Examination of witnesses (Questions (100
- 119)
TUESDAY 7 MARCH 2000
MR MIKE
MOORE and MR
PATRICK LOW
100. That sounds like quite a difficult trick
to pull.
(Mr Moore) I think it is quite impossible but we have
to try.
Mr Rowe
101. We have been told that for example 96 out
of the 111 members of the US delegation negotiating on intellectual
property rights were from private companies. That raises a very
big issue right across the board. To whom are the private companies
accountable? Do they pay their own fare? It just seems to me a
very difficult and dangerous situation. It means of course also
that impoverished countries might well feel that this was one
way of solving some of their resource problems, to get some of
the bigger companies operating in their country to come as their
negotiators. Does the WTO take a view on that?
(Mr Moore) I do not think we have a view. Who governments
believe should represent them is governments' decision. Some governments
list some NGOs to sit alongside them or trade unionists or whoever
they decide is a member of their delegation is their business.
It is not our duty or our responsibility to tell governments who
they have on their missions. I can see what you are saying. It
contracts out quite neatly. It would be leaner.
Chairman: That comes to the question
of capacity which we are going to come on to and that is the capacity
of developing countries to have sufficient advice and detailed
knowledge to negotiate these issues.
Mr Robathan
102. You have been discussing preparation. One
of the things put to us by several ambassadors from developing
countries is that they felt they understood the concept of the
Green Rooms but they did not know what was going on and they did
not know who was having a meeting, where and whatever. Would you
like to comment on that because I do not think your organisation
is in a position to organise those meetings but there seems to
be some lack of co-ordination.
(Mr Moore) I think you are right. In some areas there
was but there was not feedback to the various groups. We tried
this triangulation strategy which I told you about, of trying
to get everybody in a group with someone to report to them. Where
there were these groups that had a history, had a culture, like
CEFTA, and I think that worked, but where they did not all hell
broke loose. There are a lot of technical things that we can do
better, obviously. There is the view that unless you are exhausted
and throwing up you have not done a good job, which I find quite
bizarre, some of our work habits. Of course it would not happen
in the Commons, would it? All of us manage our lives and businesses
in strange ways that outsiders could not understand.
Chairman
103. You will be interested to hear that we
were discussing this issue in Malawi two weeks ago and we were
in the presence of the American ambassador, and she said, "The
official line is that the Seattle Conference was a great success",
so I thought you would like to know that.
(Mr Moore) That is why we are welcome back, I am sure.
Ann Clwyd
104. The memory I have of this meeting in Geneva
with the ambassadors was that they felt really excluded, really
incensed by the whole process. You talk about technical things.
They said for instance that when they sat at a table there was
not enough room to set out their papers and they fell off. They
said that at least there should be a minimum space in which people
should be able to work. They talked about meetings going on through
the night and decisions being taken at three o'clock in the morning
and then finding that the decision of the meeting was left in
their pigeonholes perhaps at about 10 or 11 o'clock the following
day, and they felt they would have liked to be around and be able
to respond to those very late night meetings, and so the feeling
that I was left with was that they felt alienated by the whole
process and very critical of those kinds of arrangements.
(Mr Moore) Excuse me, some of those who were in the
room were critical. One sight I will not forget is of a minister
on a cellphone talking to a radio station complaining about transparency
while being in the meeting. There was a little bit of political
posturing going on. There are some myths that have come out of
Seattle: that there were no African countries in the room (there
were six or seven); that there were no developing countries (there
was a majority). I must not say it like this because I am sounding
far too defensive. A lot of those complaints are true, just on
management. More toilets would be useful. Why not overhead projectors?
There are all sorts of technical ways we could have managed it
better. But there were myths that came out of it. For example,
the Africa Group was meeting and I went along to it and we had
a deputy who went to them all. At one point the sound systems
went off, and this was accused of being an American/WTO plot.
Why would anyone turn the sound system off? There are a lot of
logistical, management things that could be done better
Barbara Follett
105. What are the prospects for an early launch
of a new Round and is any new Round likely to restrict itself
to the "in-built agenda" which includes the liberalisation
of agriculture and services and implementation of Uruguay commitments,
or is there still support for a broad Round which includes issues
such as environmental and labour standards?
(Mr Moore) As I said earlier, everybody keeps saying
they want a Round, but I do not believe so far there has been
enough flexibility shown for me to have any confidence that if
I called ministers together something would happen in the short
term. It is again the word "flexibility". Everybody
is calling on the other side to be flexible. Will Europe or the
US take labour off the agenda? Not likely. They believe deeply
in it. Will developing countries take off the agenda their issues
that cause controversy and difficulty in the north, like textiles?
Not likely. My statement is that it is possible. I am not a betting
person but it depends whether I am in a good mood or not or jet
lagged. When I am in a good mood I will say we have got a 15 to
20 per cent chance of doing it this year. When I am in a negative
mood I say we have an 80 per cent chance of not doing it. There
will be a Round. The question is when.
