ࡱ> MON f5bjbj )Jjj?-)lFFF"h8 $> $xn ( " oqqqqqq$h       o o #o b @]@pFJv ;o0C,v |o ϲʹ PUBLIC SYMPOSIUM ϲʹ after 10 years (GATT at 57): Global problems and multilateral solutions PARLIAMENTARY PANEL 22 April 2005, 10 a.m. 12.30 p.m. Room CR 1, ϲʹ The Future of the ϲʹ - The ϲʹ at 10: The perceived loss of "sovereignty" due to ϲʹ accords: should parliamentarians be concerned? Discussion Points by Ambassador Anthony Hill The headline of this symposium identifies global problems as our pressing concern. Their solutions apparently are considered to be amenable to joint action by governments in the GATT/ϲʹ, the pre-eminent multilateral trade institution. How widely defined is global? We should identify these problems, or risk pretending that the trading system is capable of solving deep social alienation and structural poverty beyond its capacity. As a system, described as open and multilateral since its inception in 1948, the GATT has progressively reduced border measures and brought gains from trade to the citizens of its contracting parties, and to the wider community of countries trading through markets. There is a record of demonstrable benefit. New Members seek through accession, to be full participants in this system. Todays system with the majority of developing countries has some markedly different features from the post WW II order. As the institution at the centre of the system, the GATT, and its constitutional successor, the ϲʹ, was and remains a quintessentially intergovernmental organisation. Through national autonomous and multilateral joint action, rules are made and exchanges are regulated in based on principles and common objectives. These are forged into agreements in treaty form and in a network of inter-related mutual rights and obligations. Parliaments ratified the negotiated agreements as appropriate to each countrys constitutional arrangements. Mostly their roles were subordinate to the executive, except in the instance of the United States Congress (Parliament), which exercises its authority over international trade with great care, pressing for the opening of foreign markets, protecting sectors and industries, and engaging in protectionist practices. All at one and the same time, as all other contracting parties have done. The ϲʹ is variously referred to as the system, institution and organisation in the same context. More often it is understood to be the organisation. The distinction is important and should be observed, especially when considering the nature of the problem and the scope of the reforms. GATTs interim 50 year existence ended in 1995 with the establishment of the ϲʹ as its constitutional successor, its coexistent body of rules and GATTs subordination to ϲʹ Agreements, in those instances where there were conflicting interpretations, and its permanent organisational replacement. The head of the ϲʹ is an appointed Director General and a Secretariat of international civil servants supporting many bodies composed of Members, that is, representatives of governments, overseeing the implementation of the Agreements. There is more complexity to this brief description. For instance, the members of the Appellate Body are appointed by the Members and are not Secretariat staff. They constitute the third leg of what is considered the model of representative democracies, namely, a judicial branch. Importantly, Article XVI of the Marrakech Agreement required that Members domestic laws, regulations and procedures had now to be in conformity with ϲʹ Agreements. So we have the executive of Members, serviced by its bureaucracy of the Secretariat and a judiciary of Panels and more importantly an Appellate Body to make findings of law and rulings on the application of the Agreements. What is missing? Missing is the first leg of the constitutional triad of representative, democratic institutions, a plenary body that exercises oversight; the check and balance to executive power and the peoples champion. The separation of powers is a central constitutional principle. It is breached almost daily in the ϲʹ. The General Council is the plenary, the executive, and the judiciary on any given day acting in accordance with the powers set out in the Marrakech Agreement. Is this a major democratic deficit? If it is considered so, can it be remedied? Can a consensus be corralled to make the constitutional change? What would be the nature of that change? There have been suggestions (probably more in the nature of insistent demands) that civil society can fill this gap. If so, which members of civil society? How democratic are they likely to be? What would their role, or more accurately roles be, given that civil society are presently organised as highly focussed issue advocacy groups? In simple words are civil society groups capable of exercising legitimate sovereign functions? Can they check executive power, except in specific and circumscribed circumstances - and only at national level? If not civil society, then who or what? The institution of Parliament or parliamentarians in ad hoc groupings? A clear unequivocal answer that will meet no objection is Parliament in each national jurisdiction. Were that so in conditions of genuine representative