The Challenge of the WTO:
Rethinking Strategies
-AMIT DASGUPTA, Kathmandu
It is no exaggeration to say that the
creation of WTO was the single most important development for the global trading system in
the twentieth century. The transition from GATT was essentially a systemic transition from
an agreement to a more structured body with a well-defined set of rules, which placed the
WTO on the same legal, organizational and influential standing as the International
Monetary Fund, IMF, and the World Bank.
The emergence of the WTO has furthermore lent
a new meaning to the term "globalization" because it has come to be seen as
being synonymous with the integration of national economies into the global economy or the
Multilateral or Global Trading System. Today, almost every country is a member of the WTO
and those that are not, barring a few exceptions, are in the process of accession. Indeed,
it is speculated that over the next years, the WTO could emerge as the single most
important global institution in the world, rivaling if not surpassing the United Nations,
UN, in terms of its influence. This is more so because while WTO decisions are binding on
Member States, the same is not true with regard to the UN.
Such a role for the WTO was never envisaged
by its creators and there is growing apprehension and concern, especially among developing
countries, that the WTO would only perpetuate existing inequalities in the global system.
In subtle and not so subtle ways, attempts are being made by developed countries to draw
non-trade issues into the trade agenda. Unless developing countries are vigilant, issues
like human rights or governance could be part of the WTO vocabulary.
There is, however, increasing acceptance of
the dominant role that the market would play in determining global power structures.
Economically powerful countries could accordingly wield far greater influence in global
affairs than weaker economies. The poor countries are likely to continue to be
marginalised unless the benefits of trade liberalization contribute to economic prosperity
and welfare (development, to use another phrase) in the weaker and vulnerable economies as
well.
It bears mentioning that while trade
liberalization, both under the GATT and the WTO, has spurred global trade, the benefits
have essentially accrued to the developed countries, barring a few exceptions. This
asymmetry of enormous wealth and prosperity in some countries as contrasted with abject
misery and acute poverty in others is the striking face of globalization and trade
liberalization today.
In this regard, it may be recalled that GATT
was tilted in favor of developed countries and successive trage rounds concentrated on
industrial goods while completely excluding textiles and clothing and agricultural, all of
which are areas in which the developing countries have an interest and advantage. In each
of these sectors, powerful domestic lobbies in the developed countries adopted a fortress
approach to market liberalization. Even under the WTO system, agriculture continues to be
a major stumbling block through a total opposition to any form of reduction in the
enormous subsidies that developed countries are today providing. The recent US decision in
this regard to provide subsidies to the tune of US$ 80 billion per annum over the next 10
years is a good reminder of the steps developed countries would take to protect their
domestic industries.
While the plight of the developing countries
is well known, negotiations both at Geneva and the time of the Ministerial Conferences
have continued to be partisan and reflective of developed country concerns and interests.
For a variety of reasons, developing countries failed to make any substantive gains in any
of the rounds and indications suggest that Mexico, where the fifth Ministerial Conference
of the WTO is going to be held, might very well be a re-play.
This raises a whole host of questions,
particularly with regard to the obligations and responsibilities that the global trading
regime ought to have in a New World order. Most of these questions are essentially
developing country driven as the current manner and style of the WTO's operation suggests
that it is "a rich man's club".
Barely seven years into its existence, such
questions are disturbing. However, let us consider some basic facts which demonstrate how
the WTO has failed the poor countries.
Seattle and the Build-up to Doha: The Fear of
Globalization: Post-mortem of the collapse of the Third WTO Ministerial Conference at
Seattle in 1999 and its implications for global economic integration have been highly
negative. Some have even suggested that it was the most serious setback for the world
trading system in recent memory, primarily because developing countries saw the threats,
bamboozling and arm-twisting tactics by developed country delegations at Seattle as a
betrayal of trust and of good faith.
