The GATS does not require the privatization or deregulation of any
service.
|
In an information sheet titled "Don't let the WTO get hold of our
water" the "Alliance for Democracy" expresses much
concern about the implications of the GATS negotiations for water
distribution services. It says that progressive liberalization under
the GATS "means moving towards privatization of all services,
including public services. It also means deregulation of services at
the local, State and national levels and subjecting them to the WTO's
global rules for the benefit of transnational corporations." The
GATS does not require the privatization or deregulation of any
service. In respect of water distribution and all other public
services, the following policy options, all perfectly legitimate, are
open to all WTO Members:
-
To maintain the service as a monopoly,
public or private;
-
To open the service to competing suppliers,
but to restrict access to national companies;
-
To open the
service to national and foreign suppliers, but to make no GATS
commitments on it;
-
To make GATS commitments covering the right of
foreign companies to supply the service, in addition to national
suppliers.
The number of Members which have so far made GATS
commitments on water distribution is zero. If such commitments were
made they would not affect the right of Governments to set levels of
quality, safety, price or any other policy objectives as they see fit,
and the same regulations would apply to foreign suppliers as to
nationals. A foreign supplier which failed to respect the terms of its
contract or any other regulation would be subject to the same
sanctions under national law as a national company, including
termination of the contract. If termination of a contract were
involved, the existence of a GATS market-access commitment would be
irrelevant. A GATS commitment provides no shelter from national law to
an offending supplier. It is of course inconceivable that any
Government would agree to surrender the right to regulate water
supplies, and WTO Members have not done so. |