elections, would that be sufficient, or will it be necessary to supplement national parliamentary oversight by a ϲʹ Parliamentary dimension? Is a Parliamentary Assembly necessary, and if so, feasible? Parliamentarians of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) and the European Parliament have considered these issues for some time. They have organised a Parliamentary Conference on the ϲʹ, adopted Declarations on the policy issues being negotiated and have engaged in outreach activities. Their main objectives are to oversee ϲʹ activities as to effectiveness and fairness; strengthening the procedures of transparency; and deepening Parliaments understanding to be better able to exercise their oversight functions, and balance national interests in the light of risks to the less well organised in their societies. The Parliamentary Conference is concerned that multilateralism is under threat and that there needs to be much greater coherence between trade policy and other public policy choices. The Parliamentarians represented here have reflected their views and I need not enlarge on them. For fuller information, please consult  HYPERLINK "http://www.ipu.org" www.ipu.org. Parallel to the ϲʹ parliamentary initiative is a similar exercise in the Bretton Woods Institutions. The BWI initiative consists of mobilising, with the support of several effective civil society organisations, an International Parliamentarians Petition for Democratic Oversight of IMF and World Bank Policies. Their concern is to restore sovereignty to the parliaments of developing countries that are in some kind of relationship with these institutions. For information about this, please consult  HYPERLINK "http://www.IPPinfo.org" www.IPPinfo.org In considering and answering these questions it would be a constructive contribution to the sometimes heated conversation, if a set of fairly specific issues could be identified for follow-up. In another presentation to the panel on Transparency and Participation in the National Trade Policy Process I suggested that when participation, transparency and accountable decision-making are practised nationally, it finds fertile ground in representative multilateral bodies. These are in essence, ethical, social operational principles that are more likely to yield the balance of benefits that governments and their traders expect from the GATT/ϲʹ. They ought not to pit trade liberalisation which has full employment, sustainable development and the optimum use of the worlds resources and differential and more favourable treatment for developing countries against national development imperatives of general welfare social and economic policies. I recall that at the launch of the Uruguay Round in 1986, a good number of both developed and developing countries were in favour of a systemic review of the GATT multilateral trading system. It was termed Functioning of the GATT System (FOGS). This naturally elicited a good deal of humor from those who felt that this was premature, if not unnecessary, and that it as all very foggy. The topic soon disappeared from the negotiating set of issues even as we engaged in negotiations on Trade in Services undertaken by Ministers under the aegis of GATT. By the time the negotiations climaxed in 1994, the major trading partners were ready for a bold departure. The World Trade Organisation (ϲʹ) was established, bearing a close resemblance to, but not identical to the smothered-at-conception International Trade Organisation (ITO) of the 1940s. The ϲʹ encompassed Services and Intellectual Property in addition to Goods and the binding Dispute Settlement Understanding, all of which have moved quite decisively into national policy making. It excluded employment policies and turned business practices into Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), much to the detriment of newcomers in the process of capital formation based on information and its use. Labour, a factor of production was less well protected at home and restrained from moving across borders, even as capital (financial and intellectual), another factor of production was given freer rein to roam far and wide and strong protection. Are the arguments favouring the dismantlement of the GATT/ϲʹ multilateral trading well founded, and are they gaining ground? Is the present multilateral system irredeemable? On the other hand, are the shortcomings increasingly being accepted and forcing the pace of reforms? What kind of future is in store for the ϲʹ? Are proposals for institutional and organisational changes long called for likely or will they suffer the same fate as the calls for reform of the international financial and monetary system? What can Parliamentarians do to help shape multilateral solutions to global problems? In a recent report offered up for consideration, some limited additional parliamentary involvement is proposed as a contribution. More seems to be expected from a so-called strengthening of the organisation. What warrants such an expectation from a beefed-up bureaucracy? The Director General, Dr. Supachai Panitchpakdi has urged serious reflection on how to improve our functioning while safeguarding the strengths of this