WTO NEWS: SPEECHES — DG PASCAL LAMY
Dies Academicus Ceremony of Award of a Doctor Honoris Causa — Geneva
Mr Rector,
Mr President of the Grand Council,
Mr Councillor of State,
Distinguished Deans and Professors,
Dear students,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
By conferring on me the title of doctor honoris causa, in this place and
on this day of celebration, the University of Geneva does me a great
honour.
To share this distinction with those who are more illustrious than
myself touches me deeply.
By assigning me the task of expressing my views on human rights in the
globalizing world while at the side of Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a man I
consider a hero of modern times, shows a boldness and daring befitting a
great university.
Perhaps your boldness was inspired by the legacy of William Rappard,
twice Rector of your University, a man who devoted his life's work to
the pursuit of peace, and a man whose name graces the headquarters of
the World Trade Organization.
Notwithstanding the illustrious patronage, your boldness verges on the
reckless! Is not the World Trade Organization for many the symbol of a
globalization in which mercantile pursuits have precedence over human
beings, the market over individuals, and might over right?
It is for me, then, to try and show that you are right: globalization
and the opening up of trade can work in favour of universal human
rights, by which I mean civil and political rights as well as economic
and social rights.
And I say “can” advisedly, because in my view this is true only in
certain conditions that need to be specified and that are far from being
fulfilled everywhere.
First, globalization.
Globalization is commonly understood to be an historical phase in the
evolution of market capitalism whose development is essentially
technological in nature. Similar to what was witnessed in the nineteenth
century at the time of the industrial revolution. Janus globalization:
with a pleasant, smiling face, portraying economic dynamism, innovation,
connection, proximity, from the perspective of the universal city. And
the forbidding, grimacing face, that of fracture, imbalance, contagion.
The face of environmental degradation, which dispossesses, uproots and
tramples underfoot the identities and cultures that compose human
dignity.
I believe that the good of globalization can outweigh the bad.
Provided each of us recognizes that we need to belong as much as we need
our freedom.
Provided we accept that such belonging and such freedom are exercised in
a universal and collective framework, a globalization which is harnessed
and regulated by policy and law.
Provided we endorse the idea that the democratic principle needs renewal
if it is to go beyond the local and penetrate the global — this is what
we call global governance.
Provided we acknowledge that this implies fundamental changes to the “Westphalian”
principle whereby international governance remains the monopoly of
Nation States, including in the area of human rights, which know no
borders.
Provided we forge a global governance that blends political drive,
democratic legitimacy and technical excellence. Perhaps we are seeing
this emerge in the triangle now taking form in pursuit of a solution to
the current economic crisis, the first truly global crisis. Between the
“G 20” pole, the United Nations General Assembly pole, and the pole of
the specialized international agencies including the World Trade
Organization, the International Labour Organization, the World Bank and
the International Monetary Fund, to name but a few.
Provided all these conditions are met — and there is much work to be
done here — globalization can embody the promise of a universal set of
values common to so many philosophies or religions, and to which human
rights belong as they now belong to “jus cogens”. These are norms which
cannot be transgressed and which are accepted on that basis by the
entire international community.
It is in such a universal framework that the contribution of trade
liberalization to the promotion of human rights can and must find its
place both in law and in practice.
Jurists debate at length whether the WTO is bound to respect human
rights, but in my eyes the answer is a clear yes. Human rights has its
place in international law first, because these rights are incumbent on
the members of the Organization and because they themselves are bound to
fulfil the obligations incumbent on them at international level.
Next, because the case law of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism
acknowledged that international trade law could not be interpreted “in
clinical isolation” from international law in general. And,
incidentally, how could the WTO — created in 1994 by an international
legal instrument — be immune to the rules of the general international
law from which it derives its mission and its very existence?
But what is the place of international trade law in promoting human
rights in practice? I would argue that opening international trade
creates efficiency for raising standards and conditions of living and in
this way can contribute to implementing rights which require more than
mere proclamation if they are to be respected. This is particularly true
in the case of those whom Amnesty International calls the “prisoners of
poverty”. As an example, I cite Article 11 of the International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which concerns the right to
food and advocates “taking into account the problems of both food
importing and food exporting countries, to ensure an equitable
distribution of world food supplies in relation to need”.
Here again, the benefit of trade opening for human rights is not
automatic. It presupposes rules that are both global and just. Rules of
the kind that prompted Lacordaire to say that “between the weak and the
strong, poor and the rich ... , liberty is the oppressor and the law is
freedom”. Negotiating and implementing such rules is the WTO's basic
mission, and its primary vocation in so doing is to regulate and not to
deregulate as is often thought.
It also presupposes the existence of social policies, whether to secure
redistribution or provide safeguards for the men and women whose living
conditions are disrupted by changes in the international division of
labour.
This is what I have called, in a context somewhat different from the
heart of Protestant Rome where we have been received this morning, the
“Geneva Consensus”, under which the opening up of trade is necessary to
our collective well being, but does not suffice in itself.
It does not suffice unless it is accompanied by policies designed to
correct the imbalances between winners and losers; and the greater the
vulnerability of economies, societies or individuals, the more dangerous
the imbalances. It does not suffice unless it goes hand in hand with a
sustained international effort to help the developing countries to build
the capacity they need to take advantage of open markets.
If by way of conclusion I had to pinpoint one principle governing the
conditions in which globalization and the opening up of trade must help
to promote and ensure respect for human rights, I would say that it is
coherence:
Coherence is the political commitment of citizens, of civil society, of
trade unions, between the local and the global. Today the world needs
more coherence in the organization of governments between national and
global, more coherence between the different islands making up the
archipelago of international governance.
I would add that much of this coherence remains to be built, and I see
this as a vocation for the University of Geneva, whose ambition, as in
centuries past, is perhaps to add a stone to the intellectual edifice
and contribute to the dialogue on which our understanding of this world
depends, to ensure greater harmony, and to give greater meaning to the
notion of global public good.
By cultivating the fruit of this interdisciplinary approach, which
unites you in the search for a truth that is common to the science of
matter, of the body and of the mind;
By working to build the bridge that etymology inspires us to build
between the universitas magistrorum et scolarium and the universus
mundus;
By honouring the tradition of international Geneva, of the city that has
taken in so many great minds, that has hosted so many institutions
engaged in the common pursuit of peace.
By awarding me this distinction today, dear friends, you have added to
my responsibilities. It is for me, now, to propose that in future, we
share this responsibility by working to build an international order in
which, to quote Jean Jacques Rousseau, “The stronger is never strong
enough to be forever master, unless he transforms his force into right,
and obedience into duty”. To which Simone Weil added, on a more personal
and meditative note: “It is a duty for every man to uproot himself in
order to attain the universal, but it is always a crime to uproot
others.”
Thank you for your attention.
> Problems viewing this page?
Please contact [email protected] giving details of the operating system and web browser you are using.