106. So there is a slight chance that there
will be a Round?
(Mr Moore) There is still a chance. I know Commissioner
Lamy. I know your own Government. I know Charlene Barshefsky,
USTR. These people are working hard. Can they get it closer? Will
we be able to convince them that there is enough in implementation
and other areas for developing countries to come on board? I have
been to India, I have been to a number of developing countries
talking to them. There is a core group and varying groups of developing
country ministers who are in constant contact with each other,
with me, seeing if we can stitch this thing up, but I have got
to be truthful. We are still too far apart on a number of areas.
Will Europe be prepared not to push investment any further? This
will cause controversy with developing countries.
107. So what you are really saying is that the
narrower the agenda the easier it would be?
(Mr Moore) If everybody took off the issue of controversy,
yes, it would be easy, but then of course there would be nothing
to do.
108. Would they have anything to discuss?
(Mr Moore) Everything is controversial.
109. Would it be effective?
(Mr Moore) Excuse me, you asked about the in-built
agenda. We are beginning to work on the in-built agenda now. Agriculture
and services are slowly working their way through. That work would
not be lost if there were a Round. You just absorb that snail-like
progress.
110. Would you prefer the reforms, as you mention
in your papers and which Pascal Lamy mentions in his speech, to
be already in train before you set up another Round?
(Mr Moore) I think you do it simultaneously. I do
not think the reforms will ever finish because these systemic
issues are going to be with us for ever. I do not think we should
wait on a new Round until we get enough political scientists to
work out the most brilliant model. We should not wait; we should
not allow that to be used as an excuse to escape our core function,
our core business, which is trade.
111. Is there anything that the big players
could do to support you in your efforts to get a new Round, for
example, the United States or the European Union, aside from the
controversial things on the agenda?
(Mr Moore) I do not think any country should be asked
to remove anything. It is every country's right to have strong
views. I have them myself. You and I have probably made a good
living out of having strong views. It is the nature of politics.
What can they do? I think we could build confidence with developing
the least developed countries if there was a generous attitude
to market access issues, if there was a generous attitude to technical
assistance, if there was sensitivity shown to developing countries'
problems with implementation issues. These are real issues and
honourable men and women from developing countries say, "How
can I accept new obligations when the truth is I cannot digest
the ones I have got? It is not because I am a bad guy. It is not
because I do not believe it is good for my country. I just cannot
absorb it." What can we do to help them? It may be Customs
valuation, it may be computers, it may be training Customs officers,
it could be a course.
112. Can I ask if there is anything more in
this area that you feel the United Kingdom could be doing?
(Mr Moore) I think your Government has been very supportive
of the WTO. Clare Short has been generous. I think your Government
has done a good job. I just think we should use this word "flexibility"
more.
113. What is the WTO's assessment of who would
be the major gainers and losers from a comprehensive Round? How
would this compare with a narrow Round focussing on the in-built
agenda of agricultural services?
(Mr Moore) It is hard to quantify but I believe that
if there were a successful Round that was open the developing
countries would get the biggest lift if you are talking textiles,
agriculture, these sorts of issues. It is in the interests of
developing countries the most. There have been some who have said,
"Why do we have Rounds? We have in fact freed up more business
between Rounds than during the Rounds." Why have a Round?
I think the Round is the opportunity for the smaller guy to lever
back. Otherwise we would just be peeling off the easy parts of
the onion and the core, most difficult, subjects, which are sensitive,
like agriculture and textiles for the nations of the north, will
remain there.
Chairman
114. You have already mentioned that the negotiations
are already under way to bridge the gaps or at least discuss the
gaps between, for example, the United States and the European
Union. Pascal Lamy made a speech in Washington only recently.
To what extent does this informal process discriminate against
those countries who lack a presence in Geneva or who lack the
capacity and the means to become involved in the process? Is this
not informal discussion really excluding the least developed countries
and the countries with less capacity, smaller budgets to travel
to and from Washington, with officials who are up to date with
the discussions?
(Mr Moore) It does, but that is inevitable. Coming
from New Zealand we would see that all the time in regard to WTO
and our post in Geneva is one of our most senior posts, but unless
the transatlantic relationship is strong and people are listening
there will be nothing in it for the rest of us. You are right
about the capacity of smaller countries. We have had about 30
of our membership that do not have the resources even to have
a mission in Geneva and, thanks to the British Government, the
Dutch Government and the Swiss Government, we were able for the
first time to organise a seminar for non-residents, not only representatives
but someone from capitals. This builds the capacity but as you
build the capacity you also build the frustration to organise
for the first time free air tickets for some people to go to Seattle.
