INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE HEARS MOORE
The UK House of Commons International Development Select Committee is holding an inquiry titled, "After Seattle: The WTO and Developing Countries." The Committee's December 1999 terms of reference identify specific areas of inquiry: WTO institutional reform, implementation of existing agreements, the potential for duty free LDC access, the impact of TRIMS and TRIPS on developing countries, and the implications of the agriculture and services negotiations for developing countries.
On March 7, the Committee received the oral evidence of WTO Director General Moore. Moore's session with the committee lasted just over an hour and forty-five minutes. He made repeated attempts to connect with committee members by reference to his own parliamentary experience. With one exuberant - dare I say gushy? -- exception, MPs were unmoved. Moore did however stay on his message throughout the session. His key message was that, had a round been launched in Seattle, the greatest beneficiaries would have been developing countries. The Seattle failure meant the major loser was the developing world.
Moore's opening statement covered market access, capacity building, implementation, transparency, the "in-built" agenda, the LDC package, and the role of parliaments.
The heart of the session dealt with institutional reform, the scope and timing of the next round, and developing country issues.
Institutional Reform
On the use of the Green Room in the future, Moore noted that ambassadors were looking at the issue of internal transparency. The one non-negotiable item is the customary consensus decision rule. In general terms, he thought that building consensus would entail "doing more work in Geneva before having ministerials." He said that while logic suggests a constituency system or regional groupings to ensure efficient participation, such an approach is a non-starter: the WTO is about changing relationships built on economic interests and trade issues.
Moore agreed that the Seattle process suffered from a lack of coordination. We tried, he said, "a triangulation strategy", but where it did not work, it was chaotic. There are technical matters that can be improved, but "we organize our work in ways outsiders wouldn't understand." In response to a question from Tony Worthington (Lab) about "chapter headings" for institutional reform, Moore noted that reform is a matter of "great controversy" in Geneva. On the question of internal transparency, there is a mandate to proceed with work. There is no mandate concerning external transparency. Accordingly, the subject matter for reform is: General Council; the Participation Process; Green Room; and the Secretariat. On the operation of the Secretariat, Moore said he was comfortable with a cabinet system, and would be taking steps to put such an approach in place. Curiously, neither Moore nor any committee member asked about the under-representation of developing countries at the Secretariat.
Asked whether he supported the establishment of an Eminent Persons Group, Moore said that ambassadors feel "we ought to fix our own shop," but he did acknowledge that, "I think there is a need to look at WTO from an outside perspective."
The question of external transparency was addressed only tangentially. Moore identified NGO global activism vis-à-vis the trade system as the greatest change since the 1980s. He cited the WWF as doing superb work, and noted the group has three times his own budget.
While true that WTO is a government-to-government body, Moore said that it was necessary for the organization to forge new relationships and to do so "not in fear." The behaviour of a few NGOs at Seattle was styled "a dangerous tendency."
As head of the WTO, Moore is in a unique position to press for greater external transparency, but the best he could muster was to observe, "I have some very strong views that one day I want to put in a book."
On the relationship between WTO reform and a new round, Moore offered, "I think you do it simultaneously…We shouldn't wait [for a round] to do it."
Scope and Timing: Next Round
Turning to prospects for the next ministerial, Moore felt that one benefit of Seattle was that, "a number of ministers have realized the dangers of failure." He described the situation as one in which the view of Seattle was "hell, we didn't want to kick it to death; we just wanted to slap it around a little." As a result, there is a change of attitude since December.
At another point in his evidence, however, we learn of a somewhat contradictory attitude. He noted that while people say they want a round, there is not enough flexibility to launch one. The prevailing attitude in Geneva is, "the other guy should be flexible." It is, he thought, unlikely that the EU and US will withdraw labour, that the EU will drop investment, and unlikely that developing countries will yield on textiles.
Moore was not optimistic about an early start to a new round. A round is still possible, but he suggested that there is only a "15 to 20 per cent chance of doing it this year." That said, he was quite certain there would be a round at some point. On Dr. Supachai's watch perhaps?
A great deal of time was spent on developing country issues. One exchange in particular was memorable. On the labour standards issue, Moore noted the issue was highly divisive, creating "almost a North-South divide." When asked to explain to the Committee - which includes six Labour MPs -- just what core labour standards meant, Moore named the ILO, and cited the right to organise, child labour, and then hesitated before admitting, "…I can't recall them…" Neither could his sidekick, Patrick Low.
On WTO Processes:
"…we organise our work in ways outsiders wouldn't understand."
On the LDC Integrated Framework:
"…if only it worked."
Some NGOs at Seattle:
"I felt quite offended at Seattle, where the objective of some - only some - was to stop Members from negotiating. I think that was neo-fascist."
Promises One Might Regret:
"If we haven't made progress in 12 months, you will be entitled to throw a few barbs yourself."
On Core Labour Standards:
"…I can't recall them."
Mike Moore, WTO DG to International Development Select Committee, March 7, 2000 London
The session concluded with thanks from Chairman Bowens (Con), and Moore remained behind for a private meeting with committee members.
According to a Committee Assistant, the inquiry will be hearing from a number of additional witnesses, and is expected to receive written submissions from interested parties. The oral evidence, and the Select Committee's findings, "will not be published for some time."
In the next issue, Moore's evidence related to developing country issues will be highlighted. We do note, however, that the US patent protection case against Brazil, though not mentioned by name was cited as the type of dispute associated with TRIPS that could clog the DSM.
ISSN 1492-7187, TRADE POLICY MONITOR, May 2000,
copyright © THUNDER LAKE MANAGEMENT INC., all rights reserved.
Profile
Services
Search
Trade Analysis
Updates
Contacts
Trade News
Policy Street
Link To Us
Site Search
|
