Renato Ruggiero's speeches,
am particularly pleased to be here with you today. India is more than a country. It is a
civilization. India has always been a moral superpower, it is a political superpower, the
world's largest democracy, and will be an economic superpower. I wish to congratulate the
Confederation of Indian Industry for organizing this summit.
one thinks globalization can be stopped or should be. But there are dangers and fears that
need to be addressed. Celebrating a non-result in Seattle is as useful as suggesting
Europe ought not to enlarge or China engage.
is anxiety because there is unfairness, not everyone is getting a fair opportunity. Alas
they never have, this has been true of the other great economic and social upheavals. As
we shifted from hunter-gatherers to an agricultural, feudal and then industrial society,
we are now moving into a post-industrial society, the information age. Now as then these
great upheavals cause social dislocations. Be they Kings or Popes in the past or
politicians now, leaders are blamed for not preserving the present. Yesterday always looks
great change in history causes resentment and breeds fear and causes anxiety. You could
mount a case, indeed some of our critics do, that the motorcar is lethal, pollutes, kills
and divides communities. But it's not about banning the motorcar, we cannot uninvent the
combustion engine! It's about road rules, road rage and better managing and sharing more
equally the costs and advantages.
is true of the impact of globalization, technological change and the WTO and its sister
that the dust has started to settle after the turmoil of Seattle, perhaps we should
revisit what the multilateral trading system means to us and to the people of the 134
other countries who are part of the WTO, and the 1.5 billion people who want to join, who
did not dominate the headlines as did the 30,000 outside, some of whom claimed in the name
of grass roots democracy their intention to deny over 100 democratically chosen ministers
their right to speak and negotiate.
ought to get back to core principles and values, restate our case. We all realize that no
nation can now enjoy clean water, air, manage an airline, even organize a tax system or
hope to contain or cure AIDS or cancer without the cooperation of others. Thus we must
seek democratic internationalism and cooperation if we are to prosper and enjoy balanced
development on our crowded planet.
the Berlin wall came down, when Nelson Mandela was freed, and when freedom has flourished
elsewhere, the world celebrated. We celebrated the universal values of political and
economic freedom. No one shouted, cursed and swore about the evils of globalization then.
mother with a sick child wants the best the world has to offer from science, no one wants
the old technology when they go to the dentist. They don't complain then about global or
universal values. These are not western , European or even American values. They are owned
by all God's children. Freedom is everybody's right.
yet, at a time when the world is more integrated than ever, where technology brings us all
within reach of each other around the world and offers unprecedented opportunities for
communication, increased cooperation and solidarity, there is a growing sense of unease at
the impact of this globalized world on people's lives.
have a round? Because the OECD has concluded that a new round of tariff liberalization
would boost world economic output by 3 per cent or over 1.2 trillion dollars
and that developing countries would benefit most. India's GDP would grow by 9.6 %, China's
by 5.5 %, sub-saharan Africa's by 3.7 %. Injustice frozen helps no one, especially the
poorest. Implementation issues must be addressed. Whos brave enough to tell the
textile makers in Bangladesh or the farmers in Uruguay that the status quo is enough? The
status quo is yesterday's compromise.
Geneva and in Seattle, we have worked for a year and more to prepare the ground for new
negotiations. Unfortunately, we were not able to bridge all our differences. I am
disappointed that we did not reach an agreement to launch a new development round of trade
negotiations, although it was clear that a new round was supported by a very large number
of WTO Members. We will launch a new round. The only question is when?
governments have the political willpower and when the costs of not engaging get too high.
have some empathy with some of those who protest in the streets of Seattle, Delhi or
Auckland about change and the WTO. People around the world are right when they say they
want a safer, cleaner more healthy planet. They are correct when they call for an end to
poverty, more social justice, better living standards. But they are wrong to blame the WTO
for all the world's problems. They are especially wrong when they say we are not a
democratic house. We are owned by Governments who represent hundreds of millions of
voters. The Indian Ambassador is appointed by your Government, your government is
answerable to Parliament. Parliament and congresses and governments must ratify our
agreements. Thats how it should be. That's why your title-subject for this summit is
profound. Managing the global economy, NOT ignoring it. Not leaving it just to the market
and business. How do we manage? History tells us democracy and freedom is not just a moral
imperative. It makes better economic sense. Gets the best results.