That raises expectations and, as you know, the gap between expectation
and delivery is anger, cynicism and disenchantment. We can do
more. We are now working on some ideas of how to stretch the resources
we have in Geneva to provide better back-up facilities for the
non-residents. I had breakfast with all the local London-based
people yesterday. In Brussels I have been to the ACP several times
and was the first DG ever to go to the G77 and the OAU and so
on. We are trying. We keep trying.
Mr Worthington
115. I think everybody agrees that there needs
to be institutional reform and you are probably the leading proponent
of that. What are your chapter headings as it were for institutional
reform? What are the dimensions of the WTO activities to which
you need a solution?
(Mr Moore) It is a matter of great controversy inside
our house, issues of reform. We are looking at internal transparency.
Many governments feel we should be doing work on external transparency.
We have not come to that yet but we have a mandate to start on
internal transparency. That is the process to bring consultations.
That is the release of documents. That is how we can ourselves
be more efficient internally and more transparent internally.
Our rules are such that one government can stop anything happening.
For example, on issues of publication there is one government
that feels very strongly about not letting some papers go public.
Everyone else says, "Why not?" They just feel very strongly
about it. Our chapter headings are the Council, the process, the
Green Room. The Green Room should be used very sparingly—it
is an awful phrase anyway. In terms of the structure of the staff
in my office, I am at last now focusing on things I should have
done six months ago just in our own office. We do not run a cabinet
system. We will because that is my background. That is happening
now. I own that part of it, not the Council. It is interesting,
the battle between members of Council. It is very Parliament,
is it not, always the battle between the executive, the representatives,
the committee, the rank and file, that struggle is going on?
116. One area you have not mentioned is the
area of dispute resolution where it has been put to us that where
you have got disagreements between countries, particularly between
the developed and the developing countries, that the traditional
western or northern way of resolving disputes whereby you bring
lawyers into it and it takes ages and ages is a way of beating
the poorer countries into submission.
(Mr Moore) This is another reason why we are disappointed
that we did not get it launched because under the implementation
there are a whole series of ideas that developing countries have
put up to improve that system. Do not forget our system is pretty
new; we are five years old. Despite all that and despite the odd
transatlantic battle our dispute systems, I think, have done a
pretty good job. People are bound by them. There has never been
a question of integrity. There has never been a question of honour.
Everyone has complained about the results but in the main people
have accepted them and considering the amount of business that
flows around the world under these rules it is surprising how
few disputes we have. Legal systems are great but unless you have
a legal aid system the poorest can be left out. There is a legal
advisory centre being established. I believe the British Government
have put some money into it and that will be of some assistance
to smaller countries to use the dispute systems. That is where
we can be of service.
117. Can I take that a little bit further? In
the submissions for reform how are the developing countries organising
that if you have got proposals for reform coming in from the LDCs
as well as from the big players?
(Mr Moore) We have invited them and I do not know
how many we have received yet. The dispute system reform would
normally be part of the negotiation. If there had been a Seattle
Round we would have been talking agriculture. The first time we
had small island economies, indigenous people, dispute system,
it would have been a widely balanced scenario.
Ann Clwyd
118. Mr Moore, listening to what you have been
saying, have there been any significant changes in attitudes between
the main players since the collapse of the Seattle Conference?
Is there anything significant you can point to?
(Mr Moore) Yes. I think as a value judgement that
a number of ministers have realised the danger of failure, that
this trading system with all its imperfections has driven the
best living standards, the most secure trading system that we
have had in the last 50 years in most continents, in most societies.
We keep forgetting that living standards have improved and I think
there was a bit of a gasp after Seattle that, "Hell, we did
not want to kick it to death. We just wanted to slap it around
a bit." There is enormous potential of "if we fail again".
I think that on personal levels, I had just been appointed, there
were some ministers who had just been appointed, people are getting
on better. That is the first step, being friends and having confidence
to let your guard down occasionally. I think there has been a
change since Seattle.
Mr Rowe
119. There are proposals around for what I call
the House of Commons Library solution, that there should be a
serious neutral resource available to any country but clearly
manifestly for the countries of least resource. I just wondered
how that was going to be progressed if it is going to be progressed.
The second thing is that one of the most shocking things we heard
when we were in Malawi was that people's per diem, senior
civil servants' and ministers' per diem, paid normally
by international organisations for going to conferences, going
to Seattle, going wherever, was six times their monthly salary,
with the result that in these countries which have very thin bureaucracies
the whole emphasis is to get yourself out of your own country
in order to enjoy the per diem. I just wondered whether
the World Trade Organisation has any comment on that and whether
there is anything we can do. It links to the idea of having a
permanent resource which is accessible to other countries.
(Mr Moore) The idea of having permanent resources
is a good one. We have this modest legal advisory service. We
are working in other areas. I have not reported on the work with
the bank. I would welcome that. That would be very useful. The
World Trade Organisation does not pay anyone to go to Seattle.
The host governments and others paid for it.
|
