Delegation Reports
2008 Session of the Parliamentary Conference on the WTO, Geneva.
11 to12 September 2008
Report by Lord Taylor of Warwick
Lord Paul of Marylebone and I attended the conference. I understand that Lord Paul has been to it in previous years - for me, this was a first experience.
The written conclusions of the conference have been circulated by the IPU Secretary-General Anders Johnsson. I do not intend to repeat those conclusions. My report is restricted to my personal observations.
The conference was attended by 245 Members of Parliament, from 87 different countries. There were also officials and observers from various international organisations in attendance.
I wondered whether this was going to be another “talking shop” or a genuine attempt to further progress the failed Doha Round trade discussions.
I looked around the hall at the impressive list of signboards, bearing the names of the various countries attending. The name card for America was missing.
By this time, I had met the very helpful Julian Metcalfe from the British Mission in Geneva. Together, at my request, we marched back to the conference information desk to check whether any representative from America would be present. They confirmed that America was not represented.
I believe that no realistic progress can be made concerning trade negotiations without the participation and support of America. We must remember that the Doha discussions ultimately collapsed partly because of disagreements between India and America. The important issue of cotton was not even discussed.
However, I took the view that the time would be usefully spent in exploring how we should proceed with a post Doha agenda. This was the major theme of the conference.
During the morning session, Lord Paul made the excellent point that we live in a global economy and that global poverty cannot be addressed by one or only a few countries.
He emphasised the collective challenge involved. He stressed that we must not give up finding a solution to a global partnership for world trade.
In the afternoon session, we were asked the question: “What lessons could we learn from the failure of the Doha agreement?”
I made the point that as parliamentarians, we must adopt language that the modern world understands.
Often the wording of agreements, such as those made in the Uruguay Round, lies more in the nineteenth century than the twenty-first century. We must remember that we are trying to improve the daily lives of ordinary people. Words can be bridges or barriers to trade agreements.
I added that so much emphasis is put upon meetings such as Doha, where time constraints and simple fatigue can be factors.
Yet we live in the internet age where trade is increasingly done by e-commerce.
So, in addition to highly intense meetings such as Doha, we should embrace the communication advantages of the internet more, since time is of the essence. Global warming and other environmental factors have made time of the essence.
I received support for these views from the panellists on the conference platform, chaired by Mr Hans-Gert Pottering, President of the European Parliament. I added that it was regrettable America was not represented and that they should be encouraged to attend in the future.
Mr Anders Johnsson publicly stated what he had mentioned to me informally, before the session had started. He said that America had not attended because it was not officially a member of the IPU.
However, he added that America was represented at full WTO level.
Whilst I accept this, if America can be persuaded to attend the WTO at parliamentary level in the future, this can only benefit our common cause.
I know from American friends, who are Senators and Congressmen, that they feel under political pressure to adopt a rigid American-centric view of the world.
But the world is changing. China and India are fast becoming dominant players in the world economy. They had very full representation at the conference and were very vocal.
America needs to understand that a global agreement can be of benefit to America and not to its detriment.
The highlight of the day was when WTO Director General Pascal Lamy spoke. He said: “My sense today is that there is scope for renewed engagement over the coming weeks. Key players told me they were ready to give it another try.
“If we cannot complete the Doha Round by the end of the year, let us aim to complete these modalities that would take us 80-90% of the way in 2008, so as to conclude the Doha Round in 2009.”
Mr Lamy is a very sophisticated and genial man who has the people skills to keep the flame of Doha alive.
At the reception in the evening, I made contact and friends with other delegates. This gave me the opportunity for an informal, but valuable, sharing of ideas. In particular, I talked with delegates from Jamaica, Canada, France, India and the Ukraine. The Ukrainians had only recently joined the IPU. Their enthusiasm for the process was inspiring. I shall continue to strengthen these links made.
The second day was not as impressive, in that a number of delegates repeated the points made on the first day.
A rather amusing incident occurred when one delegate tried to speak twice in the same session, by offering a different name the second time. However, the Chairman was alert to this because he recognised his face. He reprimanded the delegate for not obeying the rules. This moment did provide much mirth amongst the other delegates.
Lord Paul made another excellent intervention. He asked the panel to isolate the real reasons for the failure of the Doha discussions. I was not convinced he received a clear answer. My opinion is that Doha failed not because of technical trade issues, but because of global politics.
The session that I really looked forward to was in the afternoon. It was entitled Trade in the Era of the Digital Revolution.
This is very much about the future and where our attention should be focused, post Doha. I believe that information technology is one way in which the developing world can overcome some of the barriers it has faced historically, in trying to trade with the rest of the world.
But the three main speakers in this session were frankly disappointing. For next year’s conference, I hope the organisers strengthen this vital part of the agenda.
I thoroughly enjoyed the conference. I learned a lot about the issues involved and possible ways forward. But even since the Geneva Conference, the world has changed dramatically. The banking crisis, which threatens a possible global recession, may well set back progress post Doha.
The danger is that countries of the developed world will now become more inward looking, in order to protect their own economies.
So the message needs to be even louder and more clear:
The way forward is not national protectionism, but global co-operation. As far as trade is concerned, the world can supply our need but not our greed.
|
