our ambition is to maintain - throughout a process of reform - a vibrant and viable agricultural sector which, Mr. Chairman, is a prerequisite to the attainment of our policy objectives, of which trade liberalization is but one.
And these policy objectives are every bit as legitimate as those upheld by the select few who seem intent on sticking to what might be called the Darwinian "survival of the fittest" scenario of trade liberalization at whatever cost. In the face of these positions, I'd not fault our own for its lack of ambition. In spite of the assurances given by the distinguished Ambassador of Australia earlier on, we are under no illusion that agriculture as we know it in Iceland would in a short space of time become a thing of the past if these scenarios were to be played out.
This is why we repeatedly emphasize that we have a platform from which to depart in the Uruguay Round Agreement and the structure within which we have hitherto been pursuing the reform process. Our values and positions are covered by the existing Agreement on Agriculture and the frequently misinterpreted contents of the Doha Ministerial Declaration. The WTO, after all, is not a free trade organization but a rule-making body, and some of its statutes are there to preserve a balance of interests, not uphold Darwin's theory of evolution. Moving the goalposts, or indeed changing the name of the game at half-time, is simply not fair play, Mr. Chairman.
We should not let what we cannot do interfere with what we can do. The size and pace of our steps need not be on either extreme; the main concern is that they head in the right direction and that we all make it to the finish line. In the words of comedian Steven Wright: Anywhere is walking distance, if you have the time.
While we are not advocating a very long march, Mr. Chairman, we do feel that time is of the essence, both for developing countries and the fulfilment of their needs in this process and what we may call in the agricultural sense disadvantaged developed countries such as my own, so as to facilitate smooth and positive adjustment to the realities imposed by substantial reform.
By way of closing, Mr. Chairman, allow me to stress that there is nothing wrong with ambition. And there is certainly nothing wrong with trade liberalization. We're all for it. The simple point to be made, though, is that it is not the only game in town. I suggest we now heed your call to intensify our efforts to find a balance of interests we can all live with.