URFIG Document - Analysis about WTO

A “Consultative Parliamentary Assembly” to the WTO:

A Reform that Changes Nothing

by Dr Raoul Marc JENNAR

In spite of a decision-making process by consensus, with its obvious limitations, the World Trade Organization (WTO) suffers from a serious democratic deficit which has already been analysed elsewhere.  In order to “democratise the WTO”, a certain number of people have put forward the idea of creating a “consultative parliamentary assembly”.  The present paper examines this proposal (1) and the Inter-Parliamentary Union’s initiative (2).  It questions the relevance of this proposal with regards to the imperatives of a real democratisation of the WTO (3). 

1. The Emergence of a Proposal

1.1 The Danish Initiative

In the spring of 1999, the Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs had his representatives file a note at the 133 Committee of the European Commission.  The note was devoted to the “creation of a consultative assembly to the World Trade Organization (WTO)[i]” which would be composed of 2-3 parliamentarians per WTO member state.  It would have no other power than that of formulating opinions.  It would meet once a year and would be able to create committees which would address the different matters under the competence of the WTO.  Its objectives would be to promote the liberalisation of trade, evaluate the implementation of WTO goals, debate on the main issues on the WTO’s General Council agenda and ministerial conference, contribute to its democratic development and reinforce the links between the WTO and civil society.  The assembly would have a secretariat within WTO headquarters.

1.2 The European Commission’s Proposal     

On the 25 January 2000, in a note addressed to the 133 Committee concerning the reform proposals of the functioning of the WTO, the European Commission put forth the proposal of “holding an annual assembly of parliamentarians originating from WTO member states [ii]”.  According to the Commission, the consultative assembly to the WTO would offer “a forum for inter-parliamentarian dialogue on the main subjects under discussion at the WTO”. The Commission highlighted that the resolutions adopted by this assembly would only be of “consultative nature”.

On the 10 April 2001, the European Trade Commissioner, Mr. Pascal Lamy, reiterated the proposal in the following terms: “We have issued a proposal to hold an annual WTO meeting and, in parallel, a meeting with the parliamentarians of the WTO member states.  However, we also believe that the establishment of a consultative parliamentary assembly to the WTO deserves to be discussed (…) as long as this assembly does not question the WTO’s inter-governmental character or the principle of separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of member states[iii]”.

1.3 The Christian-Democrats’ Initiative (PPE)

In December 1999, during the third WTO ministerial conference in Seattle, parliamentarians of different countries drafted a proposal aiming to create a parliamentary body in order, according to them, to ensure a greater degree of democracy and transparency in the functioning of the WTO. The idea was taken up later within the European parliament by Mr. Konrad Schwaiger, a Christian-democrat deputy.

On the 26 October 2000, the Conference of Presidents of the European Parliament established a working group in charge of drafting a proposal in view of creating a parliamentary mechanism to the WTO.  The working group was also charged with the task of studying the possibility of convening a preparatory meeting of WTO member states parliamentarians in Brussels in spring 2001. On the 10 April 2001, the European Parliament organised a seminar on the following theme: “Trade, development and democracy: the need for reform the WTO”. During the seminar, several guest speakers presented the creation of a “consultative parliamentary assembly” to the WTO as a reform which was likely to increase the democratic character of the WTO.

1.4 The Inter-Parliamentary Union’s Initiative

Last February, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, an international organisation which numbers representatives from 141 national parliaments, decided to organise a parliamentary meeting of its members on the theme of: “For a free, just and equitable multilateral trading system: providing a parliamentary dimension”.  The meeting will take place in Geneva on the 8 and 9 June.

According to the IPU, the objective of this meeting is to offer parliamentarians who work on trade issues “an unrivalled opportunity to exchange views and experiences with colleagues from other parliaments as wall as trade representatives of governments of sovereign WTO states that are members of the WTO.[iv]”

Three discussion themes are scheduled:

a.       globalisation from a trade perspective: the role and action of parliament as a relay between government and the people. A presentation on this theme by Mr. Mike Moore, Director-General of the WTO, is scheduled;

b.      WTO and the current international trade system: the role of parliaments in the field of legislation;

c.       parliamentary oversight with respect to future trade negotiations, particularly from the development perspective.

The attending parliamentarians should adopt a “Final Document” the pilot study of which justifies the comments in section 2.2 below. 

2. The Inter-Parliamentary Union’s biased stance

2.1 The general presentation of the above mentioned meeting tends, by its very wording  - “provide a parliamentary dimension to the multilateral trade system”, “the legislative role”, “the parliamentary control” - to induce us into thinking that a parliamentary assembly specialised in international trade issues could accomplish the essential functions of the parliamentary institution. This hypothesis is completely excluded from the texts as they stand today.  It would imply a new treaty by which the signatory states would transfer the attributes indispensable to the exercise of such powers to such an assembly.  Even the best example of an integrated supranational organisation – the European Union – shows that such powers have not been delegated to the European Parliament. As was recalled by the WTO Director-General, “the WTO is above all an intergovernmental organisation. So it is mainly accountable to the people only through their governments [v]”. The choice of terminology defined by doctrine is not coincidental. A “parliament” vests the government, adopts laws, votes the budgets and the accounts and controls the executive power. A “consultative parliamentary assembly” adopts texts which have no legal effect. To use terms which characterise the functioning of a parliament when referring to a consultative assembly and naming this assembly a “consultative parliamentary assembly” is simply creating an illusion.  