institution in response to the diagnoses of the origin and state of the fundamental tensions facing the institution. (Emphasis added). Note the use of the word institution further underlined by the Director General the essential purpose is to examine the functioning of the institution, consider how well equipped it is to discharge its functions, and serve as a basis for reflection in the months ahead. The eight eminent men, no women, were focussed on the long-term future of the ϲʹ but steered clear of commenting on the Doha Development Agenda and offered in the words of the chair, Mr. Peter Sutherland - realizable reforms rather than more substantial changes as the centre piece of its report on the future of the organization. (Emphasis added). Note that in the Conclusions of the Report, the largest number of proposals are made for organizational changes with the intention of enhancing the performance of the ϲʹ by more intensive political involvement and so secure political reinforcement and efficient process. K. G. A. Hill 22 April 2005  Article VIII - Status of the ϲʹ The ϲʹ shall have legal personality, and shall be accorded by each of its Members such legal capacity as may be necessary for the exercise of its functions.  At their November 2004 session in Brussels, the parliamentarians called on all ϲʹ Members to include members of Parliament in their official delegations to the 6th ϲʹ Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong, 8-13 December 2005.  At the same session, the parliamentarians urged the inclusion of the following sentence in their Declaration Transparency of the ϲʹ should be enhanced by associating parliaments more closely with the activities of the ϲʹϒ. Note the proposals of the Consultative Board for more experts, senior officials, ministers and even summits of world leaders.  Foreword to the Report by the Consultative Board, The Future of the ϲʹ Addressing institutional challenges in the new millennium, ϲʹ, 2005  Mr. Peter Sutherland, chair of the Consultative Board in his Preface to the Report.     -  PAGE 2 - PAGE  cey4ac$ +  B N O P ŸծգՑp^p^p^p^p^p^F^p/j0J6CJOJQJU\^JaJmH sH "6CJOJQJ\^JaJmH sH CJOJQJ\^JaJmH sH !5>*CJOJQJ\aJmH sH "5CJOJQJ\^JaJmH sH OJQJaJmH sH 5OJQJmH sH CJOJQJaJmH sH 6CJOJQJ]aJmH sH 5OJQJ\aJmH sH CJOJQJaJmH sH 5CJOJQJ\aJmH sH cdey234abc   $^`a$$ & F ^`a$$a$?1<5e5 /0{| "?@APQS< +!,!޵ޠވvޠ^v޵.jCJOJQJU\^JaJmH sH #0JCJOJQJ\^JaJmH sH .jCJOJQJU\^JaJmH sH (jCJOJQJU\^JaJmH sH ,j0JCJOJQJU\^JaJmH sH "5CJOJQJ\^JaJmH sH CJOJQJ\^JaJmH sH "6CJOJQJ\^JaJmH sH $xy<=ef=>!"RS ##?%@%) $^`a$$ & F ^`a$,! ####>%@%))**X*f*j*x*q,r,T----..////g0}0!1"1#1>1?1@1A1a1e1222ݦ~l~gmH sH "5CJOJQJ\^JaJmH sH CJOJQJ\^JaJmH sH  j0JU!6CJOJQJ\]aJmH sH CJOJQJ\aJmH sH ,j0JCJOJQJU\^JaJmH sH "6CJOJQJ\^JaJmH sH "5CJOJQJ\^JaJmH sH CJOJQJ\^JaJmH sH ())**r,s,.."1#111?122T44;5<5>5?5A5B5D5E5G5H5$ & F ^`a$ $^`a$22222T4U4V444$5;5<5=5?5@5B5C5E5F5H5J5K5Q5R5S5T5W5X5Y5Z5`5a5b5e5f5CJOJQJ\aJmH sH 0J j0JU CJOJQJ0JCJOJQJmHnHuj0JCJOJQJU0JCJOJQJ jUmH sH  j0JUH*#H5X5Y5b5c5d5e5f5&`#$$a$' 0&P 1h. A!"#$%DyK  www.ipu.orgyK (http://www.ipu.org/DyK www.IPPinfo.orgyK 0http://www.ippinfo.org/ i<@< NormalCJ_HaJmH nHsH tH2A@2 Police par dfaut@U@@ Lien hypertexte7>*S*Y(ph3B@B Note de bas de pageCJaJB&@B Appel note de bas de p.H*@"@  Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJ8 @28  Pied de page  !,)@A, Numro de page.@R. En-tte  9r N {+)+f1f1Jcdey234abc  xy<=ef=>!"RS ?!@!%%&&r(s(**"-#-1-?-..T00;1<1>1A1D1G1X1g10000000000000 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0000@0@0@0@0@0 0@0@0@0@0@0 0 ((((+,!2f5!#)H5f5 "$e5@Pf1XX$+!!px%%**?-<1<1>1>1?1?111111111?-<1<1>1>1?1?1A1B1D1E1G1H1J1T1W1d1g1SergueiJP:\MAIN\SPLZCONF\Trade05\WTO Symposium\Miscel\Discussion points A.Hill.docZpZLh ^`5hH.h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.Z-        @>->-(>->-f1`@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z ArialC& ZapfHumnst BTG5  hMS Mincho-3 fg5& z!Tahoma"1h O%O0'S!0d-."-2QHXbWTO PUBLIC SYMPOSIUM  WTO after 10 years (GATT at 57): Global problems and multilateral solutions Anthony HillSergueiOh+'0 0<H\ lx    cϲʹ PUBLIC SYMPOSIUM ϲʹ after 10 years (GATT at 57): Global problems and multilateral solutionsTO  Anthony HillMPOnthnth Normal.dotlSerguei6rgMicrosoft Word 9.0M@H'@hMF@.*LF@tpFO%՜.+,D՜.+,\ hp  ; Reflexion GroupuO- cϲʹ PUBLIC SYMPOSIUM ϲʹ after 10 years (GATT at 57): Global problems and multilateral solutions Titre  8@ _PID_HLINKSA s;http://www.ippinfo.org/|?http://www.ipu.org/  !"#$%'()*+,-/012345679:;<=>?ABCDEFGJRoot Entry FPpFLData &1Table.WordDocument)JSummaryInformation(8DocumentSummaryInformation8@CompObjjObjectPoolPpFPpF  FDocument Microsoft Word MSWordDocWord.Document.89qRoot Entry F`د]SData &1Table.WordDocument)J  !"#$%'()*+,-/012345679:;<=>?RQP TitreT@, _PID_HLINKS_AdHocReviewCycleID_EmailSubject _AuthorEmail_AuthorEmailDisplayNameA s;http://www.ippinfo.org/|?http://www.ipu.org/(Public Symposium - workshop 18 speechesBernard.Kuiten@wto.orgKuiten, BernardSummaryInformation(8DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjjObjectPoolPpFPpF  FDocument Microsoft Word MSWordDocWord.Document.89q՜.+,D՜.+,\ hp  ; Reflexion GroupuO- cϲʹ PUBLIC SYMPOSIUM ϲʹ after 10 years (GATT at 57): Global problems and multilateral solutions