PASCAL LAMY European Trade Commisioner Ticaretten Sorumlu Avrupa Komiseri MAKING GLOBALISATION WORK FOR PEOPLE The ultimate goal towards which we work is the betterment of the living conditions of our people. International trade is an important element of economic growth in all our countries, and it needs WTO rules to prosper. But trade and economic growth only make sense if they are put at the service of development and of the welfare of our people. I think it's fair to acknowledge that some improvements of WTO working methods have taken place: Dialogue with civil society has become a regular feature of the activity of the WTO and, in spite of many hesitations in formalising it further - mainly due to the fear of many developing countries to see the WTO "hijacked" by NGOs -the WTO is more accessible. And we have pushed for the publication of documents and transparency of the regular work of the WTO and obtained some good results. One can see the end of the Middle Ages, if not quite the Age of Enlightenment yet. As to the participation of all members in the negotiations, I would argue that the process that led to Doha was far more inclusive that the one leading to Seattle, and the recent Geneva process that led us here makes me hope that Seattle, not Doha, was the exception. Again, this does not mean that there is no scope for improvement. The EU will continue to work on this. Including through funding Least Developed Countries' participation in WTO Ministerial Conferences where we are the largest donor. Development is of course the core of our agenda here and we need to show that we are not merely paying lip service to it. We start on the right footing, having finally settled the part of the question of access to medicines which is related to patent protection: It is difficult for many to understand why it took so long, but we are there and that is what matters most. For the rest - and bearing in mind that Cancun is not the end of the road - we need to progress on three broad fronts if we want the WTO to advance development. Market Access First, we need to progress on market access. Not easy, but we in the EU are doing our part. However, two caveats here: Of course more access to developed country markets is important for developing countries, but let's not forget that South-South trade is where the greater potential for the growth of developing country trade lies. We will have failed if developing countries - with all the necessary precautions and flexibility - do not also open their own markets more. And we must not forget that, as important as agriculture is in the economies of developing countries, 70% of their trade is in non-agricultural products, so that progress has to be made across the board. As to where we are on these issues at the eve of this Ministerial Conference, let me say two more things: On agriculture, we have strengthened our ability to participate constructively in these negotiations through the very substantial reform of the Common Agricultural Policy that the Council has approved this summer, and we have shown our willingness to act upon it in the pre-Cancun process. We await a similarly constructive attitude from our partners. On non-agricultural products, we will fulfil the mandate we gave ourselves in Doha, but the lack of ambition from many Members is worrying: A modest result here will not be good for any WTO Member, whether developed or developing. Services is of course another important element of the market access agenda. They represent between half and two thirds of both developed and developing countries GDP as well as employment. Opening trade in services such as telecoms, banking, distribution or tourism, as well as the temporary entry of foreign professionals are thus key to modern and efficient economies. But we in Europe are adamant that further opening trade in services must not undermine the provision of public services. I know that this is an issue of great concern to trade unions, and I have had the opportunity to discuss this with many of you over the last few months. Let me recall that the GATS' flexibility leaves WTO Members with considerable freedom to design their commitments: The GATS does not enter into the definition of public services, their mission, their organisation or the way they are financed. I'd like to keep it that way. That's why I am not in favour of creating a carve-out for public services in the GATS: A carve-out would require 146 WTO members to agree on a definition of public services. Such a definition would necessarily be too limited for Europe which tends to have a rather more expansive view of the notion of public service than many other WTO Members do. Another issue of concern is governments' rights to regulate. Let me assure you that this concern is shared by all WTO members, so the current negotiations under GATS article VI:4 will certainly not impinge on governments' ability to define the rules: Work in GATS is confined to measures in a limited number of areas (qualification and licensing requirements and