are part of the WTO because they decide to be. Because they know it is their shared
interest to be part of a rules-based trading system. And developing countries need a
secure and stable world trading system as much as anyone else. Perhaps even more. They
need more openness, not less. Stronger rules, not weaker ones. As much as anyone, they
need new trade negotiations to expand their markets, open up their own economies, and to
undertake reforms. The future of the global economy lies with them. They are the customers
of the future, the living standards of the wealthy nations will rely on purchasing power
of the poorer nations in the new century.
trading system, in its 50 years of existence, has already made a crucial contribution to
fostering growth and development. I recall reading President Kennedy's speech when the
Kennedy Round was launched: he said a new round would help developing countries like
Japan. Japan? And that was just a generation ago! This system is not perfect. Certainly it
can be improved, and it will always be possible to make it better. In fact the WTO is
intended precisely to be not just a static set of agreements, but a permanent framework
for trade negotiations among its members. These improvements will come if Ministers can
agree on a further work programme. That requires flexibility. It requires being in a
position to consider proposals from others and explore the possibilities for reaching
agreement in order to secure what matters to you. Issues were just not ripe at Seattle.
And perhaps too many of us wanted to write in detail too much in the Ministerial document,
issues, that were normally part of a formal negotiation. Issues that could only be
resolved in the quiet of a formal negotiation. I can understand why this was tried. Nobody
wanted to wait for a 7 year round. Thus, the more detail pre-Seattle would have saved time
later. Perhaps we tripped over the trees and could not see the forest.
the OECD reports, India stands to gain much from a balanced round. India already has a
very successful history of progressive trade liberalization. Since 1991, through the
initiation and implementation of a major reform programme, you have experienced dramatic
increase in growth in the 1990s, flows of inward foreign investment have increased, as has
know that a lot more effort will be required to build on this success and continue to
press ahead with reform. The increased openness and integration with the world economy of
India's trade regime have been important factors in your healthy economic growth of the
last decade. And analysts have already been predicting the future of India's economic
development as a new "tiger economy". You have one of the largest pools of
trained technical labour in the world, you have acquired leading expertise in many areas
of advanced technology: satellites, computer software, deep-sea oil drilling. Your booming
software industry, whose success has translated through a surge of exports, with its
recognized potential for further spectacular increase, is a striking testimony to the
dynamism of Indian industry and the paths that open up to the Indian economy. Continued
opening of the trade regime could translate into even higher growth rates and better jobs.
I know that these reforms are not always easy to enact. Difficult political decisions are
required which take courage and vision. It's not easy. No one ever loves the dentist or
the Minister of Finance. But India has shown already its commitment to a stable, liberal,
rules-based multilateral trading system befitting the world's greatest democracy.
developing countries are experiencing difficulty implementing certain WTO commitments, or
see imbalances from their point of view in existing agreements which they want addressed
before taking on new obligations. Everyone agreed that was a key objective of a new round
and it still is, without firm commitments on implementation, there can be no development
round. Just as important, they need greater access for their exports. These issues are as
pressing for the smallest and most vulnerable among the developing countries as they are
for large economies like India.
countries are dependent on agricultural exports - and they want the kind of access which
they feel has been denied them in previous rounds. Still others want new rule-making in
areas like investment, competition policy, transparency in government procurement, and
trade facilitation. There is also the new and immensely promising sector of electronic
commerce, where a multilateral approach can maximise opportunities for all. Then there are
those who believe an examination of the relationship between trade and social issues needs
to be started if we are to ensure the nations of the North keep their markets open because
they also face political pressures. Their constituents are uneasy, in the wealthy
countries the far right and far left hold hands in the streets, in anger and anxiety about
losing control of their lives. Good people hold up placards saying "food for people,
not exports". Whatever that means. I know what it means to net-food importing
countries. Good people who give money at church on Sunday to assist poor people in lands
they will never visit, on Monday sign petitions to stop their workers exporting their
concerns of the least-developed also must not be left behind. The least-developed
countries are not threatened by globalization. They are threatened by
"de-globalization", falling outside of the world economy and slipping ever
further behind. This is not the fault of the trading system. Trade is not the only answer.
