MIKE MOORE
"Environment
and Labour are not are core issues"
What does it mean to have a high
profile but a terrible image? Ask Mike Moore, director-general of the
World Trade Organisation (WTO). Within three months of his taking over the
reins of what is arguably the world's most powerful institution, the WTO
was at the centrestage of one of the worst crises in international
economic relations: the failure of the much-touted Seattle Summit in
December 1999. From the proponent of free and fair trade, the WTO became
what some street protesters in Seattle termed as the "epitome of
global ills". But the 50-year-old Moore -- a former prime minister of
New Zealand who left school at the age of 15 to work as a meat worker --
leaves no doubt that he is equal to his task. The task of restoring wto's
credibility and ensuring a new round of trade talks. In India last week to
attend a partnership summit organised by the Confederation of Indian
Industry, Moore took 30 minutes off from his crammed schedule to talk to India
Today Senior Assistant Editor Rohit
Saran. Excerpts from an
exclusive interview:
Mr Moore, India is the first country
you are visiting after the debacle of the WTO's Seattle Summit. Any
reasons for this special preference?
There are a number of reasons, other than the fact that I was invited.
I wanted to meet your industry minister who I first met in Seattle. India
is a major economic player and is an emerging superpower. No major
international negotiation today starts unless India is present. In that
sense, India is more than just India. Many developing countries look up to
it for guidance and leadership.
Not many Indians are sure if the
failure of the Seattle Summit is good or bad for them. In fact, a large
number of Indians are happy that the summit failed ...
That's not unnatural. India is a democracy; it's a society of
different points of views. Some of the concerns are valid. It's true that
the future trading system may not be good for textile workers in India or
farmers all over the world. People are also worried about whether entering
into a trade agreement amounted to surrender of sovereignty. There are
also apprehensions about cultural invasion from one part of the world to
the other.
But the best way to address these concerns is to talk about them. That's
why we need another round of trade negotiations. Only negotiations can
ensure that poor and small countries have leverage, and the results
secured are balanced. The Seattle Summit did not produce the desired
results, but it is not over. We have learnt a lot from its failure. We
will work with member countries to start a new round of trade
negotiations.
WTO is also being called
non-democratic ...
It is the governments and the parliaments that are in control of the
WTO. We are a government-parliamentary organisation. They own us.
Parliaments have to ratify every thing that a country commits at WTO. We
can be nothing without the sovereign will of the people expressed by a
country's ambassadors and ministers.
India's basic apprehension is the
linking of labour and environment issues with trade. Should these be WTO
issues?
WTO's core business is trade. If we lift living standards through
trade, it will automatically lift labour and environmental standards. But
we must recognise that environment and trade- union movements have
enormous influence in developed countries. We may have to look into these
issues, even though I don't regard them as our core businesses.
The overwhelming message I get from every Indian I meet -- be it the
government official, businessman, politician or the layman -- is that they
do not trust the concern of the developed countries for labour and
environment. They fear these could become tools for protection and could
even be used to justify sanctions against developing countries in future.
Are these fears well founded?
My own position on these matters is not important. I have to strive
for consensus on these issues. From the developing countries' point of
view, the jewel in the WTO's crown is its dispute-resolution system (a
system of resolving trade disputes through arbitration which becomes
binding on the countries concerned). I would guard this system with my
life. No other global institution has such a system. That is why all kinds
of interest groups are coming to us with all kinds of complaints.
That's right. But in the process, the
WTO is getting a lot of flak for the ills of globalisation, much of which
is outside its purview.
Yes. If a country today has excess toxic waste, somehow it is wto's
fault. In Seattle activists fighting for issues ranging from women's
rights to the rights of cyclists were protesting on the streets. WTO
certainly does not, and should not, deal with these issues. Why doesn't
anybody protest on these issues outside the office of Kofi Annan (the
United Nation's secretary-general)?
So, in a way, is WTO too a victim of
globalisation?
Yes, of course it is. WTO is being blamed for all the ills of the
world. It has become a rallying point for all kinds of protests. We have
people and NGOs from around the world, including India, sending us e-mails
and faxes.
Does this imply that globalisation is
a mixed blessing?
Globalisation is a reality, not a policy. It is an economic movement
in history. Remaining confined to oneself is not an option for anybody. I
fully agree with your foreign minister's remark that we should not believe
in any "ism" anymore, whether globalism, or any other
ideological "ism". The era of "isms" is over.
When I was a child, it used to take one year of work to earn enough to buy
a copy of the Encyclopaedia Britannica in New Zealand. Now kids get an
encyclopaedia CD-ROM for a week's work. Or they can even get it on the
Internet for free. This is an instance of the liberating force of
globalisation.
The European Union and the US have
flouted some rulings of the WTO dispute-resolution panel? Isn't there a
need to strengthen the system?
There is indeed. India and other countries raised this issue at
Seattle and even before that. The system needs to be reviewed, but without
preconditions. Don't forget that India has won several cases through WTO's
dispute-resolution system and the US has lost some.
We must understand that the WTO is the first international organisation to
have a binding dispute-resolution system. In my view all other
organisations should have such a system. It would indeed be great to have
countries resolving their political differences through a binding
dispute-resolution system.
Which areas of the Indian economy
would benefit most from faster trade liberalisation?
Knowledge-based industries should benefit the most. Only the other day
I read that India's it industry has grown from just a few hundred thousand
US dollars in 1990 to $6 billion now. In the next five years it is
projected to gallop to $50 billion. India has comparative advantages in a
lot of industries. A number of you are graduates. Personally, I don't see
India as a country. It is a civilisation. It is not a nation with fixed
boundaries. It's a way of life. There is a lot we can learn from you.
But there will always be differences among countries in the timing and
sequencing of policies. That's why we emphasise on special and
differential treatment for developing countries.
So you stand for special and
differential treatment under which poor countries are given extra time to
meet certain commitments for developing countries.
Absolutely. We cannot expect India or Papua New Guinea to follow the
same policies as, say, Holland. It is never going to happen. And it should
not. You will be driven by your decisions. History shows that open
societies do better. India has an open society. I am sure that India will
emerge as an economic powerhouse in future. I would also like to see India
having a permanent seat in the Security Council. |
