WTO to Face Openness Issue Again
By Jonathan Finer Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, August 27, 2002; Page E01
When the backlash against economic globalization came to a head in Seattle in 1999, critics called on the World Trade Organization officials meeting there to open up their operations to public scrutiny.
Almost three years later, the WTO's business is still conducted behind closed doors. Panel decisions and case briefs still take months to be released to the public. And interest groups, like those that took to the streets in Seattle, are still frustrated by their limited access to the process. The body that sets the rules for the vast majority of global trade -- and arbitrates disputes among its member countries -- is still shrouded in mystery that breeds suspicion and contempt.
"Seattle was supposed to be this wake-up call, but it's amazing how little has changed since then," said Susan Esserman, a partner at the law firm Steptoe & Johnson LLP and the deputy U.S. trade representative from 1999 to 2000. "For the credibility of the institution, fixing the transparency issue is very important."
U.S. Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick submitted a proposal to the WTO on Aug. 9 calling for sweeping changes in the way the body settles trade disputes among its members. The proposal calls for open hearings and the timely release of case documents. It also asks the WTO to explain the rules for participation by outside interest groups such as advocacy groups and corporations.
In a statement issued that day, Zoellick said the proposal would "open the door to greater public understanding and acceptance of the WTO."
But change won't come easily. All WTO decisions must be unanimous, and a few outspoken countries, most of which are in the developing world, contend that the proposed changes would serve the interests of rich WTO members at the expense of poorer ones.
"Countries like the United States have the resources, . . . the manpower and the know-how to participate, and their interest groups would make their presence felt if the hearings were opened up," said a member of the WTO delegation from Mexico, a leading opponent of the U.S. proposal, along with India and Malaysia. "We feel it would tip the balance in favor of wealthier members of the organization because the rest of the world could not afford to play as large a role."
Many WTO experts agree that greater transparency would boost the image of an organization whose reputation took a beating after the Seattle protests.
"If people could actually see how the process is conducted, they'd be pretty impressed," said Georgetown University law professor John Jackson, who served on a WTO dispute-settlement panel in 2000. "A lot of the criticism the WTO gets is unfair, and giving people a better view of the system at work would make a difference."
But Zoellick has been down this road before. His office submitted a similar proposal in 2000 and, according to Esserman, has been calling for greater transparency at least since the mid-1990s. Progress on these issues has proven difficult in the seven-year history of the organization that in 1995 took over the responsibilities of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. A GATT meeting in Marrakesh, Morocco, in 1994 called for a review of the dispute-settlement process by 1999. But after lengthy discussions, no consensus could be reached, and the talks fizzled just before the Seattle session.
This time around, some experts say an agreement might be possible. At the WTO ministerial meeting last year in Doha, Qatar, delegates called again for an evaluation of the settlement process with a deadline of May 2003. The deadline is two years earlier than the one set for concluding the rest of trade talks, which some experts say shows that member governments are now serious about getting something done soon.
Still, approval of the U.S. proposal is far from certain when the next set of meetings begin in Geneva in early September. The plan would scrap confidentiality measures designed to protect trade secrets of businesses discussed in hearings and to appease those who find it easier to horse trade outside the public spotlight, said Luis Ople, a press officer with the WTO in Geneva.
These concerns would have to be overcome for the new proposal to gain the approval of all 144 WTO members. The issue has already generated strong opposition from countries that feel the changes would give unfair advantage to wealthier WTO members.
Opponents of the measure contend that special interests -- such as industry associations, labor unions, environmental groups and human rights activists -- could become powerful lobbyists for positions contrary to the economic interests of developing countries. They say, for example, that an environmental or labor group might try to pressure the WTO into imposing crippling standards on their fledgling industries. Or industry groups might press to protect their products from lower-cost competitors in developing countries.
And the opponents say that such lobbying could succeed in influencing the panel decisions. "Certain diplomats have expressed to me their concern that special interests will sit in the back of the room and intimidate the panelists," said Jackson, who would not identify the countries he was referring to.
For now, the involvement of interest groups varies from case to case. They are sometimes permitted to submit statements called "amicus briefs" that outline their views, but that is up to the presiding panelists to decide. The U.S. trade representative's office has asked the WTO to spell out when these briefs should be accepted, a step experts feel would pave the way for greater interest-group participation.
"If you allow amicus briefs, 99 percent of them will come from developed countries. On a steel case you'll have 20 interest groups from the U.S. and the U.K., and none from the developing world," said a source close to the Indian WTO delegation. "This is supposed to be an organization for governments, and it could be hijacked [by interest groups]. Some countries can't even afford to keep a permanent delegation in Geneva."
To offset the inequality, Bernard Hoekman, research manager for international trade at the World Bank, has suggested broadcasting dispute settlement proceedings over satellite television or the Internet, just as many congressional hearings are shown in the United States. That way, he said, business secrets could be preserved by turning off the coverage, and "the system would be more fair because developing countries would not have to foot the bill for travel or a permanent delegation to be able to sit in on WTO hearings."
But some experts say that protests about fairness are sometimes a cover for other concerns. The WTO, many say, is a bastion for diplomats unaccustomed to having their methods and performance subjected to public scrutiny.
"These organizations like to do things behind closed doors that wouldn't pass the Dracula test -- they'd die in the light of day," said Lori Wallach, one of the organizers of the Seattle protests and the director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, a major WTO critic. "So they prefer to keep the hearings private. That way they can't be held accountable for the results."
Though Wallach is in favor of the U.S. proposal, she said more fundamental reforms are needed. "Certainly all international agencies should be more transparent," she said. "With all the WTO's underlying problems, hiding them is like putting a bandage on gangrene. It stops the ooze, but to deal with the problems you have to do more than uncover them."
The fate of the U.S. proposal will be determined in the coming months. WTO ministers were on summer vacation when it was submitted and will return to the negotiating table on Sept. 2. That leaves less than a year for what could be contentious negotiations before the May deadline.
Until then, some experts say the best bet for increased transparency is for supporting countries to embrace it, even if others don't. The United States asks parties in each of its disputes to allow the hearings to be open. So far, the request has never been accepted. The U.S. trade representative's office also immediately publishes all of its dispute-related documents on its Web site, and a few other countries, including Canada, have begun to follow suit.