The problem is NOT trade, if anything it's not enough trade, not enough customers, not
enough jobs. Governments themselves have responsibilities to make the case, to provide
honest and fair domestic policies. Alas, some governments are paying up to nine times more
on debt repayment than on health. The heavy hand of history has its thumb on the windpipe
of many of our Member Governments.
new century poses enormous challenges. Within 25 years over 3 billion people will be added
to the global population. Urban populations will treble over the next 30 years. By the
year 2020, two-thirds of Africa's population will live in cities. Over the next 30 years
food production will have to double. The World Bank reports that 2 billion people will
suffer from chronic water shortages within 30 years. Half the world's population lives on
under US$2 per day.
is brave enough to say that our political structures, that the international institutions
you own such as the WTO, the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, are equipped to serve the people
and their Governments to meet these challenges?
about coherence between the institutions must become a working reality. We must adapt.
challenge is to bring together the diversity of interests of a very broad membership
around one central objective: ensuring that international trade can prosper in
predictable, sound and fair conditions, so that all can benefit from its achievements.
Trade liberalization is not an end in itself. The WTO is not about opening markets for the
sake of it. It's about providing opportunities so that trade can get a chance to expand in
fair and reliable conditions and contribute to growth, it's about ensuring that consumers
can have the choice of buying the product they want at the right price. At the end of the
day, it's ultimately about contributing to economic growth and development in a way that
benefits all the people, fostering employment and better living standards. On its own,
it's not enough. Development policies and a development trade round must go further than
me it's a simple proposition. The first half of this century was marked by force and
coercion. Our new century ought to be one marked by persuasion and cooperation. Of States
settling their differences through that great equaliser, the law. Of a binding disputes
mechanism, to settle differences, of engagement and interdependence. A quarter of global
output now crosses national borders - and this share is even higher for developing
countries, almost 40 per cent of their GDP.
come from a small country. I see interdependence, and treaties and the great global
institutions as guarantors of our sovereignty and safety. I recall a splendid comment of
Julius Nyerere, of Tanzania, who claimed that as each village's wealth once depended on
its neighbour's ability to purchase, this is now true of nations. Our parents learnt from
the great depression, made deeper and more lethal by rising trade barriers from which came
the twin tyrannies of our age, fascism and marxism, thus war; hot and cold. Economists and
historians have costed the hot wars. We know of the casualties. We are still carrying the
cost of the cold war.
they had vision.
swore it would not happen again, and they created an international architecture which
included the UN, IMF, World Bank, and the GATT, now the WTO, to achieve that peaceful
purpose and noble vision. In the mains it's worked. Far from perfect. But the world would
be a less safe place without them. The WTO is NOT the GATT. We now have more countries in
the much criticized "green rooms" than we had as original members. We endure a
culture in Geneva based on an old organization of 30 Members when we now have over 130.
And 20plus more want to join.
why we must change how the WTO operates, we are driven by our Members. Owned by them. So I
will be calling Members Governments for advice, even giving some, to increase transparency
century offers us the opportunity to achieve much. The last 50 years have seen Empires
shrink, democracy rise, freedoms grow, and living standards lift in most continents and
countries. Not all. I'm full of confidence because I have an abiding, unshakable
confidence in the people who, given freedom, will do the right thing by their families and
nations. Too much is at stake for us to falter, be timid or to fail.
have been asked to address the issues of managing globalization, we could do a lot worse
than heeding the words of the great Mahatma Gandhi who warned of the SEVEN deadly sins in
Wealth without work
Enjoyment without conscience
Knowledge without character
Business without morality
Science without humanity
Religion without sacrifice and
Politics without principles.