How Can the WTO (World Trade Organization) Survive Seattle? , Economic Strategy Institute Foru

Baucus, Max S.

English

University of Montana

University of MontanaScholarWorks at University of MontanaMax S. Baucus Speeches Archives and Special Collections2-3-2000"How Can the WTO (World Trade Organization)Survive Seattle?", Economic Strategy InstituteForumMax S. BaucusLet us know how access to this document benefits you.Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/baucus_speechesThis Speech is brought to you for free and open access by the Archives and Special Collections at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has beenaccepted for inclusion in Max S. Baucus Speeches by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information,please contact scholarworks@mso.umt.edu.Recommended CitationBaucus, Max S., ""How Can the WTO (World Trade Organization) Survive Seattle?", Economic Strategy Institute Forum" (February 3,2000). Max S. Baucus Speeches. 689.https://scholarworks.umt.edu/baucus_speeches/689Printing, Graphics & Direct MailONBASE SYSTEMIndexing FormSenator * or Department*: BAUCUSInstructions:Prepare one form for insertion at the beginning of each record series.Prepare and insert additional forms at points that you want to index.For example: at the beginning of a new folder, briefing book, topic, project, or date sequence.Record Type*: Speeches & RemarksMONTH/YEAR of Records*: February-2000(Example: JANUARY-2003)(1) Subject*: Trade(select subject from controlled vocabulary, if your office has one)(2) Subject* How Can the WTO Survive Seattle?DOCUMENT DATE*: 02/03/2000(Example: 01/12/1966)* "required information"CL TOPRINTSenator Max Baucus"How Can the WTO Survive Seattle?"Economic Strategy Institute Policy ForumWashington, D.C.February 3, 2000It is always a pleasure to participate in one of Clyde's sessions. He has a unique abilityto bring together a group of panelists with widely diverse views to shed light on some ofthe critical issues of the day. I apologize that I will have to leave early, but that seemsto be part of my job description.Last year at this time, if we looked ahead to our 2000 election year, most of us wouldprobably have predicted that, as in the past, trade would not be on the agenda, eitherthe policy agenda or the political agenda. We were wrong. Trade issues are now frontand center.This year's trade agenda has two central components. One is whether China will jointhe WTO and whether the United States will approve permanent Normal TradeRelations, PNTR, for China. The second issue for this year is how the global tradingsystem moves to the next stage of liberalization and expansion of trade opportunities. Idon't mean to give short shrift to the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act or theEnhanced Caribbean Basin Initiative. But the scale is quite different.On the first, China and the WTO, I remain relatively optimistic that the Congress willpass PNTR this year. This deal is simply so good for so many American businesssectors =- manufacturing, agriculture, services -- and of such benefit to Americanfarmers and workers. My optimism presupposes, however, that China will complete itsremaining bilateral agreements, in particular, with the European Union, but also with thedozen or so other countries where these negotiations are still pending. It alsopresupposes that China, and the WTO membership in Geneva, work expeditiously tocomplete the necessary multilateral arrangements. I am most worried right now that thebilateral and multilateral negotiations will take so much time that there will simply not beenough legislative days left in this Congressional session. It's not merely a matter ofour political calendar in an election year. It is also a question of Congress simply beingin session fewer days than in an off-year.Turning to the second issue, which is the topic of today's session, let me provide a fewof my thoughts and then raise some questions. I wish I had the answers, but I don'tthink anyone does at this point.Commenting on the Yankee's loss of the 1960 World Series, Yogi Berra said "We madetoo many wrong mistakes." With the benefit of hindsight, and my hindsight is excellent,I conclude that the failure of the talks in Seattle was a; t inevitable. One could arguet they collapsed in part from their own weight, in pe: b pnause of a lack of sufficientl onoport going into Seattle, -, in kart bec- actions cf .,ur tradingenvironment, labor, and consumer issues must be addressed at the WTO. Even in theUnited States, of course, we do not yet have a domestic consensus on this, and theAdministration turned to these issues very late in the game. The activists on the streetsof Seattle did not cause the failure to launch a new round. But what those activistsstood for, the emergence of this third sector, along with government and business, inglobal trade politics, was certainly an element in the failure at Seattle.Sixth, Japan. At the end of 1999, the world's second largest economy was stillunwilling to play a leadership role in the management of global trade policy. Japan isfinally showing signs of emerging from its lost decade of economic stagnation.Although we see some indications of change in Japan's economic structure and theway in which the government manages the economy, I worry that the roots of Japan'smercantilist approach to the world are as strong and pervasive as ever. The continuedraw protection of Japanese trade policy was exemplified by their rejection of the EarlyVoluntary Sectoral Liberalization initiatives that were supported by their fellow APECmembers, by their attacks on US anti-dumping laws and the WTO Dumping Code inorder to continue to insulate and protect Japan's cartelized industries, such as steel andflat glass, and by Japan's rejection of genuine agricultural liberalization. A countryrepresenting 15 percent of the world's economy must be prepared to support and leada liberal trade regime, and bear some of the costs as the United States has done fordecades.I should cite our European friends, who also used the concept of multifunctionality ofagriculture to help them maintain the serious trade distortions caused by theiragricultural export subsidies.Seventh and last, American hubris. Many countries are unhappy with what they see asan overbearing America, lecturing the world because of our victory in the Cold Warwhere we are now the overwhelmingly most powerful military force in the world and ourvictory on the economic front where our companies and technology are so dominantand our growth so vibrant. I happen to believe that the current American economicmodel is a good one. With four percent of the world's population, we represent over 27percent of global output and more than 53 percent of the world's stock marketcapitalization. We see unprecedented prosperity in our society, even though we havenot solved the growing problem of unequal distribution of income and benefits. Manyother countries, whether in Europe, China, Japan, and elsewhere, can learn from ourrecent experience about the advantages of deregulation, transparency, and letting themarkets operate without onerous government control. They should adopt thesefeatures, although it will have to be in a way that is compatible with their own culture,history, and social mores. For our part, perhaps we could be a bit more modest in theway we flaunt our success.The world has not stopped because a meeting in November in Seattle failed to launch anew round. It would be wonderful if we could just sit back, reflect on what happened,and then spend months planning our course.But there is a lot going on, and we cannot afford to be dealt out of the game. Forexample, Japan recently decided to consider a bilateral FTA with Singapore and hasthought seriously about FTA's with Mexico and South Korea. Japan talks about a"multilayered" policy where bilateral and regional free-trade arrangements wouldcomplement multilateral negotiations at the WTO. Korea is considering a list ofcountries they think might fit into bilateral FTA schemes. The EU is talking toMERCOSUR and has negotiated an FTA with Mexico. Chile and Singapore are talkingabout an FTA. For our part, we participate in an APEC that is stalled and an FTAA inthis hemisphere that is moving glacially.We also need to figure out how to reconcile environmental concerns and laborconcerns with trade. Seattle was the symbolic conclusion of a period of several yearsduring which environment and labor moved from the periphery of American trade policyto a role where they can veto trade policy initiatives. Now, these issues must beincluded at the center of the stage as we consider how to continue to promoteinternational trade. That is where environmental and labor issues rightfully belong.We don't trade just for the sake of trade. Trade must lead to improvements in thequality of life, for Americans and for others around the world. Environmental concernsdeal directly with the quality of life. So do labor and consumer issues. Trade with ahuman face. The WTO is not equipoed to deal with these issues.You might be asking yourself how I reconcile these very skeptical views of the WTO'sfuture role with my firm commitment to see China accede. I am not suggesting that wedismantle the WTO. Far from it. I am trying to distinguish, on the one hand, the currentglobal trading system, which is huge, growing, and complex, and, on the other hand,where we go in the future. The Clinton Administration negotiated an exceptionalarrangement with China that will serve our country well, and will also serve China'sinterests. Assuming that we manage the vitally important implementation issues well,Chinese accession to the WTO will be the means to open the Chinese economy asnever before, will potentially help in promoting significant change within China, and willprovide significant advantages to American manufacturers, farmers, workers, serviceproviders, and investors.I regret not being able to provide a clear road map today. I hope this session, andothers like it in Washington and around the country, will help us find the route to globalprosperity while we maintain a clean and healthy environment and respect forfundamental labor and human rights.Thank

How Can the WTO (World Trade Organization) Survive Seattle? , Economic Strategy Institute Forum

https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1688&amp;context=baucus_speeches

How Can the WTO (World Trade Organization) Survive Seattle? , Economic Strategy Institute Forum

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Montana