FC: WTO head blames "dot-com types" for anti-capitalist violence (fwd)

Guilherme C Roschke groschke at luminousvoid.net
Sat Jul 7 20:10:07 PDT 2001


Is Moore an incredible fool or is he trying to capitalize on anti dot-com passions ?

gr at luminousvoid.net http://www.luminousvoid.net

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 12:54:43 -0400 From: Declan McCullagh <declan at well.com> To: politech at politechbot.com Cc: enquiries at wto.org, enquiries at wto.org Subject: FC: WTO head blames "dot-com types" for anti-capitalist violence

News coverage:

Dot-commers to blame for anti-capitalist violence, says WTO boss

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/20242.html

2001-07-06 18:35:04

Excerpt from speech:

It would strengthen the hand of those who seek change if NGOs distance

themselves from masked stone-throwers who claim to want more

transparency, anti-globalization dot.com-types who trot out slogans

that are trite, shallow and superficial. This will not do as a

substitute for civilized discourse.

"Dot com types?" This shows a man who's out of touch with reality.

-Declan

********

http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/spmm_e/spmm67_e.htm

WTO NEWS: SPEECHES -- DG MIKE MOORE

6 July 2001

Open Societies, Freedom, Development and Trade

Plenary Opening WTO Symposium on Issues Confronting the World Trading

System Geneva

It is a pleasure to welcome you, it is good you are here and I look

forward to the discussions, debate, exchanges and differences over the

next two days.

None of us has perfect knowledge; anything can be improved, that is

why gatherings such as this are important. I would like to see them as

a permanent, regular feature of the WTO's activities budgeted for,

planned for, and useful to Member Governments, our staff and the wider

public.

I welcome scrutiny, it makes us stronger and more accountable. Thank

you to those who have made this event possible through financial

contributions: Canada, European Commission, Japan, Netherlands,

Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States.

The debate about globalization means we are now closely scrutinized. I

welcome this attention. The WTO does important work and decisions

taken by our institution affect the lives of ordinary men and women

all over the world. It is right that we should be held accountable.

Governments recognized the need for international and regional

responses to problems we have in common. No single nation alone can

combat Aids, clean the environment, run a tax system and manage

airlines without the cooperation of others. This is why we have

established institutions and treaties such as the UN, ILO, WTO, World

Bank, and the Law of the Sea. But there has not been a corresponding

dedication of political resources, time, finance and focus to hold us

more accountable to our owner Governments and the people.

Through our initiatives such as the recent IPU Meeting of

Parliamentarians on Trade Issues and symposia such as this, we are

encouraging greater involvement from all sectors of political and

civil society to help us do a better job.

Voters and consumers want more information and control, greater

accountability and greater ownership. They want to know what their

governments are doing not just nationally but also internationally.

This is a good thing. Globally, we are now more prosperous and

relations between states are more peaceful than ever before in world

history. Yet many people feel alienated from power and ownership.

Ministers now often find their toughest negotiations are not with each

other but at home inside their Parliaments and Congresses, with

coalition parties, cabinet colleagues, civil society, Member states.

It is tougher than in my day.

Globalization is not new. It is a process, not a policy. Historians

argue that there were higher levels of trade, and certainly a greater

movement of people, one hundred years ago than there are today. What

is new is that everyone knows about it, has an opinion and that is

good. The questions of how we manage change is what we are here to

discuss. Some think if you abolished the WTO then you would abolish

globalization. I believe that the civilized answer to differences is

rules and law. What brings the WTO into this debate is our dispute

settlement system, which binds outcomes legally. Good people are

puzzled. Why, they ask, can we have a binding system for trade but not

the for environment, labour, children and gender rights, human rights,

animal rights, indigenous rights? Why can we not settle differences

that drive nations and tribes to war in a similar way? Good point. I

am sure that Kofi Annan would relish such a system. Critics, who are

not all mad or bad, frequently say we have too much power. Some of

them want to give us more powers and responsibilities. It is also

about jurisdiction. In which international institution should these

powers and responsibilities reside? We need to recognize the gaps in

the international architecture. For example, there is no powerful,

funded, global environmental agency. There should be. Heavy, fresh and

creative thinking must be done about the roles, functions,

jurisdictions, obligations, management and mandates of all

international institutions and how we deliver our services. This is

where those not captured by process and bureaucracy can help the

debate. I would welcome your views. A dear friend called our process

and culture medieval. Hopefully, we are moving into an age of

enlightenment, made brighter by the illumination of the information

age, which will allow us to communicate in ways never dreamed of by

our founders.

The WTO is made up of 142 Members and operates on a basis of

consensus. This means all Members are equal under the rules. It means

all Members have the right to participate in decision-making.

Consensus means all Members have veto power. WTO agreements are

negotiated by Ambassadors representing their respective countries.

Before the agreements enter into force, they are referred back to

Governments. Governments are in turn accountable to parliaments who

are responsible for passing legislation because our agreements must be

ratified by legislators. Every two years, we are held accountable and

given direction at a Ministerial Conference.

We are steadily improving the position and participation of

non-resident WTO members and helping more modest missions in our work

in Geneva. Work is underway by Members in important areas of internal

and external transparency.

Our owners jealously defend their rights and prerogatives. Even having

these symposia is controversial and not universally supported. Let me

share why. Many Ministers and Ambassadors say it is not the job of the

WTO to embrace NGOs and civil society. They say that should be done at

the national level in the formation of national policy positions. They

are correct but only 90% correct.

