Pascal Lamy, director-general of the World Trade Organization
(WTO), is on a four-day visit to China that ends on Friday. In an
interview Tuesday in Beijing, he spoke to China Daily
reporters Zhang Xiaogang and Xu Binglan, and Caijing
Magazine reporters Lou Yi and Wang Feng. Following are
excerpts of the interview transcript.
Q: Are you happy with China's implementation of its WTO
accession commitment?
A: Overall yes. Not a hundred percent. China's implementation of
its accession commitments has been reviewed by all the WTO, by all
members. And the result is that overall the record is good. There
are worries like intellectual property, subsidies in the
manufacturing sector. But overall the picture we get from what the
governments say is good. We just had a meeting with European
businesses this morning. And that's also what they say.
It (the accession commitment) has been taken very seriously by
the Chinese authorities, the leadership. Obviously, there is a sort
of sense (among Chinese officials) that China has to live up to its
commitment and a country like China cannot afford to be criticized
on this.
In everyday life, there will be problems. Some barriers have
disappeared. But there are activities here and there to reinvent
them in more clever (ways). If you like, the US and the EU, they
are also sometimes in the game. But overall, it (China) has
broad-based change. The synergy between WTO accession and the
reform process has worked.
Q: How much likelihood is there for the Doha Round to be
resumed?
A: We are testing the political will to resume. The negotiations
bumped into an obstacle in July. There is a disproportion between
the size of the difference in negotiating positions and the
political will to conclude.
What we are doing for the moment is checking the level of the
political will in the system at venues such as the IMF-World Bank
meeting in Singapore later this month. My sense is that the will is
there. They all would have a big problem with the failure of the
round. It is clearer than it used to be. You are on the verge of a
big hole and you don't want to fall into that big hole. It is a
necessary condition, although it is not a sufficient one.
Once this is confirmed, this will have to be translated into
changes of position because it is also a necessity if the
negotiation did not work on where it broke, which is agriculture.
It can only succeed if the negotiation resumes there and new
positions appear around the table. This probably needs effort from
various players.
Q: You said you will listen to what member countries say at
international meetings to make judgment about their political will
for the resumption of the Doha Round negotiation. But I am
wondering how reliable are the statements? During the previous
international conferences like the G8 summit, leaders always
promised they will push for the progress of the Doha Round, but
when the trade officials are at the negotiating tables, they still
balked at an ambitious agreement.
A: That is precisely what we need to test the political will
for. You need to clarify political will after what happened. They
know what happened. They know why it happened. So it is transparent
now. It's on the table. If we register enough with expression of
political will in the coming month, it will be more valuable.
Q: Is there a likelihood for the Doha Round to resume next
year?
A: There is a possibility. There is no certainty. My own role is
to test the political will and then to make sure position is
adjusted. It may not happen on the first day. This sort of thing
probably needs a bit of pre-cooking, quiet diplomacy.
Q: What kind of timetable are you looking at?
A: An important part in the timetable is the time limit for the
US trade officials' capacity to negotiate, which ends in the middle
of next year. It may and may not be extended. It's an open
question. But clearly, it will be difficult to extend it without
some sort of a notion in the system that a deal is in the making,
which is why the crucial period is some time between mid-November
and the beginning of next year.
Q: It's almost a consensus that the EU and US have huge
political difficulties in making concessions on agricultural
issues. And it seems to me that the only thing that can persuade
the major players to go back to negotiation is moral pressure
people are talking about major WTO members betraying the poor
countries in making the negotiating collapse. Do you agree with
that? And now how big is that moral pressure?
A: Obviously it is big. We need the system to be rebalanced in
favor of developing countries. That is one of the mottoes of the
negotiation. We have to remove obstacles to trade. We have to do
that in a way that makes the system more development-friendly.
On agriculture, we are not in a situation where it is a problem
between the US and EU. It's one between US, EU and a number of
developing countries. It's not just a North-South issue, it is also
a North-North, South-South issue on things like market access. We
know the sensitivity of India about this.
It's true that the US and EU have to make an effort on
subsidies. But it's also true that this round should not result in
new obstacles to trade in agriculture, which the US fears about
some proposals on the table. It's a trade-off. It is about finding
the right proportion between the effort which the US and EU have to
pay and the effort which a number of developing countries who have
sensitivities on this issue have to pay.
Q: What do you think China can do to push the progress of the
Doha Round?
A: China has a point. Agriculture is the most difficult area in
the negotiation. But, in agricultural subsidies, China has fewer
problems than others. China gives much less in subsidies to its
farmers than the US or EU. China's agricultural and industrial
tariffs are much lower than India or Brazil's tariffs. China does
not have a lot to pay in this regard, although in areas like
industrial market access, agricultural market access and service
(market) opening, China will have to pay an effort, but which is in
proportion to China's status as a developing country.
Yes, China has its role, China will get a lot from the
negotiation. Industrial tariffs are reduced in the US and EU and in
many emerging developing countries. That's a net plus for
China.
Q: From your meetings with Chinese officials, do you think they
agree with you on what you've said?
A: Yes. I think there is a sort of conscience in the Chinese
system that in front of surging protectionism here and there, China
is probably one of the most vulnerable, given the huge importance
of trade to its growth and its huge trade surplus.
The WTO as an insurance policy against protectionism is
extremely valuable to China. China is one of the main beneficiaries
of this insurance policy. This country has to adjust to commitment
requirements, and so on. That's true. But the other side of the
coin is that China benefits from the rules and from the system.
Others have to treat China fairly. The fact is that the political
value for the Chinese authorities of a vibrant multilateral system
is very high. That is basically what I have been told until
now.
(China Daily September 6, 2006)
