99-5250 MOREPRESS RELEASE
PRESS/159
2 December 1999
MOORE CITES ROLE OF LEGISLATORS IN WTO
Director-General Mike Moore today, 2 December, lauded the first ever assembly of
legislators and parliamentarians held in parallel with a WTO Ministerial Conference, and expressed
the hope that this becomes a permanent feature of future Conferences.
Mr. Moore underlined the democratic foundation of the WTO, in which every decision has to
be reached through consensus, and agreements have to be ratified by elected congresses orparliaments of member states.
He said that members are firmly resolved to negotiate a balanced package in Seattle, and
reiterated his call for a substantial trade and technical assistance package for the least-developed
countries.
The text of Mr. Moore's speech follows.PRESS/159
Page 2/3
MORESpeech Notes to Legislators Assembly
by Mike Moore, Director-General
2 December 1999
Senator Roth, distinguished members:
It is a useful initiative to have in parallel to this Ministerial Conference, this the first assembly
of elected legislators.
I get deeply offended when people say the WTO is not democratic.  Take the case of the
Indian Ambassador in Geneva.  It takes about 300 million people to elect a Government in India.
That Government survives at the pleasure of its elected MP's.  The Government through its Minister,
who is accountable to Cabinet, his Prime Minister, his party, his caucus and to the Parliament andthen to his electors at home and to the wider vote to enable his government to function.  That's
accountability.  That's how it should be.  And that is how it is for most countries who are members of
the WTO.  The system changes from nation to nation, but the principles  of accountab ility are the
same.
The WTO is member driven, thus driven by Governments, Congresses and Parliaments.
Every two years our Ministers meet to give us guidance.  Our agreements must be agreed and ratified
by members and Parliaments.
So this assembly of parliamentarians and elected legislators is an important and, I hope,
permanent part of our process.
Some of those who protest miss these fundamental steps by which we operate.  We operate
from and by consensus.  Any nation can and does block progress.  Any nation can pull out of the
WTO given six month's notice.
One member of parliament said to me it's fine you are talking to non-government
organizations, how about government organizations, it's us who sustain the government of the day.
He was right.  We should do both.
Equally, when I was talking about non-governme ntal organizations and their proper, correct
and democratic influence on governments, an ambassador from a non-resident country asked us at the
WTO to reach out more to him.  As a government representative, about 30 countries cannot even
afford to keep missions in Geneva.  So, we have reached out.  I've been in the job a few months, my
deputies started last week.  But we organised a seminar for non-residents to brief their officials fully
on what is happening in Seattle.  We have web pages, reference centres and are using the new
technologies to keep in touch.
One issue that raises its head frequently is sovereignty.  Is the nation state surrendering its
legitimate rights and prerogatives to global institutions?
That's a valid question.  I come from a small country but I've always seen my nation's
integrity and independence enhanced by international institutions, treaties and agreements.
In the modern world we know that without co-operation and agreements sovereign
governments cannot function and advance their national interests.
No congress or parliament alone can guarantee clean air or water, even run a tax system, an
airline, combat AIDS and cancer without the co-operation of others.PRESS/159
Page 4
99-5250 MOREBut the base constituency must be the nation state.  We in the WTO are member driven, rules
driven.  Our member states direct our progress.  And that's how it should be.
I hope in the future to spend more time with  congressional committees and parliamentary
groups, because that is where the greatest assembly of popular opinion resides.  That's where those
who correctly want to scrutinise, criticise and improve our play, live.
It's an awesome task, our total expenditure is less than the IMF's travel budget.  The World
Wildlife Fund has a budget three times ours.
But within our constraints of time and resources I will do better.  I never refuse to meet with
elected politicians if I am in Geneva and it is possible.
The word millennium is overdone, but we do face a new century so it is worthwhile reflecting
on the future and to see what we can learn from the past.
