I recently attended the 2008 session of the Parliamentary Conference on the World Trade Organisation. This was in Geneva.
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 no representative or politician from America would be present.
I am firmly of the view 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 vital 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.
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.
I added that so much emphasis is put upon meetings such as Doha, where time constraints and simple fatigue can be factors. 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. Fortunately, I received support for these views from the conference platform chaired, by Mr. Hans-Gert Pottering (President of the European Parliament). I made the plea for simpler and more effective language. Words can facilitate agreements, but can also act as a barrier to progress.
I also stated it was regrettable America was not represented and that they should be encouraged to attend in the future. 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.
The second day was not as impressive in that a number of delegates repeated the points made on the first day. However, the Ukrainian delegation presented me with some beautiful Ukrainian artwork. I rather sheepishly presented them with a House of Lords pen which was the only parliamentary merchandise I happened to have on me. In future I should go better prepared with parliamentary gifts.
A slightly amusing incident occurred when one delegate tried to speak twice in the same session, by offering a different name. 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.
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 Third world can overcome the barriers that 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 that the organisers strengthen this part of the agenda, which I consider vital.
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 now affects the most prosperous nations in the world, may well set back progress post Doha. The danger is that countries of the First world will now become more inward looking, in order to protect their own people. 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.
For comments click here
Comments