IP: WTO head blames "dot-com types" for anti-capitalist violence

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

>Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 12:54:43 -0400
>From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
>To: politech@politechbot.com
>
>
>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/
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/