procedures, technical standards). Our objective is simply to ensure that once countries have taken commitments to open up trade in services, these commitments are not circumvented by arbitrary or intransparent application of regulatory rules. We have absolutely no intention to establish rules in the GATS that "all domestic regulation has to be the least restrictive to trade". A word on Mode 4, the temporary movement of service providers which is an important issue notably, but not only, for developing countries. The EU has put forward an ambitious initial offer, to underpin our commitment to a real development round. Most other Members have not done so, and they now need to put their cards on the table too. Developing countries for their part also need to improve their commitments to the benefit of other developing countries. Of course, this must, and will not, not lead to race to the bottom on labour laws: This is why our offer makes clear that, as far as the EC is concerned, our laws and regulations on wages and working conditions, including collective agreements, are applicable to mode 4 service suppliers. Rules Apart from market access, we also need to progress on rules, in particular rules that underpin domestic reforms in WTO Members, that help better governance, that help governments to fight inefficiency and corruption. In this respect, I am surprised on the Singapore issues. To be sure, the concerns and preoccupations on how developing countries can tackle these issues cannot be taken lightly. Yet, this strikes me as a classic case of throwing out the baby with the bath water. Take investment: There is much of your analysis that we agree with, but an agreement that would include binding investor obligations concerning labour standards would in fact either replace the ILO - which I am sure is not the intention - or stoke up fears among developing countries that the objective is really to limit their policy space or indeed even prepare trade sanctions. As trade unions, do you prefer individual arrangements or collective agreements? That is the same choice as between a bilateral investment treaty and multilateral rules! Or take competition, one of the most effective tools governments have to curb abuses by firms to the detriment of consumers and workers without resorting to heavy-handed regulation: Why should developing countries not benefit from it? And let me assure that the divide on these issues is not a North-South one. We do not underestimate the difficulties for developing countries in tackling these issues, and we are prepared to tailor the scope to the needs of developing countries and to put in the effort and the resources needed to assist them. But we remain convinced that WTO rules in these areas are more necessary than ever. Development The third area where we need to progress concerns what I would call the "development cluster"; all the issues that developing countries are pushing to make the WTO system work better for them. The approach we followed in Doha on implementation and that the Chairman of the WTO General Council has followed now on special and differential treatment seems to me the only one that can deliver the goods. We must take all the decisions we can now, and direct our negotiators to tackle the rest in the negotiating process. That is a pragmatic way forward that is most likely to provide immediate benefits to developing countries. Trade & Labour Let's look at an issue that is not on the agenda, though very much present on all our minds: The trade and labour nexus. We, the EU and trade unions, tried hard in Doha, but we failed to get decent language on this issue into the Ministerial Declaration. I have always said that this was the only real point of discontent we had with the Doha agenda. I remain firmly of the view that refusing dialogue on this issue is not good for the WTO and is not good for developing countries. At the same time I also remain of the view that in Doha we made the best choice in the circumstances, that sacrificing the launch of the Doha Development Agenda to insist on better language on trade and labour would have been a mistake for the cause of labour rights in the first place, that we have a better chance of promoting the respect of core labour standards with the DDA than without. Not enough has changed since Doha to go back to developing countries in the WTO to tell them that they should reconsider. We will have to ask them to reconsider, at some point, but first we must do more to persuade them that this does not threaten their development strategies, that this debate leads to positive outcomes and will not justify developed country protectionism. There have been some good signs on the horizon since Doha. ILO recommended sanctions on Myanmar have not been put in question in WTO. We do have a debate on trade, globalisation, social issues, labour standards in the ILO World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalisation. It is a good, solid debate. Europe has played an active part in it. The WTO Director-General