Now, because I have been so polite and have given you a message of

welcome, may I ask for your assistance. Nothing upsets our owners more

than the mindless, undemocratic enemies of the open society who have

as a stated aim the prevention of Ministers and our leaders from even

meeting. Imagine the attitude of the Minister from South Africa who

was imprisoned during South Africa's struggle for freedom when faced

with this attitude in the streets of Seattle. Or the Swedish Minister

who wanted to focus on issues of sustainable development, Aids and how

to extend freedoms we take for granted across a wider Europe, yet had

his leader's conference attacked.

It would strengthen the hand of those who seek change if NGOs distance

themselves from masked stone-throwers who claim to want more

transparency, anti-globalization dot.com-types who trot out slogans

that are trite, shallow and superficial. This will not do as a

substitute for civilized discourse.

Who is to blame? There is enough blame for all of us to share. Perhaps

we could consider new principles of engagement. A debate should be

held and understandings reached between civil society, the

international institutions and Governments for a code of conduct that

could include:

* The rejection of violence

* Transparency from NGOs as to their membership, their finances,

their rules of decision-making

* Governments, business and foundations should insist on rules of

transparency and adhere to an agreed code, before they provide

funding.

Governments and their institutions should, in return, give those who

follow such rules a stake in the process. And we need to accept that

there is a fundamental difference between transparency and

participation on the one hand and negotiations on the other which in

the end only Governments can do.

If a group wish to help draft such a set of guidelines, I promise to

look at it and talk to other institutions and Governments.

Let me turn briefly to the current WTO work programme. Key decisions

will be taken in the weeks and months ahead decisions that will have a

far-reaching impact on the future of the world trading system. At the

Ministerial Conference to take place in Doha in November, we must

leave the WTO stronger and more open, ready to play its full part in

international trade relations. To achieve this, I believe we must

launch a new round or a wider set of negotiations. There are several

reasons why we need this.

The economic argument for a new round is compelling. Cutting by a

third barriers to trade in agriculture, manufacturing and services

would boost the world economy by $613 billion, according to one study

from Michigan University. That is equivalent to adding an economy the

size of Canada to the world economy. Doing away with all trade

barriers would boost the world economy by nearly $1.9 trillion, or the

equivalent of 2 Chinas. Of course, these are only estimates.

Reasonable people can quibble about the exact size of the gains from a

new round. But the basic message from study after study is clear: a

new round brings huge benefits.

We are making progress on market access for LDCs because of EU

leadership, the US-Africa bill, and other initiatives. Twenty-nine

countries have made more access available, we must do more but can

best get final progress inside a wider negotiation.

OECD agricultural subsidies in dollar terms are two-thirds of Africa's

total GDP. Abolition of these subsidies would return three times all

the Official Development Assistance put together to developing

countries. Kofi Annan wants $10 billion to fight Aids; that is just 12

days of subsidies in dollar terms.

The development argument is compelling. Notwithstanding the advances

over the last 50 years, 1.2 billion people are still living on less

than $1 a day. Another 1.6 billion are living on less than $2 a day.

It is a tragedy that while our planet is blessed with sufficient

resources to feed its 6 billion people, many are going hungry and

living in misery. Poverty in all its forms is the greatest threat to

peace, democracy, the environment and human rights. The poor fear

marginalization more than globalization.

Samuel Brittan produced a chart recently in the Financial Times. Over

the past fifty years, less-developed areas' life-expectancy has risen

by over 20 years, adult literacy from 40 per cent to 70 per cent. For

China, literacy is up by 34 percentage points, India 33, Sub-Saharan

Africa 39, and North Africa 41. Life expectancy for China is up by

over 27 years, India by over 21 years and Northern Africa by over 20

years.

What does this prove? Little, other than in general the past 50 years

has seen the condition of our species progress at a pace unparalleled

in history.

Can I be politically incorrect? Just because the great economic powers

want something, that does not automatically make it wrong. The truth

is a stubborn thing. The EU, US and Japan account for over sixty per

cent of the world's imports. Some observers have suggested recession

for all three. If that is true, it will be the first time all three

have been in recession in twenty-five years. There is a slow down, how

slow we have yet to experience. That cuts jobs and revenue everywhere.

I am now reluctant to predict the economic future, because I have

accurately predicted five of the last two recessions.

A more open world has its dangers, but a closed world divided into

tribal compartments has proved lethal in the past. The tribes of

Europe are a good example. Where the tribes appreciate and respect

each other's differences culture, music, religion, food and commerce

we enjoy a united Europe. Human rights and living standards are high.

A united Europe is a force for good. Where tribalism flourishes human

progress and human dignity are imperilled. Compare the Baltic States

and the state of the Balkans. Compare North Korea and South Korea.

Night and day, open or closed. Before the Soviets moved in to the

Baltic States, they had a living standard comparable with Denmark and

now they are bouncing back; pre-war Czechoslovakia was comparable with

France. Is France less French because she is in the EU? No. Does trade

prevent development? Ask Korea, which had a lower living standard than

many African States forty-five years ago. Korea now has a living

standard closer to Portugal and look how Portugal has prospered since

she opened up and joined the EU.

I know trade alone is not the answer, but it is part of the cocktail

necessary for progress. Good governance, debt relief, infrastructure

investment, education, sustainable development, health programmes, all

have a role to play.

I welcome you all and what you have to offer. I look forward to solid

debate and ideas that Ambassadors and Governments and our officials

can pick up, so we can improve our performance and all do a better

job.

###

------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list