Pascal Lamy was in the U.S. last week, and spoke in a number of academic and other settings. (He also completed the NY Marathon on Sunday--practice for the Doha Round, perhaps.) See the story and pictures about his visit to Fletcher. Lamy spoke quite a bit about governance, and responded to student papers and questions on governance of the WTO. He emphasized the "member organization" quality of the WTO. A colleague pointed out in response that Lamy had much more power as EC trade commissioner than he does now. Of course, for the EC trade commissioner, the member states also loom quite large.
When he spoke at the Kennedy School, protestors shouted that he was a "feudalist." I found this poignant, as Lamy had argued that the world has left behind political colonialism, but still suffers from what he termed "economic colonialism." This phrase, the meaning of which was not explicated, obviously will be somewhat inflamatory for wealthier states, but it shows something of Lamy's concerns. However, in response to a question about the effect of the WTO on sub-Saharan Africa, Lamy asked "show me the sub-Saharan African state that is charging its bound tariff in a way that results in damage to domestic producers." The implication was that few African states have many bound tariffs, that many of them charge rates lower than their bound tariffs, and that where they charge a bound tariff it does not injure a domestic industry--that is, that WTO rules, at least on tariffs, do not impair livelihoods in Africa. Of course, there is a lot more to say about the adequacy of WTO rules allowing subsidies, allowing trade barriers in markets that are important to African producers, etc. But these are arguments that the WTO needs more rules, not fewer.