has participated on a personal basis. We do not expect the World Commission to produce magic recipes, but we do count on it to get good arguments and good indications on how to strengthen the role of the ILO, how to involve other multilateral institutions, in which direction to look for solutions. At the same time we shall continue to work within the WTO to build confidence, to persuade, to reassure. I am afraid that the onus to prove developing countries wrong on this score rests firmly on us: Developed countries and the labour movement. And I see no new weapons to do this, except those we have employed so far: Persuasion and consistent rejection of protectionism. Like New Zealand, with which we have been working on this, the EU will use its next Trade Policy Review to show the positive correlation between respect of core labour standards, competitiveness, economic growth and development. We shall continue to work with those WTO Members - developed and developing - who share our views to press this case. And I'm convinced that their number will be growing. The elimination of textiles quota at the end of 2004 will no doubt revive the debate - and this time foremost in a South-South perspective, as I could witness in spring this year at the big international conference I had organised in Brussels on the future of textiles trade. In the meantime, we have to do what we can at other levels. As you know, since Doha, the EU has been very actively pursuing the issue at all levels. I will not try to be exhaustive but let me mention the more "visible" initiatives we have taken. We began by reforming the EU's GSP regime, in particular its "social incentive" scheme: We can now react effectively in case of serious and persistent violations of all the core labour standards set out in the 1998 ILO Declaration and - even more important - we can reward more effectively those beneficiary countries who make bigger efforts to implement the core labour standards on the ground. We have continued to strengthen our co-operation with the ILO on technical assistance and capacity building, creating the conditions for increased and more efficient financial assistance to the ILO's activities in this area. We have pursued our policy of making Human Rights and workers' rights an integral part of our bilateral relations with other countries and regions: The last example of this is our agreement with Chile last year. We are continuing to make the issue of labour standards, workers' rights, and the "social dimension" more generally, a key component of the Sustainability Impact Assessments that we now routinely launch for major trade initiatives. This helps us figure out the social implications of these initiatives and any corrective actions needed. In general, we are succeeding - slowly but surely - in making these issues part and parcel of the "baggage" of trade policy makers in Europe. And this is happening: Look at the conclusions adopted by the Council of our member states last July, and you will see that they remain fully committed to a comprehensive strategy to promote the respect of core labour standards. KÜRESELLEŞME İNSANIN HİZMETİNDE Ulaşmak istediğimiz nihai amaç insanlarımızın yaşam koşullarını iyileştirmektir. Uluslararası ticaret ülkelerimizde ekonomik gelişmenin önemli bir unsurudur, uluslararası ticaretin gelişmesi için Dünya Ticaret Örgütü (WTO) kurallarına ihtiyaç vardır. WTO'nun çalışma yöntemlerinde bazı iyileştirmeler olmuştur. Bunlar arasında sivil toplumla diyaloğun, faaliyetlerin düzenli bir parçası haline gelmesi, WTO'nun daha erişilebilir olması, belgelerin yayınlanmaya başlaması ve WTO çalışmalarının şeffaflaşması sayılabilir. AB iyileştirmeler konusunda çalışmaya devam edecektir. Bu çalışmalar arasında, WTO Bakanlar Konferanslarına En Az Gelişmiş Ülkelerin katılımının sağlanması da bulunmaktadır. Eğer WTO'nun gelişmesini hızlandırmak istiyorsak üç alanda ilerleme kaydetmeliyiz. Bunlar, piyasalara erişimin arttırılması, WTO üye ülkelerinde daha iyi yönetişim sağlayan, hükümetlere verimsizlik ve yolsuzlukla mücadelede destek olan reformların temelinde yer alan kuralların yerleştirilmesi ve gelişmekte olan ülkelerin, WTO sisteminin onlara daha fazla yarar sağlaması için destekledikleri konularda ilerleme sağlanmasıdır. Diğer alanlarda da yapılacak pek çok şey vardır. Doha'dan beri AB bir çok "görünür" inisiyatifi ortaya koymuştur. Öncelikle AB'nin "sosyal teşvik" sisteminde reformlar gerçekleştirdik. Bu çerçevede, 1998 ILO Bildirisinde yer alan temel çalışma standartlarında ciddi ve uzun süreli ihlaller olması halinde etkin bir biçimde harekete geçebilmekte ve temel çalışma standartlarının sahada uygulanması konusunda daha fazla gayret gösteren ülkeleri daha etkin bir biçimde ödüllendirebilmekteyiz. Aynı zamanda ILO ile teknik yardım ve kapasite oluşturma konusunda işbirliğimizi geliştirmeye devam etmekteyiz. Bunun dışında İnsan Hakları ve İşçi Haklarını diğer ülke ve bölgelerle ikili ilişkilerimizin ayrılmaz bir parçası yapma yolundaki politikamızı da uygulamaya devam etmekteyiz.