WTO Introduction
Dr. Helmut Sohmen
Chairman
Pacific Basin Economic Council
Ladies and Gentlemen,
My next task is to lead into the presentation we will have from The Hon. Michael Moore, Director General of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), based in Geneva. A few words by way of background.
A new round of trade negotiations, nicknamed the Millennium Round, was supposed to have started as a result of the WTO Ministerial Meeting in Seattle last December, to usher in a new dawn for the global trade system. For a number of reasons well publicised, no agreement was reached, and the discussions ongoing at the present time are those that were already mandated by the previous Uruguay Round on agriculture and on trade in services. Efforts are now being undertaken to aim for a new Meeting of Trade Ministers by July this year, to see if the momentum that was lost in the debacle of Seattle can be regained , while stock is being taken as to how to respond to public criticisms voiced in December about the WTO as an institution, and about the way it works.
Those criticisms included the following allegations:
1. that the WTO was not a democratically elected body but an appointed institution without responsibility and controls;
2. that the WTO was working in secret, with faceless officials wielding great economic power, in fact often marginalising poorer countries in the meetings;
3. that WTO was protecting the interests of the developed countries, at the expense of the emerging world;
4. that WTO had no social conscience and was either ignorant of or uncaring about the hardship of millions living below the poverty line in many countries around the world;
5. that WTO through its work had failed to maintain job security and was pushing for globalisation as a means to provide large multinational corporations with cheap manpower in their quest for increased profits;
6. that WTO had not managed to sufficiently open markets in the developing world to the products of emerging economies, deepening the downward spiral into economic hopelessness in the latter;
7. that WTO was not sufficiently protective of the environment and was not strong enough in its calls for sustainable development;
8. that WTO was outmoded in its rules and procedures and no longer able to deal with the complexities of a world quite different from the one that existed 50 years ago when the GATT was founded;
9. that WTO in enforcing trade rules are disregarding the legitimate rights of nations and their citizens.
At least it was encouraging to note that the critique of the WTO did not include the accusation that it was holding back the emancipation of women.
We will have one of the principal figures of the Seattle meeting, its chairman Charlene Barshefsky, the US Trade Representative, as a member of our prominent list of speakers during the meetings. Ms. Barshefsky is much better qualified than I to comment on events and the background that led to the demonstrations and the vandalism of Seattle. And with Mr. Moore addressing us by video, I am sure he will take the opportunity to respond in some detail to the arguments advanced by those who apparently wish to replace the rule of law in world trade again by the rule of the jungle.
It should be remembered that the protestors were not confined to those holding rallies in the streets, but also included a number of official delegates to the meeting. To hold a Ministerial Meeting without a proper agenda, and against the backdrop of some reluctance by a number of the world's richest nations to embark with vigour on a new round was clearly not helpful. Neither was President Clinton's call on the WTO to set higher labour standards, backed up by trade sanctions. The WTO is likely the wrong body to ask for this in any case.
As for PBEC, as I mentioned in my speech earlier, we stand fully behind the principles that govern the work of the WTO, and behind its administration.
PBEC believes that the abrogation of parts of their sovereignty in the area of trade and investment legislation and regulation allows the world's nations to produce a better framework for the necessary adjustment to globalisation which will be to both their individual and collective benefit.
We also believe that further liberalisation is necessary and should be pursued preferentially and with urgency within the confines of the WTO.
We believe that the admission to China into the WTO should not be derailed by short-term domestic political considerations. We have previously made public statements to that effect.
We also believe that bilateral trade disputes between prominent WTO member countries, such as those between the United States and the EU, should be avoided through policy adjustments, to prevent setting poor precedents for other WTO members. The WTO rules should be amended to give greater legitimacy to its dispute settlement procedures.
And we suggest that all involved in this debate on the side of trade liberalisation must make a greater effort at education, to deflate the emotions, counter the challenges raised, and reclaim the moral high ground.
With these few comments, Ladies and Gentlemen, let me now let you see and hear Mr. Mike Moore of WTO.
Thank you.