Stanley's blog

Whether or not the Doha Development Round collapses, thought needs to be given to reforming the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the current trading system. A starting point would be to dust down the Havana Charter of 1947.

The developing countries do not trust the developed world to dismantle its protectionist measures in the fields in which they are competitive – notably in agricultural produce – in return for market-opening decisions. This distrust has always existed. There is also a growing understanding that trade cannot be treated in a vacuum and the need to achieve social balance is not some old-fashioned socialist notion.

The GATT, which was set up in 1947, was envisaged as a temporary measure, until ratification of the Havana Charter.

The original intention was to create a third institution to handle the trade side of international economic cooperation, joining the two “Bretton Woods” institutions, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Over 50 countries participated in negotiations to create an International Trade Organization (ITO) as a specialized agency of the United Nations. The draft ITO Charter was ambitious. It extended beyond world trade disciplines, to include rules on employment, commodity agreements, restrictive business practices, international investment, and services. The aim was to create the ITO at a UN Conference on Trade and Employment in Havana, Cuba in 1947.

The Havana conference began on 21 November 1947, less than a month after the GATT was signed. It was the first major event at which the emerging numerical advantage of developing countries in the UN became significant. Numerous proposals intended to safeguard industries and allow imposition of trade restrictions were tabled. A charter was eventually negotiated to the satisfaction of most delegations, by which the ITO would become a world economic forum to regulate trade. Special rules were adopted allowing limited trade protection for developing countries to adapt to a freer trade regime.

The ITO Charter was finally agreed in Havana in March 1948, but ratification in some national legislatures proved impossible. The most serious opposition was in the US Congress, even though the US government had been one of the driving forces. In 1950, it announced that it would not seek Congressional ratification of the Havana Charter, and the ITO was effectively dead. So, the GATT became the only multilateral instrument governing international trade from 1948 until the WTO was established in 1995.

Some blamed a cold war moon for casting a shadow over the internationalist sun. Others that it was due to a resurgence of economic nationalism. The mood in the US Congress by the time it was presented for ratification had begun to swing against the UN and international institutions. The internationalist Roosevelt/Truman era was coming to an end and the McCarthy era was beginning to cast its shadows. The ITO charter was not brought to the US Congress in time to catch the favourable tide. By the time it was brought to Congress, ratification had become hopeless and the ITO was abandoned even without a vote.

Thus the Bretton Woods system was incomplete from the beginning, lacking its intended third pillar. The GATT was a poor substitute and did not fill the gap as, for example, it had no functions for the stabilization of commodity prices or regulation of commodity markets. The latter’s failing has since become more, not less, significant for global prosperity. Attempts to create an influential trade organisation within the UN failed and GATT continued to function. It also galvanised developing countries into greater co-operation between them. The vacuum in world trade created by the demise of the ITO and dissatisfaction with GATT provided developing countries with a focus of common interest and the impetus for action

There is a lasting irony to the ITO’s still birth. A major reason that the current trade round talks began to fail in Seattle in 1999 was an underlying suspicion of the attempt to introduce a comprehensive agenda into a forum geared to the interests of the few major economic powers. Yet, all those years ago, the ITO was intended to have just such a comprehensive mandate. That vacuum has returned to haunt us.

.

.

Author :
Print

Comments

  1. *Whether or not the Doha Development Round collapses, thought needs to be given to reforming the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the current trading system.*

    Excellent background here on the shift of management of global trade away from the United Nations system. A sign of a political power struggle? Anyway the Charter still makes the UN responsible for considering the outcome.

    “The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) serves as the central forum for discussing international economic and social issues, and for formulating policy recommendations addressed to Member States and the United Nations system.” http://www.un.org/ecosoc/about/

    But this UN arrangement seems to have failed. Who has the power to order an independent audit of the public ECOSOC?

    [WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘1055386704 which is not a hashcash value.

  2. A special organization should exist now for humankind and nature before it’s too late.

    [WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘1055386704 which is not a hashcash value.

  3. A new organism should give notions for humankind in relation with the nature, the environment…

    [WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘1055386704 which is not a hashcash value.

  4. This post touches upon the core problem of the post WWII and European colonial power. The “trade issue” has been overlooked although the vast movement of non-aligned and of NGOs for development cooperation had repeatedly raised it. This was strong evidence in international relations in the 1960s and 1970s. The well known call for “trade not aid” has been ignored. Similarly the attempts for South-South cooperation prompted by some UNDP sub-agencies and the debate about the New Information Order promoted also by UNESCO have been either watered down or dismissed from the official agenda. The current crisis is closing three decades (1979-2009) of manipulation of the core issues that, as correctly noted, come back now as “yet-to-be-addressed”. However, while the EU and the US prompt a new rhetoric for dialogue to the rest of the world, I do not see a concrete change in the significance of the discourse. A novelty may come from Asia. Looking at China as a by-product of Western economy would be a major mistake, both cultural and political. Similarly the Indian democracy is not a reproduction of the Enlightenment ideas. While we are still packed into the frame of the Westerndom symbolized by the hyper activism of NATO, a new organization – the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) – is molding a new governance structure that is spanning over the majority of the planet. Its spanning is mostly based on “trade not aid” and cultural and scientific cooperation South-South. Should we learn something from this?

    [WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘1055386704 which is not a hashcash value.

Comments are closed.