THE draft ministerial declaration prepared as a basis for the World Trade Organisation ministerial summit, has been described as a "clean" text. In other words, it is uncontentious, containing few of the alternative formulations often found in texts for international negotiation. For African countries, however, this "clean" text constitutes a dirty slap in the face.

Trade experts in Geneva say the text is clean because it ignores the strong positions expressed by developing countries on several subjects, especially the ones on which they disagree with the developed countries.

The demands that African countries have made for correcting the damaging imbalances of the Uruguay Round Agreements have been virtually ignored. By contrast, the demands by developed countries for negotiation on new rules enjoy a pride of place in the text, even though African countries, together with many other developing countries, have consistently said they are not ready to engage in negotiation over such issues.

The chairman's text was supposed to have emerged from consultations with all members of the WTO. One could be forgiven for thinking that African positions were left out of the draft text due to the proverbial failure of Africans to stand up and be counted. Not so. African countries have been speaking since before Seattle.

Nevertheless, their demands were simply brushed aside in the draft declaration released by the WTO chairman. A big issue for these African countries is that they are not always able to implement agreements reached in the past, and are thus often unable to exercise their rights.

The draft declaration has two parts. The main part contains the issues and programme for the future work of the WTO. The second part deals with the issues of imbalances between developed and developing countries in existing WTO agreements, as well as the difficulties of implementation. These issues are split into two groups those which can be realised immediately, and those which require more work. African countries see the implementation of existing agreements as a priority issue. They believe implementation should be the primary focus of future of the future work of the WTO work.

The gravest affront to African countries is in the second document and its proposals on implementation, which covers issues such as sanitary standards, subsidies and countervailing measures, anti-dumping and textiles, Trips (trade-related intellectual property rights) and trade-related investment measures. All the substantial proposals by African countries have been left aside, and the chairman's text contains what some Africans describe as "extremely meagre" proposals. Proposals for new measures on subsidies and dumping, addressing problems lesser developed countries (LDCs) have in implementing the existing agreements, were ignored.

Other areas of glaring difference between the draft declaration and the positions of African countries include agriculture, Trips, and subsidies and countervailing measures.

It cannot be because the chairman and director general of the WTO are not aware of the views of African countries. An African diplomat offers one possible explanation for the omission of African views, suggesting that the WTO has set a trap for African countries. The key is the separation of the implementation issues into those which are realisable immediately, and those which need further work.

By presenting what is realisable now, the WTO chairman may have hoped to convey the impression that there is consensus for progress. Developing countries may therefore be trapped into believing that there is some gain now, and there is a basis for more gains in a future round. Developing countries would be trapped into agreeing to negotiate, giving up their fundamental issues for illusory short term gains because of a promise of gains in the future.

So far it is a trap into which the developing countries have refused to fall.