The WTO, earlier the GATT, was first envisaged by our brave parents who saw it as a sister
organization to the UN, ILO, IMF, and the World Bank.  They served in uniform, my generation
serves in suites and ties.  They lived through the great depression and saw how it was prolonged andmade more deadly because of protectionism.   That depression and the Treaty of Versailles made war
almost inevitable and from that came the great tyrannies of our age, fascism and marxism.  They said
never, never again and we and the other institutions in the global architecture were created to be
owned by the people via their Governments.
During this time, we have experienced the greatest period of sustained growth and rise in
living standards than at any time in our history.
This incredible generation that did something else unique is world history.  They the victors
held out their hands and forgave their adversaries,  reached into their own pockets and created the
Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of Europe.  The mirror opposite of what happened in 1918.  And
it worked.  Does anyone now think it would have been a better world without the Marshall Plan?
Does anyone think the world would be better wit hout a European Union?  Should we NOT celebrate
an enlarging European Union and a successful Japan?  Would it be better if China did not join the
WTO?  What's wrong with having Russia and China as part of a rules-based system?
Our system has done well.  During the Asian crisis many predicted the end of the global
economy and suggested we had gone too far.  Yet because of sound policy in the affected economies
and the generosity of the US, Japan and Europe who kept their markets open, Asia is coming back.
They held their nerve.
When the Berlin wall came down, when Nelson Mandela was freed, when the Colonels went
back into their barracks, elsewhere, the world celebrated.  They celebrated the universal values of
political and economic freedom.  No one shouted, cursed and swore about the evils of globalisation.
So here we are at Seattle, 30,000 people, many even invited.  We meet against a background
of hostility and anger.  I know all our critics are not wrong, bad or mad.  But just occasionally weought to remind ourselves of our core values and our core business.
Essentially, we want more jobs and more successful businesses so we can get the tax take to
pay for these dreams we all have for health care, education and to look after the elderly.
I believe that trade and business is the most powerful generator to achieve these ends.PRESS/159
Page 5
ENDTrade in itself is not enough, too many countries are marginalised.  One African Member pays
up to nine times more on debt repayments than on health.  Cutting trade, preventing the spread of
ideas, medicine, literature and information and investment will not help, it will make it worse.  While
we have our critics outside, over 1.5 billion people want to join.  Why?  Several hundred Ministers
and political leaders are here now in Seattle.  Why?  Because it matters.  I don't want to see us limp
into the next century with a whine and a splutter.
We should march boldly, recognising the contradictions and difficulties, but firmly resolved
to begin to negotiate a package text that is balanced.  We have differences.  That's legitimate,
welcome and not surprising.
We need to ensure developing countries have a fairer place at the table.  Especially the least-
developed nations who account for 0.5% of world trade, and when they have a competitive exportadvantage they are frequently locked out.  This is wrong.
Many countries need time and technical assistance to digest and implement their
commitments.  This can be done.  We need to get closer on agriculture, investment, competition and
use this opportunity to advance win/win situations, in the transparency of government procurement,trade facilitation and how that helps good governance.
We should be decisive about market access, welcome what e-commerce can do for every
nation and begin to negotiate a balanced package within three years.  I know of the interest sovereign
congresses and parliaments have in these subjects.  In the end, they will have the decisive say.  Toomuch of this century was marked by force and coercion.  We need to ensure that the next century is
one of persuasion, where differences are settled within institutional law, through proper agreed
dispute mechanisms.
This works for the most mighty nation as it does for the most modest nation.  It represents a
new enlightened age of international and civilized behaviour.
We should this day pay our respects to our parents who in their wisdom gave birth, from the
horror of personal experience, to institutions like the GATT, now the WTO, so it can do its job after
instructions from governments and parliaments to bring order and the rule of law to our commercial,political, cultural and social differences.
I'm proud to represent an institution that is owned and driven by its member states.  I am the
Director-General.  I'm not really a Director, even less am I a General.  I am, I guess, a navigator, a
facilitator and a public servant.