Jun 9, 1998

WTO TO START PROCESS FOR CHOOSING SUCCESSOR TO RUGGIERO

 

Geneva, 6 Jun (Chakravarthi Raghavan) -- The World Trade Organization is beginning the process to choose a successor to the incumbent Director-General Renato Ruggiero, whose terms ends on 30 April next.  

In a letter to the WTO membership, Ruggiero has made clear his intention to leave office definitely by that date, and has indicated he would be willing to step down earlier, if a successor is chosen who would be able to take office at the beginning of the process for future negotiations and decisions about the direction of the multilateral system in the next century. 

In terms of his appointment in 1995, and the understandings then, Ruggiero's successor is to be a non-European. 

Chairman of the General Council, Amb. John Weekes of Canada, told an informal heads of delegations meeting on 5 June that he would bring the issue formally before the July meeting of the General Council at its next meeting on 15 July, and advice formally that he was starting the consultation process for selection of the next DG, and that members wishing to nominate candidates should do so by 15 Sep at the latest.  

Weekes noted that Ruggiero has recommended that a successor should be chosen as soon as possible, and certainly before the end of 1998, and that the appointment of the new D.G. should be by consensus.  

Weekes spoke of the need to avoid regional candidacies, as happened in the process leading to the selection of Ruggiero.  

And while he drew attention to the understanding at the time of the Ruggiero appointment that his successor would be a non-European, a number of developing countries spoke at the informal noting that at that time a large number of developing countries had stressed the need for the successor to be drawn from a developing country.  

The three personalities that headed the old GATT, and now the WTO, have all been from Europe.  

A number of names from developing countries have been mentioned so far, as also candidates from New Zealand and Canada. These include Thai Deputy Prime Minister and Trade Minister, Supatchi Panitchpakdi, Canada's former trade minister, Bruce MacLaren, South African Trade Minister Alex Erwin and the Moroccan Moroccan Trade Minister, the Brazillian foreign minister Luiz Lampreia, former New Zealand Prime Minister Michael Moore.  

Among other comments and discussions at the informal meeting, the issues of transparency, raised at the 2nd ministerial meeting, including at the 50th anniversary commemoration meetings of the multilateral trading system, the issue of electronic commerce (subject of a separate statement/declaration at the Ministerial) and the mandated process for further negotiations to be set in place by the General council in September were discussed.  

Jamaica's ambassador, Anthony Hill, suggested there should be a formal meeting of the General Council in June to have a clear discussion of the issues to be addressed through the preparatory process.  

Hill stressed that in terms of the mandate given, discussion at a formal meeting of the General Council would be able to take stock of and identify the issues raised at the ministerial meeting (in speeches of delegations and at working sessions) and the proposals that would be made by members. The speeches, and points made in them, at the commemorative meetings, Hill said, would not figure in the mandate provided.  

Hills suggestion for a formal General Council, and discussions at such a meeting was supported among others by Egypt and Mexico who found considerable merit in the suggestion for a formal meeting.  

The EC, Japan and Norway though favoured informal discussions at the HOD level, as is now the practice at the WTO -- and one whose lack of transparency to the public has become the subject of some very sharp criticism and attack from outside the system, even if the informal HOD process in theory provides transparency to the membership.

The question of improving the transparency of the system also figured at the HOD meeting.  

The US, EC and a few others have reduced the demand from civil society outside for full transparency of the WTO to one of enabling NGOs to participate in the dispute settlement process - by enabling those interested to file amicus curie briefings, and holding the dispute hearings in public.  

The WTO Director-General has also commended the idea of a consultative 'forum' with civil society -- business, NGOs and others -- at the WTO.  

There has also been a move on the part of some Geneva-based NGOs to form a small group to hold regular consultations with the WTO. This was discussed at a NGO meeting during the ministerial, but was opposed by a large number of NGOs, from the South and the North.  

Several of the southern NGOs insist that what is of greater importance and relevance, is not how transparent would be the "dispute settlement" process of the WTO, which hears complaints and gives rulings on the basis of the WTO's trade rules, but ensuring the transparency of the WTO rule-making and decision-making processes, particularly since it now affects not merely trade in goods crossing the border, but a large amount of economic activity within countries traditionally seen as within domestic sovereign decision-making.  

While trade officials argue that this last is difficult, given the 'contractual' nature of the relationship within the WTO, other competent observers note that whatever the past practice in a GATT that was a provisional treaty among governments, it cannot apply to the WTO which is an international treaty.  

And the WTO is not the only international treaty of contractual rights and obligations embracing so many members, observers note.  

There are other international treaties, with contractual obligations and rights, where the treaty negotiating process, and proposals for amendments and changes through protocols, are much public, and known to the public of countries weeks or months in advance. 

But whether trade negotiators and officials, even of the smaller trading nations, would press for and address these issues is not at all clear -- given the fact that within countries themselves there is a turf battle involving trade and other economic ministries and departments, as well as foreign offices.