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/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------