It is a pleasure to join you today. I want to thank my host, Sir Brian Fall, for inviting me here to speak to you about some issues that I think are very important.

While I know your primary focus is usually on European issues, I have been assured that you are also interested in external affairs, especially those that are likely to have an impact on, or some significance for, Europe.

I should remind you, though, that for a long time, Canada was like an unofficial member of Europe. We were a bridge to North America, particularly to the United States. We still are, in fact, though somewhat differently than in the past. So, for a long time, our Canadian political identity was sort of mid-Atlantic, somewhere between Europe and the United States. We had a British parliamentary democracy and universal social programs, and we were more continental, but our labour market and the way it functioned were more American.

We discovered early in the 1980s that we also had a Pacific Ocean to look after, and so we became a Pacific country as well. We are now a proud member country of APEC [Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation]. We are also now firmly rooted in our own hemisphere. Many feel we were not a country of the Americas until 1989, when we signed our Free Trade Agreement with the United States. We never saw beyond the United States when we looked south -- maybe Mexico, but only vaguely -- and we never looked at the Americas. But since 1989 we have become strongly committed to our hemisphere of the Americas and we now belong there.

I have entitled my remarks this morning "From Pre-Seattle to Post Quebec: Regaining the Trade Initiative." As you know, WTO Ministers will gather in Doha, Qatar this coming November and I feel it is crucial that we regain the initiative that has been lost.

Many people in Europe think that Canada might become so absorbed in the Americas and so preoccupied by our Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) project that we might forget the WTO and the multilateral system. Let me assure you that this will not be the case. Canada is firmly committed to the multilateral trade system and the WTO remains the cornerstone of our international trade policy. We want it to work and we want a launch of a new round of talks as soon as possible, hopefully at the Fourth WTO Ministerial Conference this fall, in Doha.

I hope that by sharing some of my thoughts regarding my recent experiences before and during the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City, I can provide some food for thought as our respective governments prepare for Qatar.

Seattle was a Defining Moment -- A Collision Between Two Worlds

Of course, it is almost impossible to hear the words "WTO Ministerial Conference" without conjuring up scenes from the last meeting, in Seattle.

In Seattle two worlds met -- and to put it bluntly -- collided. The first world was the traditional, international world of the states who were coming together to negotiate among themselves the launch of a new trade round. The second world was the globalized world, represented by a broad range of groups, corporations and special interests.

So, one might describe Seattle as a meeting between the international order and the global disorder -- and I don't mean this in a pejorative sense.

The international world was represented mostly by democratically elected governments that were coming to negotiate deals in the best interests of their populations. That being the case, most faced the fact that if their people didn't like the deals, they would have the opportunity to "fire" the government at the next election.

The international world has been evolving for 400 years; it is the traditional nation-state that we have known since the Westphalia Treaty. It is made up of a finite number of actors. It is codified. It is ritualized. It is a world that is more or less predictable. So predictable, in fact, that it can sometimes get very boring.

The other world was the emerging multicentric world, the real world of globalization, composed of an almost infinite number of participants who have a capacity for international action that is more or less independent of the state under whose jurisdiction they technically exist.

The two worlds that met in Seattle did not like each other very much. In my view, although they have only just met, they will have to live together for the next century. We are in an era of change, of immense transition, which will require us to reinvent governance. We must accept that we will never be able to govern our countries as we used to in the era of traditional nation-states.

I have a lot of admiration for how Europeans have been able, since 1951, to move on European institutions up to the Maastrich Treaty and also for all you have been doing in reinventing identities, citizenship, and the way you are governing your societies. But there are very radical forces now with this era of globalization that will force us all to reinvent governance altogether.

We have to reinvent the political function, examine how we do politics and ask ourselves what is the relevance of the political function. Should we leave it up to the markets? Should we leave it up to the economic forces? Or should we try to restore a balance between political and economic forces? What is the right balance?

I believe that when there is too much political force, when there is only a place for political authority -- as we have seen in communist countries in the past -- the system failed. It didn't work because when the state takes too much room; when the state makes all the decisions, it makes blunders.

The state cannot create development, it can make a mess of the environment -- we have seen what happened in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union. Clearly, when the state takes up too much room, where it has virtually destroyed the market, as those countries have, it's terrible. It just doesn't work.

On the other hand, I believe that when you leave room only for markets, you will soon realize that the market can make mistakes and be just as short-sighted as the state. This is because markets look for quick profits and immediate results.

There must be a balance between state and market; between political forces. This is the balance that has to be reinvented in the era of globalization -- where there are all kinds of technologies and forces challenging the way we can govern.

Obviously there are problems and challenges before us. One is understanding exactly what globalization is and another is dealing with the very often legitimate concerns that the often incoherent and contradictory forces that I refer to as the global disorder is bringing into focus.

This is where I believe that the Free Trade Area of the Americas can teach us some lessons. In the 18-month pre-Seattle-to-post-Quebec-City period there have been major changes -- radical changes. We dropped the ball in Seattle. I think that we, the proponents of trade or the rules-based system, have actually lost the initiative that we have had since 1947 when we created the GATT [General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade].

We proponents of trade had had the initiative for a very long time, and I honestly believe that we now have a much better world with a lot more peace. Remember that when you created the European Common Market and the other European institutions, your objective was not economic, but political. You wanted to bring peace and security to a continent that had suffered too much from political rivalries. You did not do so for the corporations, but rather, to create peace and security, and to foster a better political order and stability on the continent.

So, when people claim that trade only helps big corporations, we have to remind them of the truth. We engaged in trade for political reasons first; the economic benefits came later and were not the primary objective.

Anyway, I think that in Quebec City in April we proponents of trade regained the initiative we had lost to others in terms of public opinion. This is good news not just for the Americas. In my view it bodes very well for Doha. But, how did we regain the initiative? What are the lessons?

One extraordinarily favourable development was that we had 34 democratically elected leaders of the Americas coming together, all saying "we want in." This included representatives of some of the most fragile, vulnerable economies on the planet, leaders of developing countries at the intermediary level, like Brazil, and the leader of the world's strongest economy, the United States.

These 34 leaders came from diverse ideological backgrounds, from very conservative to socialist, and all of them -- from the small to the big economies, from the right to the left -- all said they want trade. In the 19th and 20th centuries the world witnessed the traditional clashes between the classes, the workers versus the capitalists.

But, today's world is different -- political ideologies are evolving. Now, even socialist leaders recognize the potential benefits of trade, and see trade as part of the solution, not of the problem. They want trade because they recognize the fact that it leads to development and that it is development that is most effective in stabilizing fragile democracies. That's the message they gave us.

We must explain this to those who challenge us. We must demonstrate that once again when we want trade, our goal is not just to benefit the big corporations. It's political stability. It's democracy that we are after when we want to build a strong rules-based system.

That is the mission of the Free Trade Area of the Americas on a continent where democracy has not been as strong as in Europe. That is the message we will bring to the next Ministerial in Doha.

The democracy clause was a great success at the Quebec City Summit because all countries agreed that if any country does not respect democracy -- if there is a breakdown in the constitutional order -- that country will be out of the Summit exercises and of the Free Trade Area of the Americas.

Success of Quebec City -- The Third Summit of the Americas

As a result, on the road from Seattle to Doha, Quebec City, site of the Third Summit of the Americas, now lies behind us, but remains as an important milestone. The outcomes of that April meeting reveal how far we've come in just 16 months.

The 34 democratically elected leaders of the Americas emerged united in their commitment to democracy, open trade, shared prosperity, the realization of human potential and social inclusion. In so doing, they adopted an ambitious plan of action, covering human rights, the rule of law, the involvement of NGOs, financial stability, sustainable development, and gender equality, to name but a few issues.

The leaders reaffirmed their commitment to create a Free Trade Area of the Americas by 2005. They also endorsed significant funding in support of their objectives: more than US$56 billion will be channelled through the Inter-American Development Bank and the World Bank to reinforce democratic institutions, economic infrastructure, education, health care and connectivity. This financial commitment is enough to make a real difference. As such, it is a very tangible example of what we were talking about when we said that the Quebec City Summit was not just about trade.

WTO Must Learn from Buenos Aires and Quebec City

With all that was achieved, and with the way things were conducted, one could say that Quebec City represents the beginning of a new era. Progress was made across a broad spectrum -- in the area of trade liberalization, certainly, but also in a number of areas that complement freer trade. In my view, the WTO could benefit greatly from this example.

The conditions for moving forward with the FTAA are now more favourable than they have ever been. Why is this so? In my opinion, it is because the proponents of liberalized trade have regained the initiative that was lost at Seattle. We, the advocates, have regrouped and are increasingly demonstrating, not just affirming, the benefits of trade for all our citizens.

There are three specific lessons that I think we can take from the Quebec City Summit -- from the Free Trade Areas of the Americas project -- that could help us to regain the initiative in the WTO process as well.

Lesson #1: Commitment to Transparency

The first lesson is about the need for greater transparency. In fact, what more obvious example of the new paradigm is there than the progress achieved on transparency in Buenos Aires in the lead-up to Quebec City? Before Seattle, only a few WTO members took this seriously; now, we have the 34 countries of the FTAA agreeing to release the draft negotiating texts.

This groundbreaking development came about at our Ministerial in Buenos Aires, where my counterparts and I caused some surprise when we announced that we had agreed to release the draft FTAA Agreement. I always had faith that my fellow trade ministers would realize -- as I have -- that we are living in a very different world than what existed pre-Seattle. We are living in the world of the Internet, where so much information is available instantaneously, at the click of a button. We are living in a world where people are more sceptical; if they cannot hold something in their own hands, not only does it have no value, it is actually suspect.

By making the negotiating texts public, we will be demystifying them in the eyes of many citizens. By allowing them to consult the texts, we eliminate one of the loudest claims of the anti-globalization movement, the accusation that trade deals are shrouded in secrecy, concluded behind closed doors on behalf of transnational corporations.

This new openness is a symbol of a dawning era in trade talks and I firmly believe it holds great promise for the future, though there will still be many challenges on the road ahead.

Lesson #2: Increased Openness, Inclusion and Dialogue

Another lesson we have learned is to listen to the protesters and their concerns. In the months leading up to Seattle, Canada had taken steps to include representatives from a broad cross-section of groups in our delegation.

What we found is that the problems that have bedevilled our negotiators -- how to capture benefits while maintaining control over key social or economic policies -- are ones that worry non-governmental organizations too. We also found that what separates us from the sceptics and critics, at this stage, is that we see governments as part of the solution to the challenges of modernization, including globalization. Some of the protesters, at least, have a different perspective.

I think another thing that distinguishes us from our critics is that our thinking has evolved, whereas that of most trade critics has not. In the Americas, trade ministers have come a long way and are now conducting business in a markedly different manner than in the past.

The countries of the Americas now recognize, for example, that there is clearly a place for many voices in the FTAA debate. This has led us to open a dialogue with representatives of interest groups in our societies.

Listening to the public or to NGOs has not always been standard practice for many countries of the Americas. A key turning point occurred at our November 1999 meeting in Toronto, when 22 trade ministers agreed to my proposal to cross the street and meet face-to-face with NGOs from throughout the Americas. It was a first for many of them. In my view, we have benefited greatly from their insight into many different issues. Today, we have even instituted a Civil Society Committee.

But, if there is to be a place for many voices in the debate, it must include not just those of the demonstrators on the streets or of civil society, but indeed consumers as a whole and the business community. The development of trade rules must reflect the current and future challenges faced by business. I would therefore challenge the business community on both sides of the Atlantic to engage more fully in the current debate on further trade liberalization and, in particular, on the substance of a new round. I would encourage businesses to speak out, whether in public or in the many vehicles for dialogue, including the Canada-Europe Round Table for Business (CERT).

Lesson #3: Concerns of Less-Developed Economies Must be Addressed

The third lesson -- and one of biggest remaining challenges in my view -- is to ensure that the concerns of smaller economies are addressed in a meaningful fashion. And in this, the FTAA process once again provides an example that may help the WTO, because one of the central preoccupations in the FTAA negotiations has been the challenge of integrating the concerns of smaller economies into the negotiating process.

The kinds of issues smaller economies in the Americas are grappling with include the need for capacity building, technical assistance and the recognition of their specific challenges as participants in the FTAA process. Obviously, these issues will be very important in any future WTO talks as well.

These smaller nations do not have all the advantages that people in richer nations take for granted. We enjoy diversified economies; prosperous, healthy, well-educated populations; long traditions of democracy and the rule of law; clean environments; solid infrastructures.

They want these things too, but they face many obstacles, some environmental, some historical, some structural.

Larger economies are better able to absorb the shocks that come with globalization. When foreign competition challenges one sector, we can compensate thanks to the strength of other sectors. We can afford to cushion the blow that sometimes results from international competition; we can help our citizens get back on their feet, get training and find new work. Most less-developed economies do not have the capacity to do this.

Many less-developed countries are therefore understandably wary about entering into an agreement that could overwhelm their fragile economies. We must not let that happen. Trade liberalization must benefit all economies, particularly the smaller ones. That is another lesson from Seattle. At that meeting, less-developed countries made their voices heard, demanding that future trade talks take into account their concerns.

