|
There are
just 30 days until the 4th WTO Ministerial Conference takes place in
Doha, Qatar. In terms of our preparatory process, this is where the
rubber hits the road.
Ministers
are resolute. They do not want a repeat of the failure of Seattle. Nor
can we pretend this is a routine meeting where Ministers will simply
discuss general economic trends. The context in which Ministers will
meet ensures a decision will be taken, whether positive or negative,
that will have long term implications for the WTO. Failure to get
consensus on a forward work programme will lead many to question the
value of the institution. It could condemn us to a period of
hibernation.
I
have made no secret of my conviction that a new trade round is
necessary. The arguments are compelling and have been made cogently by
many world leaders.
There
is the development argument. 1.2 billion people live on less than $1 a
day; another 1.6 billion people live on less than $2 a day. The first
responsibility lies with Governments — development requires peace,
good governance, sound economic policies, and investment in health
care and education. But the international community can and must help.
Poor countries need to grow their way out of poverty. Trade is a key
engine for growth but currently developing country products face many
obstacles entering rich country markets. By opening these markets, we
can help lift millions of people out of poverty. And the most
effective way to achieve these market openings is by launching a new
round. Put another way, growth through trade can help us reach the UN
Millennium Declaration targets of halving poverty, reversing the
spread of HIV/AIDS, halving the number of people without access to
safe drinking water, and ensuring children have access to primary
education, by 2015.
In
his call for a new round, which must be a development round, at the UN
Conference for Least Developed Countries in Brussels earlier this
year, the UN Secretary-General made a compelling case on behalf of the
UN family. Mr. Annan reminded us that poor countries are caught in a
vicious circle: they need foreign investment but can offer little to
attract such investment. Mr. Annan reminded us too that in order to
break out of the circle, poor countries need to export and need open
markets in which their goods can compete. But those exports face
formidable barriers, both tariffs and non-tariff barriers — hence
the need for a new round. A new round will advance the gift of
opportunity which is all that market access is. We should recall too
the figures. By one study, developing countries would gain $155
billion a year from further trade liberalisation. That is more than
three times the $43 billion they get annually in overseas aid.
There
is the economic argument. If we cut by a third barriers to trade in
agriculture, manufacturing and services, that will 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. If we cut trade barriers completely, that will
boost the world economy by nearly $1.9 trillion: the equivalent
of adding two more Chinas to the world economy. To give another
perspective to the economic argument; OECD agricultural subsidies in
dollar terms are two thirds of Africa's total GDP. Think of the gains
to the global economy if these subsidies were removed. Mr. Annan
wants $10 billion to fight HIV/AIDS; that is just 12 days of subsidies
in dollar terms. Nor can we ignore the fact that the world economy is
looking decidedly vulnerable at present. There is no better way to
address the problems of economic slowdown than by strengthening the
multilateral trading system through new negotiations.
There
is another argument, an historical one, for launching a round.
Liberalization works. The multilateral trading system works. The last
50 years has seen unparalleled prosperity and growth and more has been
done to address poverty in these last 50 years than in the previous
500. Since 1960, child death rates have halved in developing
countries; malnutrition rates have declined by a third; access to safe
water has improved dramatically. While the current UN Millennium
Declaration targets show there is still a long way to go, and we need
to keep in mind that the multilateral trading system is just one
contributor to the progress that has been secured, we should not lose
sight of the fact that the system has proved its worth repeatedly.
Of
course, trade liberalization is just one ingredient in a cocktail of
policies required for development. A new round will do little for a
nation that is torn apart by war or that spends all its export
revenues on weapons. Nor will it be much use if good governance is
missing or crippling debt overhangs. Nor will a round help those
countries who have no domestic capacity or infrastructure to take
advantage of new market access opportunities. Trade liberalization
must, therefore, go hand-in hand with other reforms.
I
believe there is another reason, more fundamental, more profound and
more immediate, why we need a successful meeting next month. This
meeting is a chance for the international community to reaffirm its
commitment to common values of openness, sharing, peaceful exchange
and rule of law rather than rule of the jungle. Leaders and
Governments have long recognised 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. Nor can they deal
in isolation with the threat of international terrorism. Institutions
such as the United Nations, the World Bank, the IMF and the
WTO are expressions of the international community's commitment to
work together. 167 UN Members reaffirmed their commitment to
international cooperation at last week's special UN plenary meetings
on terrorism. There will be further opportunity next month when WTO
Members welcome 1.5 billion people from China and Chinese Taipei into
our rules-based system and also take decisions to determine, in the
coming years, the contribution of the WTO to global economic
development, peace and security.
