WTO DG Pascal Lamy makes some interesting points (as he often does) in his recent speech on trade and human rights. Here are the ones that jumped out at me (quoted portion indented), with some quick comments.
1. Good governance and transparency are essential for trade.
What role do human rights play in trade? First, civil and political rights are a key ingredient of good governance, which in turn is essential to the proper conduct of trade relations. Freedom of expression, for example, brings transparency, one of the core principles of the world trading system.
My sense is that "transparency" is almost universally accepted, and not particularly controversial. On the other hand, "good governance" is one of those vague terms that sounds great in theory, but in practice can lead to some disagreement about the burdens imposed on domestic regulation.
2. Trade measures are used to promote human rights.
How can trade help promote human rights? I would start by noting that trade measures are the most commonly used instrument in developed countries to put pressure on states violating human rights.
That is probably true, with selective purchasing laws and conditions on trade preferences being two examples. It is not clear whether all such measures are permitted under WTO rules, though.
3. The WTO's purpose is to "regulate" trade
The primary vocation of the WTO is to regulate, not to deregulate trade as is often thought. By putting in place rules to regulate trade flows and remove trade distortions, the WTO aims to create a global level playing field, where fairness is the rule and where the rights of individual members are safeguarded.
I'm not sure either of these terms, "regulate" or "deregulate," is particularly helpful in describing the WTO's purpose. Actually, I think this recent statement by the Appellate Body in China - Publications was pretty good in this regard:
222. We read the phrase "in a manner consistent with the WTO Agreement" as referring to the WTO Agreement as a whole, including its Annexes. We note, in this respect, that we see the "right to regulate", in the abstract, as an inherent power enjoyed by a Member's government, rather than a right bestowed by international treaties such as the WTO Agreement. With respect to trade, the WTO Agreement and its Annexes instead operate to, among other things, discipline the exercise of each Member's inherent power to regulate by requiring WTO Members to comply with the obligations that they have assumed thereunder. When what is being regulated is trade, then the reference in the introductory clause to "consistent with the WTO Agreement" constrains the exercise of that regulatory power such that China's regulatory measures must be shown to conform to WTO disciplines. (emhphasis add)
So it's not that the WTO "regulates" or "deregulates" trade, but rather it "disciplines the exercise of each Member's inherent power to regulate." As the Appellate Body's statement indicates, it is governments that regulate trade. As for the WTO, rather than regulating trade, it regulates governments' regulation of trade.
Of course, in restricting domestic regulation in this way, it is, to some extent, deregulating trade. Thus, you could argue that the WTO's impact is closer to "deregulating" than "regulating."
(Did any of that make sense? I'll try again on that one some other time.)
4. Trade requires redistribution of wealth and "safeguards."
While trade can promote development and contribute to the reinforcement of human rights, it is not a panacea. Trade liberalization can entail social costs. To be successful, the opening of markets requires solid social policies to redistribute wealth or provide safeguards to the men and women whose living conditions have been disrupted by evolving trade rules and trade patterns.
This is what I have called the “Geneva consensus”, under which the opening of markets is necessary to our collective well-being, but does not suffice in itself.
It does not suffice unless strong safety nets help correct the imbalances between winners and losers at the national level. ...
I'm not sure how much "consensus" there is about the "Geneva consensus." Many countries probably agree with this as a general principle, but the implementation will likely vary to a great degree and cause a good deal of conflict. For example, company bailouts are a form of social safety net, but they also cause concern among trading partners.
***
Putting all those minor criticisms aside, let me just note that I enjoy Pascal Lamy's speeches quite a bit. He is not afraid to take on complex and controversial issues, which is not always the case for someone in his position.