As Chair of the Implementation Working Group in Seattle, I saw evidence of these challenges first-hand. The smaller economies delivered a strong and articulate message that the rules of trade liberalization must change and that, henceforth, the benefits for both large and small economies must be clearly evident.

How did the FTAA countries deal with this challenge? At our meeting in Buenos Aires, American Trade Ambassador Robert Zoellick, Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) President Enrique Iglesias and I all spoke in favour of providing smaller economies with the assistance they required to participate in the FTAA process and benefit from the eventual agreement. Canada will provide technical assistance programming to build capacity for trade, investment and financial stability. The U.S. will provide bilateral technical assistance through USAID [United States Agency for International Development] and the IADB will assist FTAA countries with adjustment and transitional costs.

The response to our clear commitment to dealing with the concerns of less-developed countries was positive and immediate. CARICOM and Central American countries agreed to the proposed 2005 time frame for the FTAA negotiations.

On the road to Doha, there is still some distance to travel but it is assuring to note that leaders are actively engaged in addressing the specific issues of developing countries. In this regard, I want to commend my friend and colleague, EU Commissioner Pascal Lamy, for his constructive "Everything-But-Arms" initiative.

I also want to acknowledge the good work that recently emerged from the LDC-3 [Least-Developed Countries] conference in Brussels.

Canada has played its part. At LDC-3, we contributed to the Integrated Framework for trade-related technical assistance and actively supported the coherence agenda upon which it is built. And, last year, Canada extended duty-free access to LDC exports under an additional 570 tariff items, a scheme that now includes 90 percent of our tariff lines. Canada has also led G-7 countries in the matter of debt relief, most notably in January of this year, by stopping collection of debt servicing from highly indebted poor countries that are able to use the savings elsewhere in a productive manner.

International Meetings Must be Secure and Uninterrupted

But, we all must recognize that yet another challenge on the road to Doha is first to help our citizens overcome any suspicions they harbour about trade deals. For those of us in the Americas, the meetings in Buenos Aires and Quebec City have put us on the road to achieving this goal. We have demonstrated a genuine and strengthened concern for the needs of the people as well as a commitment to fostering prosperity and helping smaller economies address the challenges they face.

Nevertheless, the need to deal with public concerns and actions remains for us in the Americas, as it still does for WTO members. We trade ministers and leaders have shown that we do not have closed minds -- I only hope that our critics are as willing to reconsider their approaches. One could take solace in the fact that the conduct of a minority of demonstrators has served to undermine the legitimate messages that certain groups seek to deliver, but the truth is that governments must do a much better job at communicating the benefits of trade than we have in the past.

There is, in my view, a bit of overzealousness in the approach of many of those assembled in the streets. To me, it is anti-democratic to have as an objective the goal of shutting down a meeting of duly elected leaders. Surely, a more appropriate place to bring dissent is directly to the elected representatives in each state or nation. And, as is the case in any democracy, if enough of the public supports the view espoused by the trade critics, the government will get the message one way or another. So, that is why I believe that the precautions we took in Quebec City to ensure the meeting was able to proceed were not only appropriate but absolutely essential to preserve democracy and the functioning of the international system. Countries that will host multilateral meetings in the coming months and years would do well, I think, to examine the lessons from Buenos Aires and Quebec City.

Outlook for Doha is Positive

In conclusion, I just want to say that I am positive about the prospects for progress in Doha in November. Our primary challenge is to ensure we get a new round of global trade talks off to a successful start. To increase the likelihood of success, we must work to maintain domestic support for freer trade, we must be open and transparent, and we must be sensitive to the concerns of developing countries.

We must also do everything we can to prepare for a manageable ministerial. This means a shorter text with fewer decision points for ministers than we faced in Seattle and a commitment to avoid prejudging the results.

I think the outlook for Doha is positive because trade ministers' thinking has evolved considerably and governments and international bodies have learned some lessons, adapted to new realities, made important changes, and laid the groundwork for future success. I am confident we will be able to regain the initiative in the WTO process, just as we have done in the FTAA process, where we have been able to find common cause amongst the disparate economies and democracies of the Americas.

Thank you.

2006 - 2005 - 2004 - 2003 - 2002 - 2001 - 2000 - 1999 - 1998 - 1997 - 1996

Print friendly version - Printing Tips



Last Updated: 2006-10-30	Top of Page	Important Notices