Newsweek | August 13, 2001
Newsweek's Christopher Dickey speaks with the head of the World Trade Organization, Mike Moore
Never mind the business suit; Mike Moore has the look of a brawler. That may be a useful attribute for the head of the World Trade Organization these days. The 52-year-old former construction worker and meatpacker made his way through the ranks of union organizers and the Labour Party to become New Zealand's prime minister. In 1999 he took the post of WTO director general--three months before the Battle of Seattle. As protests raged against globalization, WTO member states tried and failed to start a new round of trade talks. This November, in Doha, Qatar, they'll try again. NEWSWEEK's Christopher Dickey talked with Moore last week at WTO headquarters about the prospects of success and the risks of failure. Excerpts:
DICKEY: If there's a single organization cast as the villain by the foes of globalization, it's yours.
MOORE: Globalization's a trite phrase. A slogan. It's not a policy declared by the WTO or the gnomes of Zurich, or rich people in Davos. It's a process. In fact, many historians argue that trade is a lower percentage of world GNP now than 100 years ago. [The WTO is] 142 members driven by consensus. Everybody has to agree, and then, once governments have agreed, we have this unique mechanism [for arbitration and appeal]... This is where the little guy has some chance. And a lot of people out there think, 'Well, wait a minute, why don't we [include] indigenous rights, human rights, animal rights, other things?' But we can't handle that. We'd become a very dangerous beast if we had all those powers.
So you're cursed for doing too much and too little.
A lot of the scrutiny is good. It makes us better. And some of the critics are right.
Italy's Silvio Berlusconi has suggested the protesters are fronts for a communist resurgence.
The majority have anxieties we should share. Of course people should be saying we should do more about AIDS. Of course we should do more about [Third World] debt. Of course we should focus on issues of the environment, of families... I draw a line between them and those who say, "We're here to stop the ministers' meeting." That's fascist. That's Marxist. Sure, march on the Parliament. But don't burn down the Parliament. That's been done before.
You have said that if the meeting was scheduled for September, you'd be in trouble.
But it's not. There's time for the capitals to reflect, to revisit their positions. But if we go to Doha with the same agenda we had in Seattle, we'll get the same results.
What are the very biggest obstacles?
Agriculture.
Who are the players?
Europe, Korea, Japan, Norway--versus those countries that are agricultural exporters. And there are differences among the developing countries. A food importer like Egypt might have a different view than a food exporter like South Africa. These are legitimate national interests. The environment and some of the social areas are also very difficult. When it was only about tariffs, it was a bit easier.
How is the United States playing this game? The Bush administration has gone off on its own on many other international issues. Does that make you nervous?
Not at all. The U.S. team is working very hard. The stories you've read about Bob Zoellick and [European negotiator] Pascal Lamy... are true: two very focused, very intelligent guys trying to understand each other's needs. The transatlantic relationship is central to any success.
And Bush's emphasis on the Americas?
I worry when regionalism becomes a substitute for multilateralism. But I have no evidence of that yet.
You have 80 more member states than you had at Punta del Este when you began the Uruguay round of trade talks in 1986. And soon you'll have China too.
Yes, we will have China; we should be able to get there by Doha. But when you're looking at tens of thousands of pieces of paper and hundreds of lawyers, you've got to worry that some sentence might not be constructed right.
The free-trade era 100 years ago ended in protectionism, regionalism and world war. Not to be too apocalyptic, but could that happen again?
You have to be haunted by history. We were formed out of the collapse of the global trading system, which led into the Great Depression and the two tyrannies of the last century... We were created by men and women of vision who saw preventing the rise of hostile trading blocs as part of our function. I don't see that on the horizon... In my heart, I think we've learned a lot.
And if Doha succeeds?
I see the rules we establish here as the final nail in the coffin of colonialism. A global system run by rules and consensus is essentially democratic.Newsweek:
