Introduction
It is a pleasure to be back in this lovely city of Vienna, and to join you in this conference.
I would like to warmly thank IBWE for inviting the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD), of Geneva, where I am a Senior Fellow, to participate in these deliberations.
The theme for your conference, “Hot Spots of Global Development”, and its objective of advancing development, while creating opportunities for Austrian businesses, is a timely and intriguing one.
By way of background, the ICTSD, which was created some 15 years ago, undertakes work in different fields, and in different ways. However, suffice to say, that it is the only global organization devoted exclusively to advancing sustainable development in the context of international trade related issues and negotiations. It also embraces regional trade regimes, as well as other multilateral agreements, such as climate change, which incorporate a trade dimension.

Strategically, ICTSD advances sustainable development by building knowledge communities, supporting policy dialogue and empowering policy makers and influencers—with particular attention to those typically excluded from policy processes—to act effectively on trade policy and the trade related policy issues that impact national and global wellbeing.
Given this track record, and your conference theme, I thought it fitting to address you on the current WTO Round of Global Trade Negotiations, otherwise known as the DDA – the Doha Development Agenda.

I believe that he gains resulting from the DDA warrants public and private sector leaders, such as yourselves, lending their active support and leadership.

After all, as the middle “D” implies, the DDA would provide a significant dividend for development. It also represents an important global economic stimulus package, one that would generate major new business opportunities for exporters and related interests, at a time when this is badly needed.

A classical win-win.

The DDA also serves as a reminder of the need to help the poorest countries strengthen their ties with international markets. After all, no poor country has ever become rich without international trade. A 1995 Brookings Institution study revealed that those countries which are open to trade and investment have grown at a rate which is three or four times that of countries which insist on closed economies.

We also are witnesses to the fact that, since opening their economies, China and India have lifted more than 400 million of their citizens from poverty — no small feat!

In addressing the DDA then, let me make four points.

WTO, A Valuable Institution
1. First, I start from the premise that the WTO is an invaluable global institution.
Many people, as evidenced by numerous protests over the years, “love to hate” the WTO. However, while imperfect, the truth is that it plays an important role in our international community.

As a former Canadian Trade Minister, WTO Ambassador, and Chairman of the WTO General Council, I have always felt that the core mission of the WTO is as relevant today as the day the GATT was first created, back in 1947. In fact, one can argue that it is even more important today, thanks to the historic economic changes and integration that the process of globalization has generated.
Indeed, between 1950 and 2005, world merchandise trade has grown almost thirty fold in volume terms, an expansion three times faster than growth in world GDP.
So, if we did not have an institution like the WTO — in a global village where every country has aggressive commercial ambitions, and where rules become an absolute imperative —- we would have to create one.
In the pursuit of trade liberalization, the DDA is the 9th round of global trade negotiations. The predecessors were all successful, and contributed to the long term growth and stability of the world economy. Increased trade has also acted as a bridge between different peoples and countries, helping to foster deeper understanding between societies, and lessening the risk of isolation.
The best guarantee for continued trade access and fair play by all countries — big and small, rich and poor –is through clear, predictable international trade rules. And it is precisely at the WTO, that the family of nations come together to negotiate and implement those very rules.
Without appearing condescending, the WTO is a particularly important forum for developing nations. The reality is that, in the intense race for bilateral trade agreements, sometimes poorer countries get left behind, as other nations seek partners who are well endowed economically.
Yet, at the WTO, which operates on the principal of consensus — one country, one vote — these same countries can leverage their economic interests and trade aspirations individually, as well as by acting in concert with other like-minded members and/or coalitions.
In the global architecture, then, the WTO occupies a central position.

Strengthening the Institution
2. Second, I believe that the WTO can and should be made even better and stronger.
The fact that we already have an institution responsible for global trade does not mean our work is done. Far from it.
We still need to negotiate new rules in order to meet new and rapidly-changing business realities. We also need to reform its political governance structures, so as to adequately respond to the political needs and demands of our times.
The WTO is not infallible, and institutional renewal is not about strengthening a bad organization. It is about improving an already good institution.
In essence, novel ideas and practices can be transformed into policy and political improvements, and help to reinvigorate the WTO. The private sector has a huge vested interest in being engaged and supportive of such an endeavor, since it is business that imports, exports, and invests, and in the process, creates economic and job opportunities.
It is critical, for example, that business leaders help governments to shape and define a future agenda for the WTO. After all, the DDA is almost a decade old, and in that span of time, the world has changed ten times over.
In other words, standing still is the worst possible strategy for an international institution that serves a world that never sleeps.

Bringing the DDA Home
3. Thirdly, it is essential that the DDA be successfully completed and soon.
It is essential for the credibility of the WTO, and for helping to stimulate and improve the global economic environment.
But, is the DDA going to be a journey delayed, or a journey denied?
2011 will mark the 10 anniversary since the Round was launched, an initiative that was to be accomplished in three years. So, the WTO is not exactly practicing the business edict of “on time delivery”! And every day that the meter runs, so does its credibility and relevancy. The institution simply cannot afford to remain in this limbo-like position much longer.
Perhaps more importantly, the completion of the Round would be a welcome signal of confidence for the global economy. It could only help economic growth and stability.
After plummeting by 12 per cent in 2009, trade is expected to grow by 13.5 per cent this year. But the international landscape is still vulnerable and uneven. We also face increasing currency tensions, which can escalate into dangerous and protectionist consequences.
A stable financial system and a healthy trading system are complementary public goods. They require constant vigilance and cooperation, and the DDA speaks to this broad objective.
The DDA has an ambitious agenda. Its core is the commitment to further liberalize the sectors of agriculture, industrial products, and services. Reducing tariffs by a doable 50% would yield savings of over $150 US Billion alone, without accounting for new growth and opportunities. These three constitute center stage, with agriculture — rightly or wrongly — playing the leading lady.
Accordingly, developing countries have taken a unified view; if the excessive levels of subsidies in the West, which badly distort the global playing field in agriculture, are not subjected to significant reforms, then they will ensure that nothing else will move.
Currently, some $1 Billion US, a day, is spent by developed countries in backstopping agriculture. That’s an incredible amount of largesse.
By way of a measurable context, this figure represents two thirds of Africa’s GDP, and is larger than the annual ODA budget.
Put another way, some 3 billion people live on less than $2 a day — the same as what an average cow in Europe receives!
The prevailing situation is morally wrong and economically unsustainable. Farmers should farm the land and not the mailbox.
Consequently, these subsidies must eventually be eliminated.
Two thirds of the world’s poor live in rural areas. And so, from a development perspective, the ‘freeing’ of agriculture stands to be a substantial and invaluable boost, allowing a multiplicity of products from developing countries to access western markets.
Yet, any successful trade negotiation requires a healthy give and take. Balance is indispensible to any deal. Towards this end, while agriculture is an important sector and way of life, it only represents, on average, 2 to 3 percent of the GDP of most developed nations.
Thus, the DDA cannot be exclusively about agriculture. Progress must also be made on the industrials and services negotiations — and here, developing Members have to be prepared to be in a ‘giving’ mode.
While many feel that the DDA process is being ‘hijacked’ by agriculture, the political reality is that the WTO membership must find its collective will to ‘blink’ together, and embrace this window of opportunity.
Otherwise, this ongoing game of “chicken” one day can prove fatal.

The long and winding Road
4. Finally, so where does the DDA journey go from here?
Efforts are still underway in Geneva to narrow the main differences, so as to provide Trade Ministers with the conditions for reaching a breakthrough.
It would appear that the WTO-DDA journey has arrived at yet another fork in road.
One path would see the DDA talks continue for an extended period of time in Geneva among Ambassadors and trade officials, without significant political engagement or breakthrough. This would mean that Ambassadors would be on a ‘stationary bicycle’ — there will be plenty of peddling and sweating, but no movement.
The other path would push Ministers to seriously reflect about the DDA impasse, and to find a way to bridge the gaps and reach a final settlement. In other words, political leaders will have to ask some hard questions;

· What does liberalized trade and a successful trade round mean for an anxious global economy?

· What would a failure mean for the cause of sustainable development?

· And what would the very first trade round to fail mean for the institution of the WTO?

A few days ago, the leaders of Britain and Germany appointed a committee to report on the DDA impasse. While this could possibly help, I’m not sure we need a committee to inform us about what the problems are.

It reminds me of the long-standing Israeli-Palestinian issue; the two parties generally know what they need to do in order to find peaceful co-existence. But the problem is how to get there?!

Effectively, the DDA faces three major challenges.

The first is the massive expansion of the WTO. The membership currently stands at 153 countries, a far cry from the 23 founding countries of the GATT. Political and economic agendas have multiplied, making it more difficult and time consuming to achieve a consensus.

The vast majority of WTO Members are also developing nations, and they have become much more active, vocal and organized in asserting their interests.

This reflects the enormous economic power shift East and South. Developing countries’ share of world trade has grown from a third to over half in just fifteen years — and China has just passed Japan as the world’s second biggest economy, and Germany as the world’s top exporter.  In 1990, less than a third of developing-country trade was with other developing countries; today over half of their trade is South-South.

The old days, where a small core group of developed countries — anchored by the US and the EU— would set and drive the agenda, are gone. And this should be seen as a positive development, if one believes in true multilateralism and in lifting all boats.

But, as a consequence, the process of constructing a balanced deal has suddenly become more complex. New political and economic realities require new responses, approaches, and mindsets.
The second challenge is whether developed country governments can agree to significantly reform and level the agricultural playing field, in return for the appropriate and corresponding offers from their developing country partners on industrial products and services trade?
And finally, the biggest challenge, is the lack of political will.
Governments still operate on the basic ‘law’ that “all politics is local”. This is a formidable hurdle in reaching global consensus, for it means that the international decisions are often subservient to parochial politics back home —- and here, I refer to all homes, rich and poor country capitals alike.
Traditionally, the US (together with the EU) has been the locomotive for the WTO. Yet, today the US finds itself in a weakened political and economic position.
The financial crisis and the jobless recovery have not been kind to America. The US is also being rivaled economically and politically by emerging countries that have clearly emerged. In addition, Washington politics has been very badly divided on most issues. And to make matters worse on the trade file, President Obama faces huge obstacles within his own Democratic Party and his labor constituency.
In terms of trying to move the talks forward, the signals from the US administration have not been hopeful, and this has resulted in a vacuum of leadership at the WTO.
Normally vacuums get filled. Ironically, this one lingers on.
I say ironic, because the world often complains when America leads; we’ve seen and heard plenty of biting criticism of the US, when it attempts to set the agenda and the pace on any given issue.
However, in the case of the DDA, the US is now being blamed for a lack of leadership and vision. At the same time, no other country — emerging or developed — is coming forward to make up the short fall. If truth be told, many linger in the shadows of the US and wait.
No one said that being ‘top dog’ is easy!
Furthermore, the private sector has not been as active or involved in making the business case for the DDA. For example, it was the private sector that largely created the political will and momentum in the Uruguay round, with CEO’s pressing governments to embrace the economic opportunities that liberalized trade offered. Those negotiations simply would not have succeeded were it not for business.

By contrast, the DDA is viewed rather indifferently by the business class. It also comes at a time when many corporations are struggling to fully emerge from the financial meltdown and the economic recession that followed, and when its public perception is rather weak.

Finally — as if we need any more burdens — for much of civil society and the public, the WTO has become a poster child for everything that ails our globalized era.
Many unfair and inaccurate allegations have been thrown at the WTO. Not only does this create a more difficult operating environment, but it also weakens the resolve of many political leaders who, rather than trying to lead their citizens, are content to follow public opinion.

In Closing
In closing, these challenges do not make for an easy DDA roadmap, to say the least. Nor do they make it easy for political leaders to ‘crunch’ final decisions.
But leaders get elected to lead.
They also get paid to project vision, and find common ground.
In this pursuit, the recently established G-20 Forum provides Leaders with the necessary and legitimate political governance platform, that was missing in the past. Unlike the G-8 of course, a critical mass of major developed and developing nations are found around this unique G-20 table, and this presents an opportunity to be seized. Can leaders commit — despite the difficulties — to finding a way to reach across this table and in so doing, bridge the DDA divide?
While any G-20 agreement would be informal and non-binding, it would nonetheless go a very long way in marshalling support from the remaining 133 WTO Members. It would, after all, be about rallying new economic growth opportunities, and reinforcing a global partnership to put trade openings at the service of development.
The G-20 would also act as the ‘quarterback’ for the deal, and thus fill the existing vacuum of leadership at the WTO. It would represent an inclusive leadership, one that would reflect a developing/developed country coalition of the willing.

All 153 countries agreed to launch the DDA back in 2001 and since then, all political leaders have talked a good talk globally.
Let us now hope, with your active encouragement at this hour in the WTO negotiations, that our leaders walk along the global high road, and refrain from taking any local off-ramps.
Thank you.

Ambassador Sergio Marchi is a Senior Fellow with the Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, in Geneva. He also teaches at Webster University, in the International Relations Department. He formerly served as the Canadian Minister of International Trade and Ambassador to the WTO, including as Chairman of the WTO General Council.

GFMD Panel: Improving Public Perceptions of Migrants

Introduction

Thank you Juan Jose, and a good morning to one and all.

I am very pleased to be part of the GFMD, and I compliment the Ambassador and all his Mexican government colleagues for the commitment, determination, and creativity that they brought to this grand event.

I am also honoured to be the Moderator of the first Panel, Improving the Public
Perception of Migrants.

: Gabriel Garcia Marquez

: Bob Marley

: Madeline Albright

: Victor Hugo

: Andrew Grove

: Levi Strauss

: Isabella Rossellini

: Peter Jennings

: Deepak Chopra

: Arnold Schwarzenegger

: Isabelle Allende

The list goes on and on.

All of these rather famous personalities are poor, struggling, people.

People, who have generally been responsible for different criminal activities; for abusing the social welfare system; for taking jobs away from other citizens; and for undermining the national cultural fabric.

In addition, they also pose a security threat.

Clearly, they should never had been allowed to enter in the first place. They should now all be deported. No questions asked.

All we need to go by are perceptions, right?

After all, perception is reality, right?

Well, delegates in this room may have a rather different opinion.

Indeed, a very different perception!

Of course, none of the names that I mentioned — all of whom were migrants or refugees themselves — were responsible for any of the things I alleged…..well, maybe Governor Schwarzenegger was…..

But don’t go telling that to many of our citizens back home, because when it comes to migrants, many of their thoughts are neither pleasant, nor positive.

Naturally, immigrants and refugees have the same human failings as the rest of us. But, as a grouping, why do they get such a negative and bad rap?

Why is it that so many of our fellow citizens think so ill of migrants?

More importantly, how do we address and correct this generally negative perception?

We must find a way to overcome this dilemma for at least, two basic but important reasons.

First, people should not be stereotyped and stigmatized. It’s not right, it’s not accurate, it’s not fair, and they deserve better.

And second, how can we allow political leaders, policy makers, and institutions to craft public responses, regulations, and laws on migration, which actually be based based on such fundamentally misplaced public views?
After all, how can we ever get the governance of migration right — hopefully global governance — if the perceptions of those that are to be governed, are so off base?

How can we get the international politics right, if all politics is still local, and continues to react to such immediate emotions?

Indeed, how can we ever expect to realize the themes that our Mexican hosts have worked so well and so hard on — partnerships, shared responsibility, and shared prosperity — if the core constituency — the migrants — are so badly misunderstood?

In short, we simply must insist on getting the facts right. Because, if we get the wrong story, we get the wrong future!

In composing that new story, we must also strive to work in concert!

And that’s why we launch this “Common Space” with this very theme and objective in mind.

We look forward to an animated, concrete, forward looking, and problem-solving discussion.

And we have a distinguished panel to help inspire our creative thoughts.

Let me introduce them:

1. Ms Navanethem Pillay
High Commissioner, UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

2. Minister Mosharraf Hossein, Bangladesh (TBC)


3. Mr Dirk Jaspers (Yaspers)
Director, Latinamerican and Caribbean Centre for Demography

4. Ms Najla Chahda (no ‘j’ nor ‘h’)
Director, Caritas Lebanon Migration Centre

5. Mr Eric Schwartz
US Asst Secretary of State, Bureau of Pop, Refugees & Migration

6. Dr Raul Delagado Weis
Director de la Unidad Academica de Estudios del Desarrollo
Autonmous Univ of Zacatecas

A few words on the ground rules of our process:

· In the Opening Round, I will direct one question to two of our panellists, who will have 3 minutes each to respond.

: I will then repeat this with two additional and different questions posed to the last two couples of panellists.

: The panellists have known the questions in advance, so as to be ready and concise.

· Following this, there will be a General Debate for 45 minutes.

: Beyond the participants, I would like to take written questions and comments from the floor.

: We have a number of people who will be roving the floor for them, so please raise your hand to get their attention.

: Any questions we do not reach, will be the sent directly to the panellists for their follow up.

· Finally,there will be a Closing Round of 15 minutes, where each panellist will be given 2 minutes, to draw some concluding “take-aways”.

Time is tight, given the number of panellists and the fact that Panel No.2 is up at bat immediately after ours is finished.

So, let us begin.

Q 1. To Ms Pillay and Minister Hossein:

How can public and private institutions together contribute to a better understanding and more balanced perception of migrants, and ensure a more balanced public debate on migration?

Q.2 To Mr Jaspers & Ms Chadha:

Why are public perceptions about migration important for development?


Q.3. To Mr Schwartz and Dr Weis:

What measures can governments and their civil society partners take to reduce bad perceptions of migrants?
…………………………………………







Ambassador Sergio Marchi is a Senior Fellow with the Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, in Geneva. He also teaches at Webster University, in the International Relations Department. He formerly served as the Canadian Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Canadian Ambassador to the UN and WTO in Geneva, and as a Commissioner on the UN Global Commission on International Migration.

Introduction

: I would like to thank your Secretary General, Anders Johnsson, and IPU, for their invitation to participate in this special panel session.

: I must say, that being in this auditorium, full of Parliamentarians, brings back some very fond memories of my own political days in Canada and my time spent in its majestic Parliament.

: I am particularly pleased to discuss with you the issue of migration, which has always been close to me — personally, politically and professionally.

: I would like to focus my remarks this morning on a single issue; namely: how governments and parliamentarians approach and respond to an issue which is attracting huge public interest.

: In addressing this theme, let me touch on 4 points.

Global Migration is already Here!

First, the issue of migration is a powerful and unmistakable sign of our globalized times.

: The international movement and migration of peoples has become prolific in recent years, and it is on the political radar screens of all your countries and parliaments.

: And it’s not about to go away.

: In fact, all the signs promise that it will only intensify:

ü Migration already touches all lands and all peoples. The old notion of ‘sending’ and ‘receiving’ countries has been overtaken. Globalization has now ensured that migrants leave, enter, or transit through all nations — big and small, rich and poor. Human mobility is South-North; North-South, and increasingly, South-South.

ü In addition, as the integration of national economic markets meld into a single global one, this places ever-greater pressures on the need for effective, global labor mobility.

-  And regrettably, we live in a world where man-made crises and tragedies of Mother Nature combine to only increase and ‘aggravate’ human mobility, within and across national borders.

: So we cannot escape its reality — migration is indeed a global phenomenon.

: It also represents a globally complex policy web.

: Today, migration embraces and impacts a multiplicity of other important policy dossiers that confront parliamentarians the world over, including economic, labour, cultural, linguistic, social, human rights, accreditation, international relations and integration-related questions.

: All told, migration’s global reach is an impressive one.

: This serves to underscore the fact, that in tackling international problems, one cannot talk about the forces of international trade and investment, nor the challenges of world hunger, disease and terrorism, nor the dangers posed by climate change, nor indeed, about global migration and development—and then proceed to deal with them in a piecemeal, isolated fashion.

: We must do better. We must connect the dots.

National Responses Rule

Second, despite migration’s extensive global dimension, thus far, the response by governments has largely been national in scope.

: In our new world order, “going it alone” is fast becoming the exception; the old way of doing business.

: Cross border issues tend to attract the interest and cooperation of a host of governments and institutions, sometimes universally so; sharing both burdens and opportunities, all in an effort to develop and enforce more effective public policies.

: Matters of international trade, labor, health, human rights, security, intellectual property, climate, for example, are all managed by some form of global governance.

: The imperative to act in a collaborative and coherent fashion has become painfully evident. Indeed, the response to the current global financial and economic crisis—the establishment of the G‐20 — perhaps best typifies the paradigm shift that needs to take place in political governance.

: Yet, migration is a glaring exception to the rule.

: While there has been a recent increase in transnational efforts by governments, international organizations and civil society, when it comes to migration, the political buck stops with national governments.

: But, are such strategies viable for today’s world? Do they adequately address the realities of human mobility, or do they now act more like straight-jackets?

: Do these strategies expand our options with which to address this phenomenon on a truly global level, or do they narrow our policy toolbox?
: Not only are the answers rather obvious but quite frankly, the status quo is unsustainable.

: Global forces cannot be addressed by national policies alone, for they will always fall short.

: They need to be augmented by an international resolve and approach.

All Politics is Local but….

Thirdly, the status quo is largely dictated by one of the basic ‘laws’ of politics — namely, that all politics is local.

: True enough. Been there, done that.

: Moreover, migration happens to be a ‘hot’ issue. It packs a huge emotional punch, and its impact is being felt in political jurisdictions around the world, as well as shaping civic movements and actions.

: So, there has been an understandable desire to keep a local and tight control on migration decision-making.

: And yet, all our countries are charter members of our global village.
: The contradiction and challenge before us — is how should we then practise politics in that global village?

: From my standpoint, efforts in establishing an international framework are long overdue.

: And this is not principally about national governments ceding or losing political authority.

: The reality is — rightly or wrongly — that under an accelerating era of globalization, employers, migrant networks, agents, individual migrants, and yes, smugglers, have already taken things into their own hands, irrespective of national policies on admission and border control.

: And while governments may have won a number of battles against unauthorized migration, there is the much larger, ongoing ‘war’ for better control of who enters, leaves, transits, and remains in our territories.

: Indeed, how did millions upon millions of undocumented individuals, enter our different countries in the first place? And why and how does this movement continue?

: In other words, an improved migration management internationally — one that shares both the opportunities and challenges — is really about countries and governments reclaiming political sovereignty and control, and exercising it collectively — to the advantage of individual States, citizens, and migrants alike.

: Furthermore, building new governance measures is not the challenge or obligation for just some governments, or for that matter, the well-to-do nations.

: For these measures to succeed, the approach must be inclusive. All nations should take part.

: After all, the new face of human mobility provides all countries a vested interest (and I would also say, an obligation) to develop a coherent international response.

Bettering Migration Governance & Politics

: Furthermore, adopting and implementing an international approach would not only enhance the governance of migration, but I also believe that it would make for a more constructive brand of migration politics.
: I say that, because when national measures fall short in confronting a force which is part of a much broader, international context, many citizens feel overwhelmed and react with frustration and anger.

: In other words, a new national law or regulation is no guarantee that the next boat of “illegal” migrants will be prevented from arriving on our shores.

: In the important ‘game’ of public expectations — which is central to any political success — policy failures undermine peoples’ confidence in the ‘system’. And this is bad news for the local politicians since the target of citizens’ anxieties are also local.

: Now, I realize that there are no global guarantees, either.

: However, in addressing the legitimate public demands for a more effective management of migration pressures, would it not be better for national governments and parliaments to state that they are not fighting and standing alone?

ü That all countries are cooperating with one another.

ü That their national response is part of a coordinated and concerted international strategy.

ü And that as a result, this action stands a greater chance of success.

: In this scenario, would local electors not be more reassured? Would voters not be ‘happier’ — or is that an oxymoron?!

: Seriously, I appreciate that in politics, parliamentarians need to move with the times. But, there is also an onus to govern for the times.

Moving Forward in IPU

: Finally, I would encourage you and your IPU colleagues to consider how you could advance the political discourse on the matter of migration governance/management to the next stage.

: I do not underestimate for one moment, the formidable task that migration policy and decision-making represents. I never have, whether as a Canadian MP, or as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, or as Ambassador to the UN, or as a Commissioner on the UN Global Commission on International Migration.

: To be sure, we need to think and act prudently.

: But, I believe that IPU is ideally positioned;

ü It provides an important international political space, where all political voices and views can be fully aired, and where political common ground can be pursued and found.

ü IPU also has a track record of interest and engagement on migration policy, with your resolutions that dates back to your 113th Assembly.

: The central question, therefore, is how to incrementally and realistically build on this foundation?

: For example;

ü Can a working group of interested IPU Parliamentarians, including Members of Parliamentary Committees that oversee migration legislation and Parliamentary Secretaries to Ministers responsible for migration, be formed to consider this issue in greater detail, and develop a set of recommendations?
ü Can such a group attempt to evaluate and untangle some of the central conundrums?

- How can national governments complement their strictly national responses with an international framework?

- How and in what policy areas, can governments, multilateral agencies, and civil society strengthen their collaboration and cooperation?

- What are the essential elements that would define and anchor any international framework? And in this framework, how and where can governments retain national flexibilities?

- And what role can parliamentarians play, especially in relation to constructively dealing with public opinion and reactions?

ü On a more pedestrian track, can such a group encourage and perhaps host an initial retreat of Ministers responsible for migration — from both developing and developed countries — so that they may have an opportunity of sharing experiences and participating in joint problem-solving?

- When I was Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in 1993, there was not a single, regular meeting in any calendar year, when one could look forward to conferring with Ministerial colleagues from around the globe, in order to discuss the political issues of the day —innovative legislation; better regulations; cooperation with civil society; integration efforts; contemplate collective actions and initiatives; etc.

- The bad news is that seventeen years later, this is still the case!

- Is it not time, especially given the historic sea-changes that have taken place, to build opportunities for Ministers of Migration to caucus regularly?

: These are just but a few ideas which, I think, demonstrate the considerable scope for IPU to potentially accomplish some ground-breaking work in this area.

In Closing

: In closing, I believe that migration remains largely an opportunity — for both migrants and nations.

: Migrants are dreamers and entrepreneurs. They often risk everything for a different and better life.

: And in turn, their diversity of ideas, experiences, and energies help to renew societies.

: But as a deeply emotional reality, migration also packs fears and perceptions that create anxieties for citizens of all backgrounds, in all our lands.

: For all of these reasons and contradictions, IPU can help bring political leaders, governments, and parliaments closer together.

ü To help them through this policy and political challenge.

ü To help them retain and reinforce what is working well.

ü To help them find the political will to rethink and rebuild, where new realities demand it.

ü To help them get right, the international politics of the issue.

: To help, in effect, marshal the global vision and leadership that global migration demands.

: Thank you.

§ Ambassador Sergio Marchi is a Senior Fellow, with the Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, in Geneva. He formerly served as a Canadian Member of Parliament for 15 years, including as Minister for Citizenship and Immigration. He was also Canadian Ambassador to the UN and WTO in Geneva; and a Commissioner on the UN Global Commission on International Migration.
____________________________________________________________________________________

The PACER Plus Trade Negotiations
Introduction
· I would like to thank my good friend and former colleague, Andy Stoler, for inviting me to participate on this panel. I’m pleased to join my fellow panellists, and look forward to an animated dialogue.

· I was asked to address the role and impact of RTA’s for developing countries, in the context of the PACER Plus negotiations.

· I am happy to oblige, but I must first and openly say, that when it comes to trade, I am a multilateralist at heart.

· When you consider how small our world is becoming, combined with the impressive growth and appetite for international trade in every corner of our globe, I believe that the best guarantee for continued access and fair play by all countries — big and small, rich and poor –is through clear, predictable international trade rules.

· It is precisely here, at the WTO, that the family of nations comes together to negotiate and implement those very rules. And they do so, to the advantage of the 3 C’s — companies, countries, and citizens.

· This is, I believe, especially true for the smaller, less powerful nations. And in yesterday’s opening plenary, the former President of Botswana spoke eloquently on this very reality.

· In short, I subscribe to Prof. Bhagwati’s school-of-thought, when he talked about RTA’s as having a “spaghetti bowl” effect.

· Now as you can tell, I love a good plate of pasta, but if every WTO member were to sign a bilateral trade agreement with each other, there would be some 11,628 strands of spaghetti alla RTA! And that’s way too much — even for me.
· A coherent set of global rules, as complicating as they can be and are, are put in place for maximizing clarity and minimizing confusion around our globe, as it relates to an efficient game of trade.

RTA’s Context
· However, having said this, we all know that RTAs have become a distinctive and rapidly increasing feature of the international trading landscape. Some would argue that the word ‘proliferation’ is a more accurate description.

· Developed and developing countries alike — on North-South, South-South and North-North grids — continue to engage in RTA negotiations, and as a result, an increasing amount of trade is covered by preferential arrangements.

· Indeed, countries feel the pressure of competitive regional liberalization and thus accelerate their search for new markets. In some cases, the fear of losing existing unilateral non-reciprocal trade preferences provides the rationale for launching RTA negotiations.

· And of course, RTA’s also act as an insurance policy against the slow moving multilateral track of late. As the WTO’s DDA struggles, governments, Ministers of Trade, and CEO’s all become more anxious and as they do, the regional/bilateral options look more appealing.

· In fairness, many regional pacts contain obligations that go beyond existing multilateral commitments, and others deal with areas not yet covered by the WTO, for example in areas of investment, competition, labor and the environment.

· In this regard, RTAs can serve to secure and not just enhance, trade opportunities, especially in the context of protectionist tendencies that come and go.

PACER Plus

i) The Reality

· Having been launched about a year ago, the PACER Plus negotiations are billed as a “long term opportunity to create jobs, boost economic growth, and raise living standards”. Now who can argue with such a mission?

· However, the central question remains: how is this mission to be accomplished?

· And asking this question inevitably leads to another: namely, how do negotiators ensure that the resulting deal is balanced and mutually beneficial among all the countries, notwithstanding the significant differences in the size and sophistication of economies between developed and developing country members of PACER?

· In other words, how can the much smaller Forum Island Countries (FICs) stand to gain in both goods and services trade, which they couldn’t get with Australia and New Zealand, without PACER Plus?

· The sustainability of any final arrangement will depend to a significant degree on how this question is addressed by the negotiations.

ii) The Issues

· There are many issues — both substantive and process related — which will ultimately determine the sustainability of any PACER Plus agreement.

Let me briefly identify a few that, for me, stand out from the pack;

· i) National Consultations

: First, on the very form and process of the negotiations, all countries must have an opportunity of conducting comprehensive national consultations.

: Governments — especially from smaller nations, who may not have the trade culture and infrastructure that their larger counterparts do — must have the appropriate time to reach out to their private sector, in an effort to fully understand and incorporate their priorities and vulnerabilities going into these negotiations.

: As well, governments also need to engage in a broader dialogue with the relevant elements of their civil society.

: In this way, governments can accurately formulate a negotiating strategy that meets their country’s own sustainable economic needs and priorities while, at the same time, mobilizing public support for the negotiations.

: In the long run, cutting corners in conducting a comprehensive process of consultations will undermine the ability of negotiators to pursue the appropriate and necessary deal that best serves their respective economies.
: And in turn, this will adversely affect public opinion and confidence in the very negotiations.

: After all, we have all experienced situations where a bad process, trumps the best potential substance.

· ii) Capacity Building & Development Assistance

: Secondly, and flowing from the previous point, there must be a genuine undertaking to recognize and bridge the gap that exists between the developed and developing country PACER members.

: The smaller Forum Island States require capacity building — both human and financial resources — and development assistance, in order to negotiate as ‘equals’, and ensure that positive and balanced outcomes are attainable and enforced.

: These measures should be well defined by the negotiators so that they avoid unrealistic or failed expectations, which would serve to undercut the viability of the negotiations and the credibility of any final agreement.

: In this regard, PACER participants — of whom about half are either WTO Members or Observers — can learn from some hard lessons from the DDA negotiations here in Geneva.

· iii) Labor
: Thirdly, bilateral and regional negotiations are increasingly including labor as part of their trade negotiations and agreements.
: Agreements reached on labor matters display some points of agreement with more uniform clauses, but there are still many differences, especially with regard to commitments and arrangements for compliance and for dispute resolution.
: In some cases, labor agreements have had access to co-operation programs for improving the capacity for inspection and control.
: In other cases, South-South co-operation has made it possible to have access to an exchange of good practices or benchmarking in the search for best practices.
: As well, remittances from workers in Australia and New Zealand are an important source of economic support for many of their families and communities in the Pacific islands. Both countries have seasonal worker schemes for workers from some of the Pacific islands, and this may be an area where further progress can be made.
: PACER Members should therefore give careful reflection to the issue of labor mobility, and how this can impact the balance of any final trade arrangement.

· iv)Environment
: Fourthly, among developing countries, there continues to be a general sentiment that environmental requirements constitute barriers to trade.
: Consequently, they emphasize the importance of ensuring that environmental requirements in RTAs are balanced, and point to the need for a “positive environmental agenda”. This includes coupling strong provisions, with co-operation mechanisms and support for capacity building.
: Incorporating environmental provisions within RTAs offer potential benefits to developing countries, including increased enforcement of environmental laws and the raising of environmental standards.
: However, managing such negotiations, as well as ensuring an effective implementation of environmental provisions in RTAs, could be quite complex and taxing, especially when the coordination between trade and environment ministries, and added administrative and legal burdens, are factored in.
: Furthermore, the issue of climate change provides an additional relevant dimension, since it poses a potentially formidable threat to economic sectors and livelihoods (i.e. Fisheries, tourism, etc.) in some PACER countries.
: Indeed, for lower-lying island states, the discussion on climate change runs much deeper — since the discourse involves their very existence.
: The environmental agenda therefore demands thoughtful consideration, and any provisions for environmental co-operation priorities require adequate details, including possible funding provisions.

· v) Services
: Fifthly, the challenge for countries, particularly for those in the developing world that do not have as established a tradition in regulating services, is to find the right balance between integrating their services economies into the most dynamic supply chains in the world, while keeping and protecting their right to regulate.
: Moreover, services should not be simply viewed as an individual sector. Instead, the prevailing wisdom should be that services are an indispensible component for a well-functioning and efficient economy; that they enhance the competitiveness of a national economy; and that they directly impact the quality of life enjoyed by citizens.
: In that sense, during the PACER Plus negotiations, the economics of services need to be considered from an ‘economy-wide’ perspective.

· vi) Dispute Settlement
: Finally, it is vital, that Members insist and agree on an effective and fair mechanism for settling trade disputes.
: Given the significant discrepancies in the size and power of the economies involved, it is especially important for companies and citizens alike, to be reassured that commercial differences will be settled by who is ‘right’, and not by who has the ‘might’.
: Failure to provide such a reassurance runs the very grave risk of undoing the negotiations, as this could easily become a powerful and emotional political lightening-rod.


In Closing
· In closing, an effective framework for PACER Plus negotiations can produce a trade agreement that would help build a strong economic bridge between its member countries, and enhance its contact with and reach across, the international community at large.

· However, we need to recognize that no single trade agreement — be it bilateral, regional, or multilateral — will be a perfect document. It will not resolve all problems.

· As in life, a trade agreement is a journey, and not a final destination.

· From my own country’s experience, expect carve-outs and exceptions to the rule, where significant sensitivities are still, rightly or wrongly, the political order of the day.

· There will also be a need for an ongoing commitment by the political leadership to go beyond the letter of any agreement, and work out serious differences when they arise, in a constructive and mutually respectful fashion.

· In this regard, I recall the many fears that prevailed in Canada when we contemplated an FTA with the largest and most powerful economy in the world, and subsequently the NAFTA, with a Mexican labor force that was so much more competitive.

· In the end, however, while the deals do not pretend to be perfect, the Canadian business community responded relatively promptly, aggressively, and successfully to the new economic opportunities that replaced the old trade and investment barriers.

· In the process, the growth and development of our industries were advanced and accelerated, and our economy in general was made more efficient.

· And in turn, this overall economic success and transformation provided a valuable boost to our national confidence, and enhanced the never-ending work of nation building.

· It is my hope that the very same experience befalls all of the PACER countries.

· Thank you.

——————————————————————————————–

Amb. Sergio Marchi is a Senior Fellow with the Center for Trade and Sustainable Development, in Geneva. He previously served as Canada’s Minister for International Trade and Ambassador to the WTO, including as Chairman of the WTO General Council.

Abstract
Migration is a global phenomenon. It touches all corners of the globe, and is quickly rising on the political and policy radar screens of developing and developed countries alike. It challenges our leaders, and it riles many of our citizens. And migration pressures and emotions are not about to fade away. On the contrary, the forces of globalization and climate change, ensures that the issue of human mobility will continue to be a prominent reality of our times, and demand an effective strategy.
Yet, to date, our responses remain largely national and even then, most nations do not have a comprehensive domestic migration policy or program. This presents the international community with a formidable policy gap; a vacuum that demands a response — a global response. And there is no easy or simple fix.
However, because time is not on our side, I believe that we need to immediately think about how the international community can and should respond, and then impress upon our leaders the need for them to act with appropriate urgency, and to do so collectively.

In this spirit, and in cooperation with the International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC), based in Geneva, last year I had the privilege of launching and leading an initiative entitled, ‘Conversations, on the Global Governance of Migration’.

In a modest but committed way, our aim was to facilitate an informal, international dialogue among many different migration actors in an effort to explore and better understand the different elements — both process and policy‐related — that would need to be incorporated in any effort to build a framework of global cooperation and collaboration on migration policy.

This article outlines the rationale and need for such an initiative; some key questions; our initial findings; and the future mileposts of this ‘journey’.

Global Migration: In Need of a Global Response

Introduction

“The more things change, the more they stay the same.”

This old and popular French proverb captures well how our world does migration policy today.
Our world has undergone historic change. It has become an interconnected global village, aided and abetted by a technological revolution. And the prolific movement and migration of peoples has become a definite sign of the times.
Ours is also a world where, increasingly “going it alone”, is fast becoming the exception. The old way of doing business. Today, most issues that cross national borders tend to galvanize an international response and strategy; burdens and opportunities are shared by a host of governments and institutions. Matters of international trade, labor, health, human rights, security, intellectual property, climate, for example, are all managed by some form of global governance.
However, despite it being a global phenomenon, migration is the exception to the rule. In fact, for migration policy, “going it alone” seems to be the golden rule. Where national responses continue to trump globally shared ones, and where many nations still do not even have a comprehensive domestic program to deal with migration issues.
Yet, there have been numerous reports and calls over the years urging us to alter, or at least complement, our course. The Willy Brandt Commission in 1980; in 1993 the Commission on Global Governance; the launch of the New International Regime for Orderly Movement of People in 1997; the Berne Initiative in 2001; the Commission on Human Security in 2001; the Social Dimension of Globalization in 2004, and the most recent, of which I had the pleasure of being a Commissioner, was the Global Commission on International Migration in 2005 — all these initiatives made a convincing case for a more cooperative and collaborative global approach to the management of international migration.
However, these reports have all faced the same regrettable fate — they have all been disregarded and left to languish on our book shelves.

Globalization Marches On
If a single or series of commissioned reports were not going to prove convincing, then one would have thought that the historic forces that have shaped our modern times would have compelled us to amend our ways and habits;

• An ever shrinking world.
• A process of unrelenting globalization, that has brought unprecedented change and movement of goods, services, capital, and people to all corners of our planet, at unprecedented speeds.
• An increasingly integrated international economic market place, which places an ever higher premium on labor mobility.
• A world community where migrants now arrive from, travel to, or transit through, every single nation — big and small, rich and poor. Where indeed, migration now touches all lands and all peoples.
• Where man-made crises and tragedies increase and aggravate this human movement — both forced and voluntary — within and across national borders.
• And, where Mother Nature also does her unfortunate best to ensure that different peoples are forced to be on the move in search of a more sustainable land and home.

These are the times we live in. A world ripe with great opportunities, yet one mixed with great turbulence, as well. And migration is not about to fade away. On the contrary, the forces of globalization and climate change ensure that global migration will surely intensify; generating increased emotional responses from citizens, and demanding greater attention from our political leaders.
Moreover, in tackling international problems, our leaders must recognize that they can neither talk about the forces of international trade and investment, nor the challenges of world hunger, disease and terrorism, nor the dangers posed by climate change, nor indeed, about global migration and development—and then proceed to deal with them in an isolated fashion.
The imperative to act in more cooperative, interrelated, and coherent terms has become painfully evident. Indeed, the global response to the current global financial and economic crisis—the establishment of the G‐20, and its close engagement with such multilateral bodies as the WTO, World Bank, and the IMF—perhaps best typifies the paradigm shift that needs to take place in political governance.

Yet, on migration policy, we persevere with largely national strategies. But, are these really strategies? Do they adequately address the increasing levels and changing patterns of international migration or, do they now act more like straight-jackets? Do these strategies expand our options with which to address the needs of human mobility on a truly global level, or do they narrow our policy toolbox? Personally, the answers are rather obvious.

While national governments may still find comfort in these straightjackets for reasons of politics and sovereignty, we actually need to openly assess the reality on the ground as it is, and change mindsets and approaches accordingly.

Simply put, establishing an international framework for migration policy-making is not principally about governments ceding or losing authority. The reality is that under an accelerating era of globalization, employers, smugglers, migrant networks, agents, and individual migrants themselves, have already take things into their own hands, irrespective of national government policies on admission. While governments may have won a number of battles against unauthorized migration, what about the larger, ongoing ‘war’ for better control of who enters, leaves, transits, and remains in their territories? For instance, how did 12 million undocumented individuals, enter the US? And why does this movement continue almost unabated, despite the current conservative measures and thinking being applied to immigration policy?

In other words, an improved migration management internationally — one that shares both the burdens and the fruits — is really about countries and governments reclaiming sovereignty and control, and exercising it collectively — to the advantage of both States and migrants alike. I believe this to be a central ‘hidden’ truth, which requires candid and thoughtful reflection. Its ultimate acceptance has the potential to be a ‘game-changer’, when it comes to the discourse of how to better manage migration among the family of nations.

In addition, improving and establishing new governance measures is not the challenges of just some governments, or the well-to-do nations. To be successful, the approach must be an inclusive one. All nations must be involved because the new reality is that they are all touched, in one way or another, by migration. They therefore all have a vested interest in developing a better, and more coherent and holistic policy response.

To paraphrase Hillary Clinton, it will take a village — a global village.
Having said this, I do not underestimate for one moment, the formidable task that this represents. I never have, whether as Canadian Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, or as Ambassador to the UN and WTO in Geneva, or as a Commissioner on the UN Global Commission on International Migration. To be sure, we need to think and act prudently. However, we should at least find the courage to raise the right questions; questions that we know need asking.
For example;

• In the face of migration’s globality, are national responses sustainable?
• How can we shift policy gears, so as to better meet the needs of today?
• How and where can governments and multilateral agencies enhance their collaboration and cooperation?
• What are the essential elements with which to construct an internationally integrated framework?
• And in this framework, how and where can we retain national flexibilities?

In other words, how can countries help one another to find mutually reinforcing international measures, with which to more effectively address their respective migration pressures locally?

‘Conversations’
These were some of the very questions that we, at International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC), started with. Indeed, they were the ‘seeds’ that harvested the Conversations initiative.
We wanted to make a modest but committed contribution, by facilitating a process of open and constructive discussion, with an extensive array of senior migration actors, about ways in which we could create better governance, as a response to the global phenomenon of migration. The hope was to help stimulate a deeper public discourse, facilitate the development of a number of relevant benchmarks and options, and eventually encourage decision makers to take up its cause with appropriate urgency.

Conversations was launched in late 2009. As a first phase, it was Geneva-based and consisted of two partnered Roundtables; one-on-one meetings with several key Heads of Agencies (IOM, UNHCR, ILO, UNITAR, UNDP) most involved with the migration dossier; discussions with UN Ambassadors; and input from a variety of individual stakeholders.

Discussions were informal, followed Chatham House Rules, and were largely driven by three concerns:

i) Evaluating the current level of migration governance, and how these efforts could be improved and deepened.

ii) Entertaining new and realistic ideas and proposals which would serve to create a more globally unified response to migration challenges?

iii) And, determining what kind of follow-up action and initiatives would be necessary for advancing this process?

Connecting the Dots

Our Report, ‘Connecting the Dots’, is a summary of the participants’ responses in this first phase, and the discussions that their thoughts animated.

Participants engaged openly and enthusiastically, and we remain most grateful to all of them for their lively, candid, and creative views and assessments. They provided us with a rich menu of issues, observations, and additional questions, which deserve further and thoughtful consideration.

We tried to capture all of the salient contributions and weave them into a coherent story line, including the divergent strands, so as to accurately capture the full flavor of the discourse. You may down load a copy of the report from the ICMC website, at: www.icmc.net

At the risk of not doing justice to the full narrative of the Report, let me draw out some of the highlights and themes of what participants advocated during a very stimulating set of conversations;
Regarding the Broader Context:
1. Participants felt that migration was very much a reflection of our times, and thanks in part to the process of globalization, the movement of people within and across borders, will continue to increase.
2. Nations can no longer be divided into strictly “sending” and “receiving” countries. Today, migrants are leaving from, arriving to and transiting through, all developed and developing countries. In that sense, we’re all in the same boat.
3. As an issue, international migration will only gain in political and policy importance.
4. Yet, despite migration’s global reach, its governance remains almost entirely national, thus creating a significant gap and vacuum.
5. Participants felt that global challenges demand global solutions. And for many of them, it was not a question of whether a discussion of global governance of migration goes forward, but rather when and how.
6. At the same time, discussants did not underestimate the formidable task that this represents for our international community. Trying to mobilize, develop and agree upon a global undertaking is never an easy task, regardless of the issue involved. Practising and succeeding at multilateralism, in an increasingly multi-polar world, is not a simple undertaking. Witness, for example, the 9 year struggle of the WTO’s ongoing Doha Trade Round, or the recent Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen.
7. The objective of Conversations (as well as for the participants) was not to necessarily propose a “super” agency, notwithstanding that such an option might well be considered by States one day. Rather, the focus was on perceptions of the value of global governance itself, and any actions or commitments that seemed practical to pursue in the short to medium term, whose effect would improve the management of global migration.

In Taking Stock of Current Governance Structures:
8. Participants agreed that better approaches were needed to organizing contemporary migration.
9. Timing was seen as an important factor. Given the existing and potentially new challenges on the horizon, it was felt that governments need to move with appropriate urgency. Participants felt that we do not have the luxury of inaction.
10. There was also an immediate attention to the words, ‘global governance, and a concern that the term could be potentially viewed as a “loaded” or “intimidating” term by some governments and/or agencies. Further reflection on a more neutral expression would be helpful and welcome.
11. It was also thought that a good part of this “fear” is the assumption that this would immediately involve or, will inevitably lead, to the creation of a new, supranational agency.
12. The other part of the “fear” equation, of course, is the reluctance on the part of most governments to cede sovereignty over migration matters. However, participants asked directly: what if governments took the time to calculate their net benefits, if migration were to be subjected to global cooperation and collaboration, just as is done with so many other global issues?
13. The principal underlying assumption was that a shared and coordinated international approach would be of benefit for all parties concerned: for the ability of States to better manage migration, for improving the confidence of their citizens, and for migrants themselves.
14. A more effective global approach would also embrace a “bottom-up” approach, as well as extending outwards, both national and regional processes, and not just new tools.
15. Participants identified five pillars which currently intersect to provide what one participant labelled as “soft” governance: i) national policies and programmes; ii) bilateral, regional, and global dialogues; iii) supranational structures and cooperation (e.g. the EU); iv) multilateral agencies; and v) international legal frameworks. But to date, participants believed that the sum of the parts had not resulted in coherent global governance.
16. It was thought that a set of broad migration principles could assist and guide the development of international governance measures. In this regard, the Report of the Global Commission on International Migration, had articulated a set of six such principles that people thought were still relevant and helpful.
17. Participants made repeated references to “sharpening” and “better utilizing” existing tools, which spoke to the need for ensuring that agency mandates are well aligned.
18. It was felt that the migration ‘issue’ could be a more central component of the UN agenda, including in the work plan and priorities of the UN Secretary General.
19. A number of key contradictions which form part of the migration discourse were identified, furthering the need for a clear vision of, and leadership on, migration policy.
20. With respect to some of the specific, existing processes:
Ø The Global Migration Group was viewed as a disappointing underachiever, and participants offered a number of recommendations for reform and improvement.

Ø The Global Forum on Migration and Development was regarded more positively, notwithstanding a number of limitations. There was a strong disposition that the next Forum in Mexico, later this year, needs to shift from a purely “talking” mode into a more “active” mode.

Ø The substantial increase in regional consultative processes in recent years was noted, and despite the differences in focus and outcomes, it was generally believed that there was considerable scope for closer collaboration and cooperation.

In Looking to the future with a different lens:
21. A variety of ideas and observations were expressed.
Ø On conceptualising governance, these included:

§ developing a shared vision for migration, and mobilizing the political will and leadership to move on migration internationally

§ an improved institutional framework is required, complete with normative foundations and coherent regional processes

§ finding common drivers/platforms that would assist in broadening migration governance

§ articulating and documenting the specific advantages that would benefit countries from adopting an international framework to migration policy-making

§ establishing a constructive public advocacy campaign that would help focus on promoting the importance of global governance for migration, with political leaders, policy makers, targeted media and the public. In this regard, it was also suggested that the migration-serving community could be strengthened and better organized

Ø On building governance, recommendations included:

§ building on bilateral and regional agreements and processes

§ establishing coherent and comprehensive migration policies at the national level, including better integrating migration issues into countries’ foreign and developmental policies, and supporting capacity building efforts towards this end

§ creation of a formal and permanent international Forum that would regularly discuss migration policy, and take the appropriate collective actions

§ the holding of a regular, international meeting of Ministers responsible for migration, thereby providing the space and opportunity for them to engage with colleagues from around the globe on legislation, regulations, practises, and experiences relating to migration policy.

§ creating more opportunities for Parliamentarians to discuss migration related issues, in an effort to formulate better strategies for engaging their respective citizens

§ encouraging national leaders to be more engaged on migration policy, and providing the leadership and direction for their ministers, as well as for their respective delegations in multilateral agencies that deal with migration

Ø With respect to intergovernmental and other migration actors, recommendations included:

§ improved governance must incorporate a much better capacity and commitment to engage in long term planning, as well as nurture improved, inclusive partnerships with civil society and the private sector

§ reinforcing the “rapprochement” of better cooperation between the leading migration agencies

§ specific improvements to the functioning of both the GMG and the GFMD, including enhanced collaboration between the two entities

§ a more active and strategic engagement on migration issues by the UN Secretary General, as well as clarifying the mandate of his Special Representative on Migration

§ efforts to ensure that the next UN High Level Dialogue, scheduled for 2013, is an interactive, results-oriented dialogue, and not just a series of independent statements. In this regard, the early appointment of a Special Chairperson, that would report directly to the UN SG and oversee the preparations and execution of the meeting, was viewed as central to achieving such an outcome.

In Assessing Where ‘We’ go From Here:
21. The participants heartily welcomed and encouraged ICMC to continue its work on the governance process. They urged that efforts be made to reach out to additional stakeholders, with the objective of enhancing the public discourse and sustaining some much-needed advocacy and momentum on this front.
22. Accordingly, a good number of concrete proposals building on the first phase were suggested, and these are noted in the report.
23. As a follow up, based on this input from participants and in a continued spirit of partnership, ICMC plans to immediately move into a second phase which will consist of the following six priorities:
i) circulate this report among all the participants and through them, to their respective networks. Beyond this, we will also share the report with other relevant migration stakeholders, in an effort to further broaden the public discourse on the issue of governance.
ii) hold additional roundtables with a variety of different migration actors in capitals like New York, Washington, and Brussels, as well as in developing country capitals.
iii) continue with meetings of UN Ambassadors in Geneva, and explore the feasibility of doing the same in New York. Our next Geneva session is for the coming week.
iv) organize an initial meeting/retreat for a critical mass of Ministers responsible for migration, from both developing and developed nations.
v) work with and support the Mexican Chair of the next GFMD.
vi) secure donor support to deepen and broaden these and subsequent activities for engagement.


Moving Forward

Since publishing ‘Connecting the Dots’, additional roundtables and government meetings have been held in Brussels, New York, and Washington, including an engaging session with UN Ambassadors in New York. These new outreaches have enriched the process. They served to consolidate key viewpoints, offered new variations of these viewpoints and finally, provided entirely new thoughts and suggestions.
In continuing this ‘journey’, our context is the timetable facing political and policy makers as they prepare themselves for the 2013 UN High Level Dialogue on Migration, in New York, as well as contemplating what follows (if anything) the final (of six) Global Forum on Migration and Development, to be held in Morocco, in 2012. Accordingly, we would like to offer them the benefit of our ‘Conversations’; to provide an agenda of thoughtful and realistic findings and recommendations that could serve as a relevant and representative reference for their deliberations.
In this regard, we are committed to a number of additional mileposts. These include:
Ø Roundtable meeting(s), and related bilateral meetings with government officials in a developing country capital and region
Ø A Business Forum (in the planning stages)
Ø Engaging Parliamentarians ( planned for October this year, with the Inter Parliamentary Union, in Geneva)
Ø A Dedicated Forum with Civil Society
Ø Continuing the Ambassadorial informal meetings in Geneva and New York.
Ø Participating in the November GFMD, in Mexico, and hopefully at its final two successors.
Ø Drafting and circulating the 2nd report of Conversations, at the time of the Mexican GFMD.
Ø Organizing a Ministerial Retreat.
Ø Hosting a concluding Conference, and publishing a Consolidated Report of Findings and Recommendations.

As we undertake this work, we need to recognize and accept that the very phenomenon of migration is both fascinating and challenging. It has always been so, and likely always will.

Migrants are dreamers and entrepreneurs. They seek a different and better life, and they are fully prepared to take considerable risks in achieving their quest. In many cases, first generation migrants unselfishly sacrifice their own quality of life, in an effort to secure improved prospects for their children, and grandchildren.

Migrants also come from all corners of the globe, and they often seek and seize opportunities in very different lands. In doing so, they conquer past adversities and reinvent themselves. At the same time, they also help to renew societies. The diversity of peoples, experiences, and ideas creates invaluable creative energies and capital, which contribute to the nation building processes of their new, adopted countries.

However, there is also a darker, more dispiriting side to the migration reality. Despite passionate desires, many people do not get the opportunity to migrate. Some that do find it a disappointing and underwhelming experience. Others use the migration process for untoward purposes, while all too many profit unscrupulously from the human desperation that migration aspirations generate.

To be sure, migration remains largely an opportunity — for both migrants and nations. But as a deeply emotional reality, it is also packs fears, perceptions, and insecurities that can create anxieties for people of all backgrounds, from all lands.

For all of these reasons and contradictions, I remain absolutely convinced — grounded by the participants who have animated our ‘Conversations’ process— that establishing an international regime of coordinated actions would inevitably help nations to maximize the opportunities that migration offers, while better addressing the challenges that accompany it. That by working together, we will avoid the shortcomings of going-it-alone.

We need to honestly think things through. In that assessment, let us retain and reinforce what is working well, while being candid and courageous where realities and pressures demand that we rethink and rebuild.

Recently, I saw an advertisement in the Financial Times that caught my attention. The large caption blared out: “A risk tamed, is a reward captured!” In a way, the ad captures the essence of marshaling and building an international approach to migration policy.

Indeed, it’s about managing and taming risks, while capturing and reaping the rewards.

But in order to accomplish this task, it will require nations to share and cooperate with one another, for the greater public good. It will require leaders and policy-makers to think and act globally, in an effort to win and consolidate locally.

In the end, it will require providing the global vision and leadership that global migration demands.

…………………………………………

v Ambassador Sergio Marchi is Special Advisor to the Secretary General of the International Catholic Migration Commission, in Geneva. He is also a Senior Fellow with the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, and teaches in the International Relations Department at Webster University, both headquartered in Geneva. He formerly served as Canadian Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; Canadian Ambassador to the UN and WTO in Geneva, and as Commissioner on the UN Global Commission on International Migration.

-According to your agenda, you will have had several sessions on the WTO, so you probably have had your fill on the DDA.

-I would of course be more than pleased to respond to your questions on the DDA, but given your theme of ‘Multistakeholder Engagement’, I would like to briefly touch on the issue of WTO Reform, given the important need for leaders and policy makers to renew our multilateral agencies, most of whom were created in the aftermath of WWII.
-Important because it will help determine whether just some or all developing countries, will successfully participate in the global trade game. It will affect the tone of that game and how it will be played. And it will also influence whether and how the latest Round of trade negotiations, the long, suffering DDA journey, will be completed.
-The strength and health of our multilateral trading system is a critical component of our global economy. And its resilience will, in part, be determined by whether Members find the political will to renew and reinvigorate the institution of the WTO — the main multilateral intersection for global trade — so as to better align it with the new economic and political times we live in.
-But rather than focusing on the ‘poetry’ side of trade reform — that is, the individual areas requiring changes and their corresponding proposals for change — let me address the ‘plumbing’ side of trade reform, which I believe gets too little attention, and not enough diplomatic or public advocacy.
-What do I mean by plumbing? — Let me explain.
1.  First, I start from the premise that the WTO is an invaluable institution.
:  It plays an important role in our international community. The core mission is still as relevant today as the day the GATT was first created, back in 1947. Even more so today, given the globalized and integrated community we have become.
:  If we did not have an institution like the WTO — in a global village where every country has aggressive commercial ambitions, and where rules are therefore an absolute imperative —-  we’d have to create one.
: But the fact that we already have established such an institution does not mean our work is done, for we have an important obligation to nurture it. To situate it in the times we currently live in. To ensure that its political governance responds to the political needs and demands that are driving our times.
 
2.  Second, I believe that the WTO, as an institution, can and should be made better and stronger.
:   It is not infallible.
:  My view of WTO reform is not about strengthening a weak or bad organization. Instead, it is about improving an already good institution.
:  However, in the same breadth, I equally believe that those who wish to deny or delay any and all reform will inadvertently weaken the institution over time, and erode its international relevance.
:  In the past years, there has been no shortage of thoughtful ideas and recommendations for such improvements, and they have come from a variety of different sources and study groups. Much energy has been invested into generating the needed ideas and recommendations for improving and enhancing the system.
:  But these ideas have gone nowhere, except onto our library shelves, because they have had no process to feed into. Without a home and context for these ideas, while these efforts have an intellectual or academic standing, they do not have any practical value, at least in terms of ameliorating and amending the existing structure.
:  Moreover, the lack of any follow up only breeds frustration and cynicism on the part of stakeholders, which helps fuel an unhealthy level of antagonism directed towards the WTO.
:  This lose-lose situation needs to be turned around. And the sooner, the better.

3.  Thirdly, this means that just as in life, we cannot put the cart before the horse.
:  We desperately need to put a ‘horse’ in place, so that it may be connected to and pull, the cart of ideas.
:  In other words, while the end of the day will be determined by the quality and vigor of our ideas for reform, the start of the day must first and foremost commence with a proper and legitimate context.
:  In short, we need a process — only then, will ideas have a realistic chance to be considered, and transformed into agents for changing and strengthening the system.
:  Otherwise, those ideas will remain just that —- ideas.

4.. The process must be one that is endorsed, owned, and led by the Members themselves.
:  As an intergovernmental institution, successful change must come, and be agreed to, from the inside. It will not and cannot be imposed by the outside.
:  Such a process must involve and engage Trade Ministers.
:  It must be balanced, and ideally co chaired by a developing and a developed country Trade Minister.
:  It needs to be inclusive, openly seeking input from all other members, as well as welcoming submissions from the broader outside trade community.
:  The process should not be a rushed job. While it should avoid replicating the never-ending road of the DDA, it is more important to undertake such a work plan prudently, than quickly. After all, any changes that will be made will last a generation and more.
5.  Fifth, I mentioned the need to engage Ministers for a number of reasons; three stand out for me.
:  First, Ministers act as the collective ‘Chairman of the Board’ for the WTO. The political buck stops with them.
:  Second, they have a contribution to make not only as trade practioners, but also as elected representatives. The WTO is not a private club. Indeed, it is the collective citizenry that are the shareholders of this ‘public company’. Therefore, their voices need to be heard and represented.
:  And third, Ministers should not just be summoned to the WTO for trade negotiations alone.
:  Naturally, negotiations are the life-blood of the WTO. But I believe that Ministers should also exercise their custodial obligations towards the organization, and help provide the strategic oversight and leadership that the WTO desperately requires.
:  Yet, the reality is that beyond negotiations, we don’t ask much else from Ministers.
:  I believe this is a mistake which represents a major gap in the political leadership and accountability of the WTO, and it should be redressed with appropriate urgency.

6.  Sixth, many inside the WTO beltway acknowledge the need to strengthen the institution. However, a number of them contend that the timing is not right;  that we need to invest all our energies and political capital into finalizing the DDA, and that nothing should distract us from that mission. I strongly disagree.
:  I fully accept that the DDA is an important undertaking. I was there in Doha when we launched it. I happily drank the “kool-aid”, and certainly recognize that bringing the deal home is long overdue.
:  But I strongly disagree with those that argue that we cannot ‘walk and chew gum’ at the same time. While well intentioned, I find such thinking a threat to the viability and reputation of the WTO.
:  Quite frankly, we must do both. After all, the DDA has had eight years of exclusive attention, without a conclusion, anyway.
:  Besides, a process of renewal would be independent of the DDA talks and, as I mentioned earlier, it would not be on a fast track, such that it could possibly disrupt or displace the DDA agenda.
:  Furthermore, I strongly maintain that a more effective, invigorated, and better understood WTO would only facilitate current and future negotiations, and not make them more difficult.
 
7.  Seventh, while the WTO always seems to attract a disproportionate share of disgruntled crowds, a commitment to actually endorse a reform and renewal agenda would be welcomed by the international community at large.
:  I’ve been at the WTO barricades many times and while there are justified and constructive criticisms, much of the anger and hollering that I have seen and heard is neither accurate nor fair to the WTO.
:  However, if WTO Members were to undertake a process of renewal, this would be a different, fresh, and positive message, and a sound approach for addressing the constructive criticisms that are leveled at the WTO.
:  It would permit Trade Ministers, Ambassadors, and officials to tangibly and proactively communicate to their different constituencies, that the WTO has the capacity to adapt to the new global realities, and the political will to consider and usher in positive changes.
:  And that is a powerful message, especially at a time when governments are under pressure to more coherently connect the different global dots, modernize their institutions, and introduce more effective forms of governance.

8.  Finally, last year’s WTO Ministerial Conference in Geneva, was a badly missed opportunity for strengthening the multilateral system.
: Ministers failed to embrace and launch a process for reform and renewal, despite the urgings of a number of external stakeholders, including the prominent prodding of my own, the ICTSD.
: ICTSD was engaged, for example, with a core group of Ambassadors, well in advance of the Ministerial Conference, in trying to move this reform boulder forward.
: ICTSD also produced a very helpful publication which mapped out the main policy reform proposals that different groups have made over the years, including a compilation of statements by many different political actors.
:  However, beyond the externalities, Ministers at their Conference also failed to capitalize on the internal synergies. The Indian delegation had actually submitted a proposal to the WTO General Council that specifically called for the “strengthening” of the WTO as an institution, and which enjoyed overwhelming support among the membership. This provided an ideal and convenient vehicle and context with which to act.
:  It also provided a rare window of convergence between external and internal forces.
:  And yet, the moment was not seized, so the moment was quickly lost.

In Closing
As I reflect back on last year’s WTO Conference, ICTSD’s related work on the reform agenda, and the current difficulties with the current round of negotiations, one important lesson that I think still needs to be much better understood is:  that the WTO is not just about the DDA.
:  It is much more than just this round of negotiations.
:  It is also about the relevancy and credibility of the organization.
:  ‘Betting the entire farm’ on the DDA has been a high risk and questionable strategic venture which, too date, has produced no dividends whatsoever.
: Last December, when that ‘moment’ was lost, it was not on account of other competing issues. Ministers did not converge on Geneva with the objective to negotiate the DDA. Nor were they challenged by an overloaded agenda. In truth, the Conference meeting was a rather low key affair, and amounted to a political stock-taking by Minister’s and their delegations. Which is fine. Ministers should not be placed in the unrealistic predicament of needing to recreate the ‘ten commandments’, every time they meet.
:  In truth, the moment was lost because the Conference lacked the vision and commitment to see this through. Instead, the WTO chose to stand still —- and nothing can be more dangerous in a world that keeps moving and changing with alarming speed.
:  However, not all is lost. We at ICTSD have reviewed the statements that each Minister made at the Conference, and there were a good number of Ministers who came forward and made a serious plea for the WTO to reform its ways. To not be afraid of change but rather, to guide and shape that change.
:  We have highlighted 40 such ‘progressive’ Ministerial statements, and next month we have invited the 40 corresponding WTO Ambassadors to a roundtable meeting to discuss next steps, in an effort to make concrete, their Ministers aspiration for strengthening and renewing the WTO and the multilateral trading system. So, we’re trying to keep hope alive for an agenda of WTO reform and renewal!
:  I will stop here, and I would welcome your views and questions.
 
……………………………
 
 
 
 
 

• Ambassador Sergio Marchi is a Senior Fellow at the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, in Geneva. He previously served as Canada’s Minister of International Trade and Ambassador to the WTO, including as Chairman of the WTO General Council.

February 26, 2010

An Address by
Ambassador Sergio Marchi
 
 
World Trade Institute
 
25 February 2010

Bern

WTO Reform? Adjust the Plumbing First

 Introduction
 
Dear Students, Ladies and Gentlemen,
 
It’s a pleasure for me to be with you at your World Trade Institute, a place well known for its quality trade work and research. And in this regard, I would like to thank fellow-Canadian, Pierre Sauve, for his kind invitation to address you this afternoon.
 
I’m also pleased to see our relatively ‘new’ Canadian Ambassador to Switzerland, Roberta Santi, with us as well. I hope her dispatches back to Ottawa will be generous!
 
 We hear many refrains from trade pundits and critics alike. But one that unites both camps is the need to ‘strengthen the multilateral trading system’. While different people will have different definitions for what this should mean, or how it might be accomplished, in principal, I agree with the general proposition.
 
Indeed, in a shrinking, and increasingly integrated world, where technology is blazing new trails at an accelerating pace, and where all countries are seeking to maximize and leverage their exports of goods, services, and expertise, I believe the act of strengthening the system would be a hugely important and timely endeavor.
 
It would be in keeping with the present need to renew our multilateral agencies, most of whom were created in the aftermath of WWII.
 
 It will help determine whether just some or all developing countries, will successfully participate in the global trade game.
 
It will affect the tone of that game; how it will be played and the degree to which it will play out in the legal rooms of the dispute settlement mechanism.
 
And it will also influence whether and how the latest Round of trade negotiations, the long, suffering DDA journey, will be completed.
 
Obviously, the strength and health of our multilateral trading system is critical to the global economy. And it’s resilience will be largely determined by whether Members find the political will to change and reform the institution of the WTO — the main multilateral intersection for global trade — so as to better align it with the new times we live in.
 
In my remarks this afternoon, I would like to briefly address that reform agenda.
 
Some of you are surely thinking, ‘ oh no, not another speech about WTO reform! You ‘d be right to think that, because the topic of ‘WTO reform’ has been a core staple of many a trade speech.  And as the French proverb goes, “the more things change…..”
 
But in an effort to spare you some agony, let me come at the issue a little differently. Rather than focusing on the ‘poetry’ side of trade reform — that is, the individual areas requiring changes and their corresponding proposals — let me address the ‘plumbing’ side of trade reform, which I believe gets too little attention, and not enough diplomatic or public advocacy.
What do I mean by plumbing? — Let me explain.
 
 WTO, A Valuable Institution
 
1.  First, I start from the premise that the WTO is an invaluable institution.
 
:  It plays an important role in our international community
 
:  As a former Trade Minister, WTO Ambassador, and Chairman of the General Council, I have always felt that the core mission of the WTO is still as relevant today as the day the GATT was first created, back in 1947.
 
:  In fact, one can easily make the case that its role is even more important today, given the massive economic changes and integration that have taken place in all corners of our globe.
 
:  If we did not have an institution like the WTO — in a global village where every country has aggressive commercial ambitions, and where rules are therefore an absolute imperative —-  we’d have to create one.
 
: But the fact that we already have established such an institution does not mean our work is done, for we have an important obligation to nurture it along. To situate it in the times we currently live in, and ensure that its political governance responds to the political needs and demands that are driving our times. Times that are dramatically different from those of our yesterdays. 
 
Strengthening the Institution
 
2.  Second, I believe that the WTO, as an institution, can and should be made better and stronger.
 
:   It is not infallible.
 
:  You may agree or disagree but for me, WTO reform is not about strengthening a weak or bad organization. Instead, it is about improving an already good institution.
 
:  However, in the same breadth, I equally believe that those who wish to deny or delay any and all reform will inadvertently weaken the institution over time, and erode its international relevance.
 
:  I believe that good ideas can be turned into effective improvements, which would serve to renew and reinvigorate the WTO.
 
:  In the past years, there has been no shortage of thoughtful ideas and recommendations for such improvements, and they have come from a variety of different sources and study groups. Much energy has been invested into generating the needed ideas and recommendations for improving and enhancing the system.
 
:  But these ideas have gone nowhere, except onto our library shelves, because they have had no process to feed into. Without a home and context for these ideas, while these efforts have an intellectual or academic standing, they do not have any practical value, at least in terms of ameliorating and amending the existing structure.
 
:  Moreover, the lack of any follow up only breeds frustration and cynicism on the part of stakeholders, which helps fuel an unhealthy level of antagonism directed towards the WTO. This is particularly the case within some of the ranks of civil society, but not exclusively so.
 
:  This lose-lose situation needs to be turned around. And the sooner, the better.
 
The Horse & Cart of Reform
 
3.  Thirdly, this means that just as in life, we cannot put the cart before the horse.
 
:  We desperately need to put a ‘horse’ in place, so that it may be connected to and pull, the cart of ideas that we have generated in the past, and to which we can add in the future.
 
:  In other words, while the end of the day will be determined by the quality and vigor of our ideas for reform, the start of the day must first and foremost commence with a proper and legitimate context.
 
:  In short, we need a process.
 
:  Only with a process, will ideas have a realistic chance to be considered, and transformed into agents for changing and strengthening the system.
 
:  Otherwise, those ideas will remain just that —- ideas.
 
The Process
 
4.  Fourth, the process must be one that is endorsed, owned, and led by WTO Members themselves.
 
:  As an intergovernmental institution, successful change must come, and be agreed to, from the inside. It will not and cannot be imposed by the outside.
 
:  Such a process must involve and engage Trade Ministers.
 
:  It must be balanced, and ideally co chaired by a developing and a developed country Trade Minister.
 
:  It needs to be inclusive, openly seeking input from all other members, as well as welcoming submissions from the broader outside trade community.
 
:  The process should not be a rushed job. While it should avoid replicating the never-ending road of the DDA, it is more important to undertake such a work plan prudently, than quickly. After all, any changes that will be made will last a generation and more.
 
:  In regards to a time frame, then, one could envision this process reporting to and expecting some initial action from, the next Ministerial Conference, in two years time. Establishing interim reports, would also help reassure that the journey is proceeding well.
 
Ministerial Engagement
 
5.  Fifth, I mentioned the need to engage Ministers for a number of reasons; three stand out for me.
 
:  First, Ministers act as the collective ‘Chairman of the Board’ for the WTO. The political buck stops with them.
 
:  Second, they have a contribution to make not only as trade practioners, but also as elected representatives. The WTO is not a private club. Indeed, it is the collective citizenry that are the shareholders of this ‘public company’. Therefore, their voices need to be heard and represented.
 
:  And third, Ministers should not just be summoned to the WTO for trade negotiations alone.
 
:  Naturally, negotiations are the life-blood of the WTO. But I believe that Ministers should also exercise their custodial obligations towards the organization, and help provide the strategic oversight and leadership that the WTO desperately requires.
 
:  Yet, the reality is that beyond negotiations, we don’t ask much else from Ministers.
 
:  I believe this is a mistake which represents a major gap in the political leadership and accountability of the WTO, and it should be redressed with appropriate urgency.
 
Renewal will not Undermine the DDA
 
6.  Sixth, many inside the WTO beltway acknowledge the need to strengthen the institution. However, a number of them contend that the timing is not right;  that we need to invest all our energies and political capital into finalizing the DDA, and that nothing should distract us from that mission. I strongly disagree.
 
:  There is never a better time than the present. Otherwise,  there are a multitude of reasons and excuses why the timing is wrong.
 
:  Furthermore, I fully accept that the DDA is an important undertaking. I was there in Doha when we launched it. I happily drank the “kool-aid”, and certainly recognize that bringing the deal home is long overdue.
 
:  But I strongly disagree with those that argue that we cannot ‘walk and chew gum’ at the same time. While well intentioned, I find such thinking a threat to the viability and reputation of the WTO.
 
:  I believe we are capable of doing both. Quite frankly, we must do both. After all, the DDA has had eight years of exclusive attention, without a conclusion, anyway.
 
:  Besides, a process of renewal would be independent of the DDA talks and, as I mentioned earlier, it would not be on a fast track, such that it could possibly disrupt or displace the DDA agenda.
 
:  Furthermore, I strongly maintain that a more effective, invigorated, and better understood WTO would only facilitate current and future negotiations, and not make them more difficult.
 
Citizens Would Welcome Reform & Renewal
 
7.  Seventh, while the WTO always seems to attract a disproportionate share of disgruntled crowds, a commitment to actually endorse a reform and renewal agenda would be welcomed by the international community at large.
 
:  I’ve been at the WTO barricades many times and while there are justified and constructive criticisms, much of the anger and hollering that I have seen and heard is neither accurate nor fair to the WTO.
 
:  However, if WTO Members were to undertake a process of renewal, this would be a different, fresh, and positive message, and a sound approach for addressing the constructive criticisms that are leveled at the WTO.
 
:  It would permit Trade Ministers, Ambassadors, and officials to tangibly and proactively communicate to their different constituencies, that the WTO has the capacity to adapt to the new global realities, and the political will to consider and usher in positive changes.
 
:  And that is a powerful message, especially at a time when governments are under pressure to more coherently connect the different global dots, modernize their institutions, and introduce more effective forms of governance.
 
 
 A Missed Opportunity
 
8.  Finally, last year’s WTO Ministerial Conference in Geneva, was a badly missed opportunity for strengthening the multilateral system.
 
: Ministers failed to embrace and launch a process for reform and renewal, despite the urgings of a number of external stakeholders, including the prominent prodding of my own, the ICTSD.
 
: We were engaged, for example, with a core group of Ambassadors, well in advance of the Ministerial Conference, in trying to move this reform boulder forward.
 
: ICTSD also produced a very helpful publication which mapped out the main policy reform proposals that different groups have made over the years, including a compilation of statements by many different political actors.
 
:  However, beyond the externalities, Ministers at their Conference also failed to capitalize on the internal synergies. The Indian delegation had actually submitted a proposal to the WTO General Council that specifically called for the “strengthening” of the WTO as an institution, and which enjoyed overwhelming support among the membership. This provided an ideal and convenient vehicle and context with which to act.
 
:  It also provided a rare window of convergence between external and internal forces.
 
:  And yet, the moment was not seized, so the moment was quickly lost.
 
 
In Closing
 
:  In closing, as I reflect back on last year’s WTO Conference, ICTSD’s related work on the reform agenda, and the current difficulties with the current round of negotiations, one important lesson that I think still needs to be understood is that the WTO is not just about the DDA.
 
:  It is much more than just this round of negotiations.
 
:  It is also about the relevancy and credibility of the organization. That too hangs in the balance.
 
:  ‘Betting the entire farm’ on the DDA has been a high risk and questionable strategic venture which, too date, has produced no dividends whatsoever.
 
: Last December, when that ‘moment’ was lost, it was not on account of other competing issues. Ministers did not converge on Geneva with the objective to negotiate the DDA. Nor were they challenged by an overloaded agenda. In truth, the Conference meeting was a rather low key affair, and amounted to a political stock-taking by Minister’s and their delegations. Which is fine. Ministers should not be placed in the unrealistic predicament of needing to recreate the ‘ten commandments’, every time they meet.
 
:  In fact, their first day was actually dedicated to a “review of WTO activities”. What an opportunity for Ministers to provide the leadership and launch a process to effectively review the functioning of the WTO!
 
:  Had they embraced it, Ministers would have finally provided the “horse” that has eluded us for far too long; a process that would have enabled ideas to be dully considered and acted upon.
 
:  Ideas that could have served to sustain the WTO’s leadership, and renew the sense of purpose for the multilateral trading system.
 
:  In truth, the moment was lost because the Conference lacked the vision and commitment to see this through. Instead, the WTO chose to stand still —- and nothing can be more dangerous in a world that keeps moving and changing with alarming speed.
 
:  However, not all is lost.
 
:  In reviewing the statements that each Minister made at the Conference, there was a good number of Ministers who came forward and made a serious plea for the WTO to reform its ways. To not be afraid of change but rather, to guide and shape that change.
 
 
 
:  The Secretary for Commerce of Hong Kong, captured it well, when she said:
 
“ We must now work to ensure that the WTO remains relevant, agile and responsive…We must seek ways to continue improving the functioning, efficiency, inclusiveness, and transparency of the WTO. We and some other members have joined a proposal spearheaded by India, suggesting that a deliberate process be set in train to improve the WTO. This task calls for hard work, but I am sure that with commitments and perseverance, we can make it happen.”
 
:  The opportunity therefore exists for us to work with Hong Kong and the other like minded countries, in broadening and rallying a strong commitment for an agenda of reform and renewal, as a tool for reinvigorating and strengthening the WTO.
 
:  For those of us interested in such an objective, we should also take the opportunity of advocating, rather provocatively, that not one more new idea for reform should be tabled, until WTO Members have established and committed themselves — and us — to a legitimate process that will consider, judge, and act on those very ideas.
 
: If they adjust the plumbing, then the poetry can and will flow —- and it will make a difference for the better. For a strengthened and invigorated WTO.
 
Thank you.
           
         ………………………………………………
 
Ø  Ambassador Sergio Marchi is a Senior Fellow at the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development. He formerly served as Canada’s International Trade Minister and Ambassador to the WTO, including as Chairman of the WTO General Council.

28 January 2010, Geneva, Switzerland

Introduction

It’s good to be back at IOM, and I would like to thank Michele and Bob for their kind invite to address you today.

I was asked to discuss the first phase of the Conversations initiative on the global governance for migration, which the International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC) facilitated last year, in partnership with Webster University and the Graduate Institute of Geneva.I am pleased to provide you with a brief overview of both the rationale and substance of these discussions, and then I would very much welcome your engagement, your view views and your advice.

“The more things change, the more they stay the same.”

This old, original French proverb captures well how our worl does migration policy today.Ours is an interconnected world, where increasingly “going it alone”, is fast becoming the exception. The “old” way of doing business. Except for the migration world, that is. In this world, “going it alone”, seems to be the golden rule! Where national responses continue to trump globally shared ones.

Yet, there have been reports and calls over the years urging us to alter, or at least complement, our course. The Willy Brandt Commission in 1980; in 1993 the Commission on Global Governance; the launch of the New International Regime for Orderly Movement of People in 1997; the Berne Initiative in 2001; the Commission on Human Security in 2001; the Social Dimension of Globalization in 2004, and the most recent, of which I had the pleasure of being a Commissioner, was the Global Commission on International Migration in 2005 — all these efforts included a convincing case for a cooperative global approach to the management of international migration.

To date, however, they all have had the same regrettable fate.

If a report was not going to prove convincing, then one would have thought that the historic forces that have shaped our modern times would have pushed us to amend our ways and habits;

An ever shrinking world that has essentially been transformed into one, global village.

A process of unrelenting globalization, that has brought unprecedented change and movement of goods, services, capital, and people to all corners of our planet, at unprecedented speed, thanks largely to the technological revolution.

An increasingly integrated and interdependent global economic market place, which places an ever higher premium on labor mobility.

A world community where migrants now arrive from, travel to, or transit through, every single nation — big and small, rich and poor. Where indeed, migration now touches all lands and all peoples.

Where man-made crises and tragedies increase and aggravate the movement — both forced and voluntary — of people within and across national borders.

And where Mother Nature also does her unfortunate best to ensure that people do not stand still.

These are the times we live in. A world ripe with great opportunities, yet one mixed with turbulence, as well. And migration is not about to fade away. On the contrary, it promises to only intensify as a phenomenon, and attract greater attention as a political issue.

In tackling international problems, our Leaders increasingly recognize that they can neither talk about the forces of international trade and investment, nor the challenges of world hunger, disease and terrorism, nor the dangers posed by climate change, nor indeed, about global migration and development—and then proceed to deal with them in an isolated fashion.

The need to act in more cooperative, interrelated, and coherent terms has become painfully evident. Indeed, the global response to the current global financial and economic crisis—including the establishment of the G‐20, and its close engagement with such multilateral bodies as the WTO, World Bank, and the IMF—perhaps best typifies the paradigm shift that is taking place in political governance.

Yet, on migration policy, we persevere with largely national strategies. But are these really strategies, for the fluid forces that define international migration? Or, do they now act more like straight-jackets?Given the global dimension and speed of the times we live in, I believe they have become more the latter. They constrain our toolbox, rather than expanding it.

I do not underestimate for one moment the formidable task that migration policy-making represents. I never have, whether as Canadian Migration Minister, or as a UN Migration Commissioner, and that’s why we should be prudent before prescribing the appropriate set of remedies. However, we should at least find the courage to raise the right questions; questions that we know need asking.

For example;

• How can we shed these straight-jackets, if they no longer meet the needs of today?
• How can governments and multilateral agencies enhance their collaboration and cooperation, in an effort to develop a more globally-shared response?
• How do we begin to construct an internationally integrated framework, and what are its key elements?
• What kind of global governance do we need, while retaining and respecting national flexibilities?

In other words, how can countries help one another to find mutually reinforcing international measures, with which to more effectively address migration pressures locally?

The truth is that the migration-serving community, which has indispensably occupied itself with a multitude of worthy initiatives, has been rather timid about raising and promoting such governance questions and issues. With all the legitimate “migration and” issues that characterize our study and work on migration, the combination of migration and governance, has been in short supply, relatively speaking.

Conversations, the Process

Thus, these were the very questions that we, at ICMC, started with. They were the ‘seeds’ that harvested the initiative; Conversations, on the global governance of Migration ICMC wanted to make a modest contribution by facilitating a process for an open and constructive discussion, with an array of migration actors, about ways in which we could create better governance, as a response to the global phenomenon of migration. The hope was to help stimulate a deeper public discourse, facilitate the development of a number of relevant benchmarks, and eventually encourage decision makers to take up its cause with appropriate urgency.

Conversations was launched late last year. As a first phase, it was Geneva-based and consisted of two partnered Roundtables; one-on-one meetings with several key Heads of Agencies (IOM, UNHCR, ILO, UNITAR) and their senior officials most involved with the migration dossier; discussions with UN Ambassadors; and input from a variety of individuals.

Discussions were informal, followed Chatham House Rules, and were largely driven by three questions:

1. How would you describe and evaluate the current level of migration governance, and how could these efforts be improved and deepened?
2. What new and realistic ideas, proposals and recommendations do you think would facilitate a more globally unified response to migration challenges?
3. And, where can “we” go from here after this first phase of Conversations, and what kind of follow-up would you think is necessary and helpful in advancing this process?

Connecting…the Dots

Our Report, ‘Connecting the Dots’, which just came out today, is a summary of their responses, and the discussions that these thoughts animated.Participants engaged openly and enthusiastically, and we remain most grateful to all of them for their lively, candid, and creative views and assessments. They provided us with a rich menu of issues, observations and additional questions, which I think deserve further and thoughtful consideration.

We tried to capture all of the salient contributions and weave them into a coherent story line, including divergent strands, so as to accurately capture the full flavor of the discourse. It is not a lengthy report, and you may down load a copy from the ICMC website, at: www.icmc.net

I also have a number of copies with me. At the risk of undercutting the full narrative of the Report, let me draw out for you, some of the highlights from what participants said themselves, during a very stimulating set of conversations. Some of these points may appear rather obvious to those like you, who are deeply immersed in the migration file, but they remain, I believe, important in creating a workable framework, which then can be built upon.

Regarding the Broader Context…….

1. Participants felt that migration was very much a reflection of our times, and thanks in part to the process of globalization, the movement of people within and across borders, will continue to increase.
2. Nations can no longer be divided into strictly “sending” and “receiving” countries. Today, migrants are leaving from, arriving to and transiting through, all developed and developing countries. In that sense, we’re all in the same boat.
3. As an issue, international migration will only gain in political and policy importance.
4. Yet, despite migration’s global reach, its governance remains almost entirely national, thus creating a significant gap and vacuum.
5. Participants felt that global challenges demand global solutions. And for many of them, it was not a question of whether a discussion of global governance of migration goes forward, but rather when and how.
6. At the same time, discussants did not underestimate the formidable task that this represents for our international community. Trying to mobilize, develop and agree upon a global undertaking is never an easy task, regardless of the issue involved. Practising and succeeding at multilateralism, in an increasingly multi-polar world, is not a simple undertaking. Witness, for example, the 9 year struggle of the WTO’s ongoing Doha Trade Round, or the recent Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen.
7. The objective of Conversations (as well as for the participants) was not to necessarily propose a “super” agency, notwithstanding that such an option might well be considered by States one day. Rather, the focus was on perceptions of the value of global governance itself, and any actions or commitments that seemed practical to pursue in the short to medium term, whose effect would improve the management of global migration. In Taking Stock of Current Governance Structures…….
8. Participants agreed that better approaches were needed to organizing contemporary migration.
9. Timing was seen as an important factor. Given the existing and potentially new challenges on the horizon, it was felt that governments need to move with appropriate urgency. Participants felt that we do not have the luxury of inaction.
10. There was also an immediate attention to the words, ‘global governance, and a concern that the term could be potentially viewed as a “loaded” or “intimidating” term by some governments and/or agencies. Further reflection on a more neutral expression would be helpful and welcome.
11. It was also thought that a good part of this “fear” is the assumption that this would immediately involve or, will inevitably lead, to the creation of a new, supranational agency.
12. The other part of the “fear” equation, of course, is the reluctance on the part of most governments to cede sovereignty over migration matters. However, participants asked directly: what if governments took the time to calculate their net benefits, if migration were to be subjected to global cooperation and collaboration, just as is done with so many other global issues?
13. The principal underlying assumption was that a shared and coordinated international approach would be of benefit for all parties concerned: for the ability of States to better manage migration, for improving the confidence of their citizens, and for migrants themselves.
14. A more effective global approach would also embrace a “bottom-up” approach, as well as extending outwards, both national and regional processes, and not just new tools.
15. Participants identified five pillars which currently intersect to provide what one participant labelled as “soft” governance: i) national policies and programmes; ii) bilateral, regional, and global dialogues; iii) supranational structures and cooperation (e.g. the EU); iv) multilateral agencies; and v) international legal frameworks. But to date, participants believed that the sum of the parts had not resulted in coherent global governance.
16. It was thought that a set of broad migration principles could assist and guide the development of international governance measures. In this regard, the Report of the Global Commission on International Migration, had articulated a set of six such principles that people thought were still relevant and helpful.
17. Participants made repeated references to “sharpening” and “better utilizing” existing tools, which spoke to the need for ensuring that agency mandates are well aligned.
18. It was felt that the migration ‘issue’ could be a more central component of the UN agenda, including in the work plan and priorities of the UN Secretary General.
19. A number of key contradictions which form part of the migration discourse were identified, furthering the need for a clear vision of, and leadership on, migration policy.
20. With respect to some of the specific, existing processes: The Global Migration Group was viewed as a disappointing underachiever, and participants offered a number of recommendations for reform and improvement. The Global Forum on Migration and Development was regarded more positively, notwithstanding a number of limitations. There was a strong disposition that the next Forum in Mexico, later this year, needs to shift from a purely “talking” mode into a more “active” mode. The substantial increase in regional consultative processes in recent years was noted, and despite the differences in focus and outcomes, it was generally believed that there was considerable scope for closer collaboration and cooperation. In Looking to the future with a different lens………
21. A variety of ideas and observations were expressed.

On conceptualising governance, these included: developing a shared vision for migration, and mobilizing the political will and leadership to move on migration internationally an improved institutional framework is required, complete with normative foundations and coherent regional processes finding common drivers/platforms that would assist in broadening migration governance articulating and documenting the specific advantages that would benefit countries from adopting an international framework to migration policy-making establishing a constructive public advocacy campaign that would help focus on promoting the importance of global governance for migration, with political leaders, policy makers, targeted media and the public. In this regard, it was also suggested that the migration-serving community could be strengthened and better organized.

On building governance, recommendations included:

• building on bilateral and regional agreements and processes
• establishing coherent and comprehensive migration policies at the national level, including better integrating migration issues into countries’ foreign and developmental policies, and supporting capacity building efforts towards this end
• creation of a formal and permanent international Forum that would regularly discuss migration policy, and take the appropriate collective actions
• the holding of a regular, international meeting of Ministers responsible for migration, thereby providing the space and opportunity for them to engage with colleagues from around the globe on legislation, regulations, practises, and experiences relating to migration policy.
• creating more opportunities for Parliamentarians to discuss migration related issues, in an effort to formulate better strategies for engaging their respective citizens
• encouraging national leaders to be more engaged on migration policy, and providing the leadership and direction for their ministers, as well as for their respective delegations in multilateral agencies that deal with migration

With respect to intergovernmental and other migration actors, recommendations included:

• improved governance must incorporate a much better capacity and commitment to engage in long term planning, as well as nurture improved, inclusive partnerships with civil society and the private sector
• reinforcing the “rapprochement” of better cooperation between the leading migration agencies
• specific improvements to the functioning of both the GMG and the GFMD, including enhanced collaboration between the two entities
• a more active and strategic engagement on migration issues by the UN Secretary General, as well as clarifying the mandate of his Special Representative on Migration efforts to ensure that the next UN High Level Dialogue, scheduled for 2013, is an interactive, results-oriented dialogue, and not just a series of independent statements. In this regard, the early appointment of a Special Chairperson, that would report directly to the UN SG and oversee the preparations and execution of the meeting, was viewed as central to achieving such an outcome.

In Assessing Where ‘We’ go From Here………

21. The participants heartily welcomed and encouraged ICMC to continue its work on the governance process. They urged that efforts be made to reach out to additional stakeholders, with the objective of enhancing the public discourse and sustaining some much-needed advocacy and momentum on this front.
22. Accordingly, a good number of concrete proposals building on the first phase were suggested, and these are noted in the report.

23. As a follow up, based on this input from participants and in a continued spirit of partnership, ICMC plans to immediately move into a second phase which will consist of the following six priorities:
i) circulate this report among all the participants and through them, to their respective networks. Beyond this, we will also share the report with other relevant migration stakeholders, in an effort to further broaden the public discourse on the issue of governance.
ii) hold additional roundtables with a variety of different migration actors in capitals like New York, Washington, and Brussels, as well as in developing country capitals.
iii) continue with meetings of UN Ambassadors in Geneva, and explore the feasibility of doing the same in New York. Our next Geneva session is for the coming week.
iv) organize an initial meeting/retreat for a critical mass of Ministers responsible for migration, from both developing and developed nations.
v) work with and support the Mexican Chair of the next GFMD.
vi) secure donor support to deepen and broaden these and other processes for engagement. ICMC funded the first phase on its own, but will seek partners to sustain a second and more elaborate phase of activities.

Moving Forward

In closing, as all of you know well, the process of migration is both fascinating and challenging. It has always been so.

Migrants, in many ways, are dreamers and entrepreneurs. They seek a different and better life, and they are prepared to take considerable risks in achieving their vision. In many cases, first generation migrants unselfishly sacrifice their own quality of life, in an effort to secure improved prospects for their children, and grandchildren.

Migrants come from all corners of the globe. They seek and seize opportunities in different lands, and in doing so they conquer past adversities and reinvent themselves. At the same time, they also help to re-energize societies, contributing to the nation building processes of their new, adopted countries.

However, there is also a darker, dispiriting side to the migration experience. Despite their heart-felt desires, many people do not get the opportunity to migrate. Others, who start the process, do not quite make it. Some also use the migration process for untoward purposes, while others profit unscrupulously from the human desperation that migration aspirations generate.

Migration remains largely an opportunity — for migrants and nations alike. But as an emotional and complex reality, it is also packs fears, perceptions, and insecurities that can create anxieties for people.

For all of these reasons and contradictions, ICMC believes — together with the participants we engaged — that establishing an international regime of coordinated actions would inevitably help nations to maximize the opportunities that migration offers, while better addressing the challenges that accompany it.

We do need to think things through. In some areas, the current realities and future pressures demand that we rethink and rebuild.

Recently, I saw an advertisement in the Financial Times for an investment house that caught my attention. The large caption blared out: “A risk tamed, is a reward captured!”

I’m not suggesting that migration has the same bottom line as an investment house. However, in a way, the ad’s slogan captured the objective at the heart of the pursuit for a global approach to migration.

Indeed, it’s about managing and taming risks, while capturing and reaping the rewards.

It’s about nations sharing and cooperating in an international effort, in return for local benefits and incentives.

It’s about Leaders and policy-makers thinking and acting globally, in an effort to win and consolidate locally.

I hope you share our enthusiasm for pursuing a global leadership and vision for migration; one that would usher in a new era of international cooperation and collaboration.

We also invite you to engage in this pursuit.

Thank you.

Ambassador Sergio Marchi is a Special Advisor to the Secretary General of the International Catholic Migration Commission, in Geneva. He is also a Senior Fellow with the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, and teaches at Webster University. He formerly served as Canadian Ambassador to the UN and WTO, in Geneva; as Canadian Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; and as Commissioner on the UN Global Commission on International Migration

Introduction

Mr President, Fellow Panelists, Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a pleasure to be back in Shanghai, and with all of you at this annual WTO Conference. I would like to express my warmest thanks to President Wang and the Shanghai WTO Affairs Consultation Center for their kind invitation to speak to you today.

I also bring you greetings from our CEO, Ricardo Melendez Ortiz, and the rest of the ICTSD team, in Geneva.

Your Center has provided invaluable advice and assistance to government, industry, academia, and the public, in relation to the many facets of the WTO, and the multilateral trading system. Your efforts have contributed to China’s integration and leadership in our global economy. I compliment you for these achievements to date, and wish you continued success.

I was asked to speak on the subject of Trade Remedies, and let me say from the very outset, that I am not an expert in this field. Nor will I try to impress you with a lengthy list of intricate details and technicalities that define this area of trade endeavor.

Instead, let me place the matter of trade remedies, which is of great concern and importance to China, in a broader context; a framework, in other words, which accounts for the challenging financial and economic times that we are living through, and the ongoing efforts of the WTO’s Doha Development Agenda (DDA).

In this regard, let me focus on three inter-related points.

First, in the face of strong and biting economic head winds, and as our global village becomes increasingly more integrated, we must resist the temptations of seeking protectionist shelters, and strictly maintain a rules-based approach.

This is not easy, especially when all governments and industry are facing enormous political and economic pressures domestically, as a result of the global financial and economic crisis. World trade and investment flows have already dropped precipitously, since the economic turmoil struck last year.

Yet, an outbreak of global protectionism would cause catastrophic economic hardships in every corner of our globe. It would also severely undermine the rather historic body of work and progress that the WTO represents, while threatening its future viability.

Moreover, a protectionist detour would painfully prolong the crisis, and delay any economic recovery.

As we all know, the modern era of trade liberalization began during the Great Depression. Back then, the imposition of US tariffs in 1930, as a short term response to protectionist pressures from farm, labor and business groups, transformed what began as a recession, into the deepest economic depression of the 20th century. World trade declined by some 66 percent!

Recognizing the damage, and in the aftermath of World War II, our forefathers built the GATT and subsequently, the WTO. This institutional building was founded on an open and outward-looking vision, and on a rules framework.

Accordingly, the international community has successfully completed eight rounds of global trade negotiations, in the pursuit of bringing down trade barriers. Our work is not yet complete, and that is why Ministers and Ambassadors are engaged in Round number nine, the DDA.

While far from perfect, the cumulative impact of these liberalizing efforts has contributed significantly to the economic growth and stability of the world economy. International trade has also served as a bridge between different peoples and countries, helping to foster greater understanding between societies, and lessening the risk of insecurity that comes from a policy of isolation.

Thus, all WTO members have a great deal at stake, including and particularly China.

Today — after 30 years of your historic policy of economic openness and reform — your country stands as a global economic power and leader. You also invested 15 years negotiating your entry into the WTO family, which meant huge and necessary, but painful reforms at home. And more recently, you have assumed increased responsibility for the stewardship of this key multilateral institution.

In short, the WTO is the main institutional intersection for the multilateral trading system. It facilitates the national trade ambitions of its members in a coherent and orderly fashion, and helps to create the economic opportunities and growth that are central in elevating the quality of life for peoples and nations around the world.

Protectionism would severely disrupt this crucial trade traffic flow, and create chaos at that intersection. Not only would the many accidents be economically painful for countries, big and small alike, but they would also deliver a severe body blow to the very values embodied by the WTO.

So Far, So Good….but….

Since the outbreak of the global financial and economic crisis last year, countries have thus far refrained from severe, systemic protectionist measures. Furthermore, it would appear that the bold packages of government stimulus are spurring a surge in demand, adding evidence of a V-shaped recovery.

Indeed, your country’s estimated 8 percent growth this year, demonstrates that China specifically, and Asia in general, has become a central locomotive in pulling the global economy forward.

But not all countries are yet experiencing an economic rebound, and the state of the global economy still remains very fragile. Unemployment and weakened financial institutions still pose significant political and economic challenges.

In short, the crisis is far from over.

Moreover, when one examines recent measures that have the effect of restricting trade, I am afraid that we cannot get complacent or congratulatory. On the contrary, the temptations have clearly revealed themselves.

WTO and World Bank reports have consistently shown that countries from all regions have moved into a more defensive trade posture, by increasing tariffs and introducing new non-tariff measures.

The saving grace is that, as the World Bank President said in a speech last month; “…so far, traditional trade protectionism has been a low-grade fever”.

But the temperature has been rising.

It is therefore vital that we remain vigilant, since even a modest slide toward protectionism could pick up dangerous momentum, cause retaliatory actions, and quickly impede the flow of international commerce.

We must be wise enough to recall our history — when we chose to retreat from free, fair, and open trade — and its painful lessons.

This is the only avenue for economic and trade sustainability. Protectionism is a dead end street. There are no other short cuts to global trade prosperity.

In sum, the fate of workers in Chinese tire factories is inextricably intertwined with those of poultry farmers in the US.

2. Secondly, while Trade Remedies are a legitimate part of the WTO tool box, their increasing application is a contributing factor to that rising temperature, and they run the real risk of creating a falling-dominos scenario.

After a long period of gradual decline from 2001 to 2007, the number of new anti-dumping investigations increased in 2008. WTO Members have reported the initiation of 217 new anti-dumping (AD) investigations, a 15 per cent increase over the 189 investigations initiated over the previous year-on-year period.

As well, virtually none of these investigations have been initiated by governments.  They have been a response to petitions filed by the private sector, which is a clear recognition of the continued economic distress faced by companies. Regardless, if the trend were to continue and intensify, it could have the cumulative effect of weakening the economic recovery that is underway.

Furthermore, we should note that since 1995, developing countries have been the main users of anti-dumping actions.  They accounted for almost 80 per cent of all initiations in the twelve-month period since October of last year. And the bulk of these investigations targeted fellow developing countries.

In regards to AD Investigations for the last year, China is the fourth largest user, just ahead of the US.

The number of initiations of countervailing duty (CVD) investigations has also increased significantly over the last four quarters. Twenty-eight CVD investigations have been initiated so far in 2009, representing a 115 per cent increase in the third quarter, compared with the same period in 2008.

Unlike anti-dumping investigations, CVD investigations are being conducted mainly by developed countries, although China (in the last year) has been the third largest user among the entire membership.

And yes, safeguard initiations are also in the same rising elevator in 2009. Initiations started to increase significantly in the fourth quarter of 2008, and they have not abated.  Between the January-July period, this year the initiations surged by a factor of eight. And thus far, there have been six China-specific safeguard initiations in 2009 (up to 28 October).

Furthermore, according to the independent reporting agency, the Global Trade Alert, since June 2008 until today, there have been 47 trade defence measures (AD/CVD/safeguard) against China, raised by 16 different major economies.

Apart from the traditional trade defence measures (AD/CVD/safeguard), the agency also found that since the middle of 2008, countries have increasingly used a variety of instruments to protect their domestic markets. These included raising tariff lines, preferential treatment in public procurement, export subsidies, local content requirements, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, import bans, technical barriers to trade, and quotas (including tariff rate quotas).

China’s Honeymoon Over

Given this latest storm of activity, China enjoyed a pleasant and tranquil five year honeymoon following its entry into the WTO family. During this period, trade partners refrained from challenging China in the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). But as those of us who are married know from first-hand experience, all good honeymoons come to an end! And the DSB is no different.

From 2006 onwards, China has become one of the main targets of WTO complaints. In that year, 6 of the 21 WTO cases were against China; in 2007, 4 out of 13; and in 2008, 5 out of 18. . Thus far in 2009, there has been one case taken against China.

The new bottom line is that your country is definitely on the DSB radar screen.

China started its own involvement in the DSB in 2002, when you joined the EU and other WTO members as a co-complainant against U.S. steel safeguard measures. Since then, China has participated actively as a third party in over 60 cases so far.

By the end of 2008, China had initiated three WTO disputes as a complainant, all against the US and all three concerned the application of trade remedies. In 2009 alone, China initiated three additional cases against the US and the EU.

From my standpoint, the increased defensive and offensive legal action is naturally commensurate with China’s economic leadership, and its enormous trade volume.  Yet, at the same time, all this activity has provided China and your legal, business and academic communities with an ideal opportunity to build a body of practical and valuable legal experience. In addition, the DSB offers a good platform for regular bilateral and multilateral consultation and notification, with a view to trying to avoid dramatic trade policy disruptions.

Moreover, some of the disputes are ironically compatible with China’s determination to continuing to open up its economy and society. Losing a case is not pleasant. But, it can and does further stimulate and streamline domestic reform. From that standpoint, not all is lost.

Yet, the broad picture that emerges on the trade remedy canvass, in contrast to preceding years, is not an attractive one. The picture has clearly darkened during this time of economic duress, and it has widened significantly.

I believe there are at least two immediate dangers that must be avoided in the coming months.

Naturally, one is an incremental build-up of trade restrictions. Such a stockpile would represent a worrisome threat since it would undercut policies and efforts to restore sustained growth globally, upset trade flows, and undermine confidence in an early recovery to the crisis.

And the second, is allowing these restrictions to become deeply entrenched, which would make their eventual removal much more difficult.

In regards to the latter, a similar story rings true for the many stimulus and bail-out packages that developing and developed governments around the globe have provided. While the interventions were justified in order to prevent the further collapse of the international financial system, as well as to protect jobs and companies, over time, it runs the risk that this will create a legacy of uncompetitive industries, and sectoral over-capacity that will continue to generate protectionist pressures, even after economic activity picks up again.

Concerns have also been raised about the “buy/invest/lend/and hire local” requirements, which have officially or unofficially been attached to some of these programmes. Because of their evident nationalistic appeal in current circumstances, there is a particular danger that these campaigns could become targets for retaliation and proliferate.

And what about the many poor countries, that did not have the deep financial pockets to stimulate their respective economies and industries? How have they and their financial communities been impacted by the inequities of financial inducements?

Another area for potential trade friction involves the climate change dossier. The world’s attention is fixed on Copenhagen these days, and I do hope that the Leaders find an effective consensus to combat the climate crisis we face. However, at least two major issues relating to trade have emerged.

One, includes the possible establishment of a border carbon tax driven by competitiveness concerns in OECD countries. France, for example, has warned that if countries like China and India do not commit to effectively cutting carbon emissions, the EU will impose tariffs on their products, in an effort to avoid the relocation of their businesses to less regulated jurisdictions.

The second, involves a Bill before the US Senate, which will require some foreign exporters, like Chinese producers, to purchase carbon credits in the US, in order to compensate for their carbon footprint.

Such measures have the potential to raise the level of trade tensions, and lead to more disputes. It will obviously depend how any final measure is designed, and whether the initiatives to protect the environment, also disguise a strategy of trade protectionism.

We will all stay tuned and see how this front develops.

Continued vigilance is clearly the order of the day.  Remedies must be used judiciously and not carelessly. They must address legitimate trade injuries, and not be seduced by local political pressures for protection. Let us ensure that we do not deviate from this path.

3. Finally, China and the WTO Members must draw the appropriate lessons, and strengthen WTO rules and disciplines, as a benchmark against protectionism and as a response to the trade challenges of the 21st century.

I firmly believe that the best guarantee for re-establishing trade growth, and maintaining open markets and fair play for all nations — big and small, developing and developed, rich and poor — is through clear, predictable international trade rules.

Towards this end, it is precisely at the WTO, that the family of nations come together to negotiate and implement those very rules. And when differences arise between members, they are adjudicated objectively, by who is right and not necessarily by who has the might.

Today, in the DDA negotiations, the issues, challenges, and politics involved in new rule-making for trade remedies, as well as other disciplines, is housed in the Rules Negotiating Group.

The Long and Winding DDA Road

Unfortunately, this Group suffers from the same, general affliction that hangs over the entire DDA.

Last week’s 7th WTO Ministerial Conference, in Geneva, confirmed a worrisome state of play. The most positive aspect of the meeting, I believe, was that for a change, more than 100 Trade Ministers were able to meet one another in a rather low-key, business-as-usual headquarters setting. This was a welcome change from the enormous expectations that accompanied most of the past Ministerials, when they travelled to different capitals, attracting large and mostly unfriendly crowds.

However, even the most ardent of WTO supporters and fans could not help but feel a trite pessimistic over the fact that this Ministerial provided no major decisions, no significant announcements, no uplifting declaration, no commitment for renewing and reforming the institutional governance, and no breakthrough in moving the DDA forward.

The WTO is confronting a serious and glaring vacuum of traditional, political leadership. And this poses a significant difficulty — for both the DDA, and the organization’s future agenda.

Granted, Ministers reconfirmed their objective to conclude the DDA next year. Yet, with all of the many preceding deadlines that have come and gone, what will make next year’s end date any different? Who will step into the breach? Will the movement and momentum be created early enough, so as to provide Members with a realistic shot at meeting this target? And what kinds of game-changers are necessary?

On these crucial questions, the Ministerial Meeting was silent.

Thinking provocatively out loud, if this latest deadline fails, I think the WTO Members should seriously consider upping the ante. In effect, if the DDA is not settled by its 10th anniversary in 2011, they should declare the DDA mandate null and void! We need to establish some context for closure. A decade is long enough, don’t you think? Not to mention, that in the meantime, the world has changed ten times over.

If this is the case, then the Membership should consider returning to Doha for the 8th WTO Ministerial Conference. After all, this is where the journey started, with such great energy and fan fare. This nostalgic ambiance, combined with a very different kind of deadline, could create a constructive crisis scenario, whereby the accompanying pressures would hopefully marshal the needed political will that has eluded us thus far.

Moving the Rules Negotiations Forward

In reference to the Rules Group, with much of the political attention focused on the market access side of the DDA equation, especially agriculture, the rules negotiations face the jeopardy of being overlooked and undervalued by the system. Indeed, should agriculture and the two other market access negotiations find traction and movement, the rules work can potentially and prematurely face a clock that has run out; possibly overtaken by a moment, when the political pressures to bring closure to the DDA, after such a long and agonizing journey, would be overwhelming.

That would be an unfortunate outcome. It is imperative that China and other leading Members ensure that the rules discourse does not get sidetracked; that they not fall too far behind the other DDA priorities.

In a world that is smaller, faster, and flatter, and where every country has an aggressive and ambitious global trade strategy, refurbishing the rules tool box is central to WTO renewal and sustainability. It is the glue that makes the organization what it is. And any weakening of this fabric would threaten the very core and personality of the WTO.

After eight years of talking, progress has come very, very slowly, and most of it in the last two years. The rules negotiations have been characterized from the start, by a stark divide. The fault lines include proposals that would impose new limits to the frequency and duration of anti-dumping investigations and duties; the issue of zeroing; whether authorities should take into account the views of domestic interested parties - such as importers and retailers; the inclusion of stronger anti-circumvention disciplines; and the establishment of benchmarks, to determine the benefit accruing to loss-making, non-creditworthy state-owned enterprises through government loans and guarantees.

Yet, after having started with some 200 different proposals, this volume of positions was eventually narrowed to about 55 issues. Today, there are some 15 key questions that attract the keen attention of most rules negotiators.

To be sure, these are the most difficult of the entire lot. And experience has shown us that the last few yards are always the most brutal. This will thus require a great deal of political will and creative bridge building.

While movement has been glacial-like, the rules football has progressively inched down that field, and the goal line beckons. There are some 25 countries that have been most interested and active in the rules negotiations, including China. It is now for this grouping of Members to summon the strength, and lead the pack into making the most important decisions and trade-offs of the rules game.

China can and should help mobilize that leadership.

In this spirit, China can also help in other ways. For example, it can work with other major economies to better articulate the public interest in the WTO. We need to go beyond negotiating modalities and mentalities. In other words, the concept of a rules-based global economic order is not negotiable. As well, despite the problems encountered by the DDA, the current rules are still working, they shall be respected, and they can be further strengthened.

In addition, China should encourage a sharing of DSB experiences among developing countries. Despite using trade remedies against each other, the strength of their bonds in regards to an agenda of industrialization and sustainable development, is greater. All countries would benefit. China would particularly gain insights from those countries which have had a longer and deeper track record, and a well developed practice of public-private partnerships as a means for defending their economic interests.  Your Center can play a helpful role in this endeavor.

Finally, China must ensure that the financial and human resources it directs to specialized trade-related research and training projects, keep pace with its impressive trade growth. The legal, environmental, social and governance issues, for example, all require an increasingly sophisticated skill set.

China plays a big hand in the world of trade, and I know that it desires to continue to develop and refine that hand.

In Closing

In closing, the WTO is a valuable institution. It has many strengths, and it plays a vital role in our global village.

Ours is a village that is getting smaller by the day, and where raising the standard of life for the sea of humanity in that village is, in part, based on the economic opportunities and growth that are tied to the global movement of goods, services, capital, and people.

If the WTO did not exist, and if we wanted our global village to play by a set of trade rules, then we would have to create one.

Well, we already have one, of course. For some 80 years, our predecessors have invested much human and political capital in promoting open trade, and in building the GATT and the WTO. It is now for us and future generations, to nurture and protect the WTO.

We must also take it to the next step. We must further shape and strengthen the institution. We must ensure that the multilateral trading system can adequately addresses our changing times and meet head-on, the new political and economic realities of trade, and the pressing challenges of sustainable development.

In fact, there is nothing more dangerous than trying to stand still, or attempting in vain to go back to days gone by, when our world is racing towards the future with accelerating speed.

That means having the will to stand by a rules-based approach, when we are tempted by the formidable storms to seek the perceived safety and refuge of a protectionist shelter. It also means having the courage to make the needed institutional changes that our new times demand.

This is our challenge for the rather turbulent, yet opportunity-filled, era in which we live.

As you would all know better than I, there is a Chinese proverb that states:

“When the wind changes directions, there are those who build walls, and then there are those who build windmills”.

Against our current economic head winds, may we rise to the challenge, and may we all choose to build windmills.

Thank you.

……………………………………………….

Ambassador Marchi is a Senior Fellow with the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, in Geneva. He also served as Canada’s Minster of International Trade and Ambassador to the WTO, as well as Chairman of the WTO General Council.