Trading places means seismic shift at WTO

In November an African woman is set to be appointed to head the World Trade Organisation (WTO). My sense is that it will be either Nigeria s Ngozi ’ Okonjo-Iweala or Kenya s ’ Amina Mohamed. The symbolism of this will be enormous. Since its creation in 1995, no African or woman has been secretary-general of the WTO. In institutional terms, the next secretary-general will have an insurmountable task.

Let me provide some deep background, then some matters of process, and then matters of representation and power relations. I may take some shortcuts, but only for the sake of brevity. Briefly, the US initiated discussions on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and provided the legal basis for trade negotiations for the next four or five decades, until the WTO s ’ creation in 1995. One key point to note is that there were only 23 founding members ”, SA and “Southern Rhodesia being ” among them. This is what I would describe as the organic inequality that gave birth to the global trade regime, way back in 1947/1948.

This inequality was reproduced over the next four or five decades in eight — rounds of negotiations when — the US, Canada, Australia and one or two European states self-selected to fill key leadership positions. They had their hands on the levers of power. This (here is one of those shortcuts) in effect meant the GATT was shaped by European political economy, law and ethics. Put all this together, then add to it the admission (during a jolly gathering of academics and policymakers hosted by Ohio University in about 1999) that the GATT was largely run by “the English-speaking nations, particularly the Americans and the British ... and the Canadians ” with another comment that “GATT was a rich man s club.’ Some of us wish it had stayed that way.” This was followed by raucous laughter and backslapping. Matters of process are difficult to explain in a short space. I will try. Essentially, all decisions made in the WTO are done on the basis of consensus. That sounds good, right? Wrong. This data is a little old, but a weekend conversation with my source in Geneva explained that not much has changed. What this decision-making process means is that if a member country is not represented during any particular process, important and often farreaching decisions can be made without that country s input.

’ The problem of underrepresentation is especially critical when one considers that since its creation (according to a World Bank report in about 2000), there have been about 100 weekly meetings of the WTO. This does not include the number of ad hoc and informal meetings and consultations outside formal settings. A decade later, fresh data shows at least 20 meetings a day producing between 80 and 100 formal documents (daily), and nearly 500 a week.

Now consider that for every person a poor country such as, say, Niger sends to the WTO, the US has at least seven to 10

— with about 200 more in the US International Mission to Geneva, which includes lawyers, economists and specialists in everything from intellectual property rights to human rights. The US can and has deployed some of these people as required. They are also available to attend the hundreds of conferences and gatherings in Geneva, while a country such as Togo can barely pull together a decent trade delegation.

This brings us to the organisational culture (a wholey different but not irrelevant discussion) at the WTO. The following is based on official data, which I have simplified significantly because of space limitations. The document was classified, and I have sat on it for about five years. The burden of proof correcting me lies

— —

with the WTO. Inequality runs all the way down the organisation.

In 1995, there were only three (1.7%) African professionals in the WTO. Since 1995, the staff have been overwhelmingly European. This may be explained, of course, by the simple fact of the WTO s

’

location in Switzerland. In 1995, 72.6% of staff were European and 8.7% North American. Fifteen years later, in January 2010, European staff dropped to 65.5% with North Americans increasing their representation slightly to 8.8%. Among the professional staff (as opposed to support staff), 68% were male and 31% female in 1995. Fifteen years later, 59% were male and 40.3% female. This majority is reversed among support staff

— in 1995 women made up 72.1%, and in January 2010 70% of the support staff were women. The Europeans and their kin, and men, seem to dominate all influential positions.

We have yet to discuss the fact that trade negotiations (the Doha Round) almost collapsed in 2001, and as it goes, the multilateral system is probably at its weakest since the start of the 21st century.

The next secretary-general of the World Trade Organisation will have her hands full.

FOR EVERY PERSON A POOR COUNTRY SENDS TO THE WTO, THE US HAS 7 TO 10 AND 200 MORE IN THE INTERNATIONAL MISSION TO GENEVA