It is therefore worthwhile to recall some of
the Ministerial Statements that were made by poorer countries at Seattle. The GRULAC,
Latin American and Caribbean Group of Countries, Minister's declaration expresses:
a) "To the host country, our profound
surprise and resulting anger at the organization and lack of concern for providing the
high dignitaries and delegates attending the Ministerial Conference with minimum
conditions of security, and for allowing in some cases, physical and verbal aggressions
against the distinguished guests.
b) To the authorities of the Conference and
the WTO Director General's Office, our express disagreement with the way in which the
negotiations are being conducted at the Ministerial Conference, a way that shows a
parallel course of action between discourse oriented to transparency and the participation
by the delegations, and a process of limited and reserved participation by some members
which intends to define the scope and extent of the future negotiating round that all
member countries are to adopt. We are particularly concerned over the stated intentions to
produce a ministerial text at any cost, including the modification of producers designed
to secure participation and consensus.
c) To all WTO members, their strong
conviction that, as long as conditions of transparency, openness and participation that
allows for adequately balanced results of the interests of all members do not exist, we
will not join the consensus required to meet the objectives of this Ministerial
Conference." (emphasis mine).
In a similar statement, the Trade Ministers
of the Organization of African Unity, OAU, said much the same thing including: "We
wish to express our disappointment and disagreement with the way in which negotiations are
being conducted at this Third WTO Ministerial Conference. There is no transparency in the
proceedings and African countries are being marginalised and generally excluded on issues
of vital importance for our people and their future. We are particularly concerned over
the stated intentions to produce a ministerial text at any cost, including at the cost of
procedures designed to secure participation and consensus. We reject the approach that is
being employed and we must point out that under the present circumstances, we will not be
able to join the consensus required to meet the objectives of the Ministerial
Conference". (Emphasis mine)
These were by no means statements couched in
diplomatic niceties and the need to allay developing country concerns was accordingly and
increasingly appreciated by richer countries, especially if they were to ensure that the
Fourth WTO Ministerial Conference in Doha, Qatar, did not end as a Seattle-revisited
fiasco.
Pascal Lamy, Member of the European
Commission, enunciated one of the main factors behind the failure in Seattle as being the
perception by less developed countries that their interests were not properly taken into
account.
Commissioner Lamy went on to suggest, "I
believe the time has come to think about a new formulation for our position. We must get
ready to go further towards a position acceptable to less developed countries, as it is
clear that these countries are not yet convinced (about the benefits of a new round)"
(emphasis mine)
The Japanese and the Europeans jointly
acknowledged that building broad support for a round among developing countries would be
difficult without a breakthrough on problems involving implementation of existing trade
agreements, which many poorer WTO members say must be addressed before they can agree to
further trade liberalization talks.
At the same time, despite unambiguous
opposition by developing countries to the launching of a new round of trade negotiations
at Doha, the European Union leaders had met at Sweden and categorically endorsed, "
The launch of an ambitious and balanced new round of multilateral trade negotiations
remains the objective of the Union" (Emphasis mine)
The statement further added, "All WTO
members are urged to work constructively and flexibly to forge concessions in Doha".
Emphasis mine)
Surprisingly Mike Moore, the Director General
of WTO who represents all WTO Members and thus, is expected to maintain strict neutrality,
did not hesitate in trying to persuade developing countries to accept a new round of trade
negotiations. This is particularly telling since the majority of developing countries had
repeatedly expressed their firm opposition to a new round and insisted that in the first
instance, their concern on implementation issues and other lacunae in the URN be addressed
upfront before bringing the new issues. All this once again vitiated the atmosphere even
before the Doha Conference had begun, understandably drawing parallels with the failed
Seattle Conference. The language with which the draft Ministerial Declaration was
dismissed by the developing countries as being totally wanting and unreflective of
developing country concerns is particularly telling in this regard.