2.2 The tone of the preparatory documents is undeniably in favour of the multilateral trade system’s neo-liberal orientations, as it is operating under WTO management.  Besides the fact that the only speaker invited who is not a member of the IPU is the WTO’s Director-General himself, the declaration of the IPU’s Council President confirms this observation.  Indeed, he announced that one of the most important issues that will be addressed during the meeting concerns the implementation of WTO agreements, particularly by developing countries[vi].  Light has thus been shed upon the real motivations of the IPU, that is, to exert pressure on developing countries so that they apply agreements which they did not negotiate and which were presented to them in 1994 as “take it or leave it” agreements.  There is no mention to offer parliamentarians with the opportunity to have a critical and independent outlook. Parliamentarians are not being asked to be the spokespersons for their electorate, their constituencies or their country. It is not a question of being independent analysts of the WTO’s functioning and of the ways in which the agreements overseen by the WTO are implemented either.  It is even less a matter of drafting proposals to reform the international trade system in order to make it match with the proclaimed discourse. Parliamentarians are being asked to become the propaganda agents of the WTO, of its inequitable rules and their unbalanced implementation. The WTO’s Director-General has recently suggested that “parliamentarians could assist governments to bridge the gap between the WTO and the voters[vii]”. The Canadian protagonists of a consultative assembly project add nothing more when they state that “ the added value will consist of increasing, with the passing of time, the trust and understanding of the necessity of an open and reinforced global trade system.[viii]” 

2.3 The fundamental problem stemming from agreements such as those for which the WTO is responsible is not addressed. The matters that the WTO oversees since 1995 directly concern the lives of people. Yet, these matters are being addressed according to traditional diplomatic procedures, by treaties negotiated and approved by governments and ratified by parliaments. No one will dispute the fact that diplomatic acts are those which most often escape any form of democratic control. This stems from a secular tradition whereby the relations between states are kept as the exclusive prerogative of the executive power. The constitutional clauses of many a country entrust the executive power with these matters. In as much as it confirms the act of the Executive, the parliamentary ratification procedure is, in itself, an act of trust of this Executive (the government or even, as is the case in France, the Head of State). This substantially limits the room for manoeuvre of parliamentary assemblies.  Specialists of parliamentary law all agree in saying that the ratification procedures rarely give rise to debate. Yet, over the last couple of decades, there has been a considerable evolution translated by the emergence of rules and of intergovernmental institutions concerned with matters that exceed, by far, the traditional question of relations between states, stricto sensu.  The emergence of multilateralism shifts the treatment of matters treated, up until recently, in a national context where democratic control could be exercised, to a sphere which, up until now, has not been subjected to democratic imperatives. From the viewpoint of peace and solidarity between peoples, multilateralism is, without a doubt, a progress. However, from the point of view of democracy, and in the absence of control mechanisms stemming from the legitimacy of universal suffrage, it is a regression. As it is the case with European Union and the WTO, multilateralism gives birth to non transparent, non accountable and oligarchic institutions whose powers constantly increase through rules that have absolute predominance on national law of member states. It denies national parliaments of the attributes upon which their legitimacy is based. It is surprising to see an organisation such as the IPU, which claims to promote the parliamentary function and representative democracy, dismiss this fundamental question.

3. An Initiative which changes nothing

Creating a “consultative parliamentary assembly” to the WTO is not a response to the need of democratising the WTO.  More particularly:

-         it does not resolve the problem of “informal meetings” whereby industrialised countries negotiate the most important decisions;

-         it does not reduce the de facto inequality which exists between countries with regards to an effective and efficient participation to all activities within all WTO bodies;

-         it does not rectify the multiple violations of the general principles of law which affect the dispute settlement mechanism.

Creating such an assembly brings nothing.  Must a new and costly institution be set up to fulfil the function which should – even if there are blatant failings – be fulfilled by each national parliament? Could the parliamentarians co-opted into attending the assembly’s meeting not receive, within their own national parliaments – for example through an ad hoc commission possibly entrusted with the powers delegated to a classical parliamentary commission – the information which they would obtain by going to Geneva?

Creating such an institution weakens the parliamentary function. By leaving their national parliaments where they have authentic power (even if it is often tarnished), co-opted parliamentarians would have to abandon the powers they have gained through universal suffrage and become the mere authors of opinions devoid of any real impact.

Creating such an institution to “bring closer together the WTO and citizens” is the same as using an obsolete tool to build a solution. For many years now, political scientists and parliamentary law specialists have all observed and analysed the crises of parliamentary institutions and of representative democracy in a great number of countries[ix]. Recommending the creation of a consultative assembly amounts to nothing more than recommending the creation of a powerless version of a model which is, itself, failing.

Finally, recommending the creation of such an institution means participating to a tentative of legitimising a WTO, the creation of which results from a real diplomatic coup de force by industrialised countries.