The
state of the world economy demands that we use the Ministerial
Conference as an opportunity to boost global confidence. The
alternative message would be damaging for jobs everywhere.
Just
2 weeks after the tragic events of 11 September, United States Trade
Representative, Robert Zoellick, made a simple but profound statement
about the importance of continued openness. It bears repeating;
“Let
me be clear where I stand: Erecting new barriers and closing old
borders will not help the impoverished. It will not feed hundreds of
millions struggling for subsistence. It will not liberate the
persecuted. It will not improve the environment in developing
countries or reverse the spread of AIDS. It will not help the
railway orphans I visited in India. It will not improve the
livelihoods of the union members I met in Latin America. It will not
aid the committed Indonesians I visited who are trying to build a
functioning, tolerant democracy in the largest Muslim nation in the
world….”
While
the need for a successful Ministerial Conference is recognised by all
and the arguments in favour of launching a new round are widely
acknowledged, some players remain to be convinced. The divergence of
views is reflected in the current discussions in Geneva and in
capitals. But it is also significant that Members are prepared to
continue talking on the basis of the draft negotiating documents the
Chairman and I recently circulated. They are good documents. Members
realise they represent a good faith effort to bridge gaps that have
existed for years. They also realise these documents are a basis for
moving forward. Much work remains to be done and I am under no
illusions as to the difficulty we face. However, I have seen in recent
days a spirit of cooperation and a realization of the importance of
the task ahead. With hard work and political will, I am convinced
Members can reach consensus.
The
most sensitive areas remain the obvious ones — implementation,
agriculture, environment, Singapore issues such as competition and
investment, and rules. Some of these issues are unlikely to be
resolved before the Ministerial Conference and will require hard
political decision-taking by Ministers. In the meantime, the
preparatory process will continue to focus on reducing the number of
differences and narrowing positions on the key issues so that
Ministers, hopefully, can put the finishing touches to our forward
work programme at the Ministerial meeting.
The
concerns of all players — rich and poor, large and small — must be
addressed, but with a sense of realism. It is true some imbalances
exist in the trading system. But the only way the system can be
adjusted and the imbalances addressed is in a wider process of
negotiation. It is true that many of the expected benefits of the
previous round are yet to materialise for some Members. But it serves
the interests of no one to delay further trade liberalization until
all previous expectations are delivered upon. It also runs the risk
that frustrated key players will turn away from the multilateral
process in favour of bilateral and regional trade deals. It is true
some poorer countries are marginalized from the trading system. But
this situation will not change by opting for the status quo. That is
just yesterday's compromise. It is true that some rules embodied in
the WTO system may need updating so they reflect current economic
reality. But all of the rules of our system are the product of past
negotiation and can only be changed through further negotiation.
Members want to see the momentum of the negotiations in agriculture
and services sustained. But that can only happen in the WTO and in a
process that allows for wider trade-offs.
I
have said this many times before, but it is still true: what is in
question is the launching of negotiations, not their conclusion. The
agenda must be balanced and fair, and the principle of consensus must
ensure the outcome is acceptable to all Members. All this is possible.
France
has real interests in an effectively functioning multilateral trading
system. To give some examples: In 1999, more than 40 percent of French
GDP was related to trade in goods; France exported 7 percent of this
GDP to non-EC countries and 14 percent to EC Member-states. Annual
flows of inward and outward foreign direct investment represent
roughly 9 percent and 12 percent of trade flows. France is the second
largest agricultural exporter in the world. Since the conclusion of
the Uruguay Round, France has increased its exports. Through new
negotiations, additional market access opportunities will be created.
Further liberalization of developing country markets and China in
particular should also result in significant gains. As the world's
third largest exporter of services, France is also a major beneficiary
of our Services Agreement with great interest in further
liberalization in this area. In 2000, France exported commercial
services worth US77 billion.
The
4th WTO Ministerial Conference is an opportunity for Ministers to
reinvigorate our processes, boost global economic confidence and
strengthen the multilateral trading system. It is a chance to affirm
the importance of the rules-based system governing trade amongst
nations. It is a chance for all Members to participate in a process
that is win-win and promises benefits for all. |