Indeed post Seattle saw a swelling in the
ranks of the critics of globalization, both in the developed and developing countries,
albeit for different reasons. In developing countries, die-hard anti-globalization pundits
argued that they had all along pointed out that free trade could never be fair trade since
WTO was essentially a power-based system.
To be continued. Text courtesy: The
author of the article-chief editor.
The French school of
administration opens to the world
-Annik Bianchini, France
At a time when ENA, the French National
School of Administration, an elite college for prospective top civil servants, remains one
of the rare ways of obtaining a position of responsibility by dint of hard work, the
Minister of the Civil Service, who claims to "be receptive to the criticisms of
education", has decided to inject some new blood into the school. By the decree of 9
January, he recently announced the merger between ENA and the International Institute of
Public Administration, IIAP. The new establishment will keep the name of ENA, but will be
more open to the world.
The idea is not new and had already been
considered in 1996. On taking up the matter, the Minister of the Civil Service and of
State Reform, Michel Sapin, today aims to reform education and add courses on "human
resource management, the introduction of changes and group negotiation"'. However,
the main purpose of this overhaul is to admit more foreign students in France and to
broaden the professional horizon of French top civil servants by developing a network of
information and reflection for a better application of innovative practices.
"Co-operating means exchanging, questioning our practices and being open to the
experience of others, to their questions and to the originality of their answers",
Michel Sapin pointed out on presenting the creation of the new establishment which will
continue to be called "ENA".
The Ecole Nationale d'Administration was
created by decree by General de Gaulle on 9 October 1945 in order to provide the French
Republic with competent and honest top civil servants, in the most democratic way
possible. Its entrance exams was based on those of each great state body or ministry. The
young students taking the external exam, most of whom were graduates of the prestigious
Paris Institute of Political Sciences, still rank among the best ENA graduates to the
detriment of other students who passed the internal exam or joined following the
facilities open to civil servants and people with a different professional background.
The course lasts twenty-four months at the
end of which the students graduate and are ranked according to their results. Their ranks
determine whether they are appointed to the area of administration of their choice.
"In the school, the students are ranked as there is no fairer system to assess their
merits. Ranking means anonymity", Marie-France Bechtel, the head of the ENA, replied
to the French daily Le Monde. The number of ENA graduates continued to grow in ministers'
departments, in governments and among executive directors of national enterprises until
the 1980s. Today, 80% of the 4,800 working ENA graduates are in the civil service while
20% have chosen the private sector.
Since it was created in 1966, the
International School of Public Administration has taken in more than 10,000 foreign
students and carried out more than 200 missions in eighty countries. The originality of
the IIAP lay in two characteristics. Firstly, this establishment was totally devoted to
international administrative cooperation. Secondly, it combined very different missions
including training, research and project development. The disappearance of the initials
and the name of the IIAP does not suppress its "internal culture or contribution to
the development of international exchanges between top civil servants", the Minister
of the Civil Service pointed out. To take over from the IIAP, which trained several
hundred foreign civil servants a year, ENA undertakes to improve its intake of foreign
students and the measures applying to the 80 students accepted every year on the
international courses.
The reform, which came into effect on 1
January 2002, has two major aims. Firstly, the idea is to continue the state renovation
plan and to implement a real high-level adult education policy with precise, pluri-annual
aims that can be evaluated. The second important idea, which is continued by drawing the
two schools together, is to create a 'strong, competitive instrument of international
administrative cooperation, adapted to the new realities of the world". Monsieur
Sapin also stressed that his ambition for the new school aims to provide, "a
reinforced international and European dimension to the training of future executives in
the French administration and to improve the admission of a growing number of foreign
civil servants". In this way, the role-played until now by the IIAP in the areas of
research and publication will be consolidated.
ENA owes its historic success to its having
managed to create a modern administration able to lead the country forwards into the
future. It is a high quality administration, which is, at the same time, able to
anticipate the needs of the country, export its know-how, open up to the world and grow
richer through its contact with others. These are the keys to ENA's new impetus. |
