WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/MIN(99)/12
30 November 1999
(99-5160)
MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE
Third Session
Seattle, 30 November – 3 December 1999Original:  English
ADDRESS BY THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL
MR. MIKE MOORE
Let me begin by paying tribute to our hosts, the United States of America, for its wisdom,
leadership and strength in hosting this important conference.
Thanks are due to our chairperson, Charlene Barshefsky, who will lead us over the next few
days and to the WTO Secretariat for their dedication and professionalism.
On behalf of you all, I want to thank our host city Seattle and its leaders and people.  At the
time no one believed this conference would attract so much attention.  Fifty thousand guests, many of
them even invited.
This conference is doomed - doomed to succeed.  Despite our differences inside and outside
this chamber, the WTO will succeed because it is too important to fail.  Too much is at stake.  It's true
we faced problems in Geneva.  A brick wall of "insurmountable opportunities".  We were unable to
get for Ministers an agreed single text.  That was true of other times when we launched rounds.
The WTO is a new organization.  We represent 135 sovereign governments - from every
region, every culture, every stage of development.  China is now poised to join us, and many othercountries are waiting impatiently in line.  There may be 50,000 outside the conference centre but we
have 1.5 billion people wanting to join.
We all realize that no nation can now enjoy clean water, air, manage an airline, even organise
a tax system or hope to contain or cure AIDS  or cancer, without the co-operation of others.
When the Berlin wall came down, when Nelson Mandela was freed, when the colonels went
back into their barracks, elsewhere, the world celebrated.  We celebrated the universal values of
political and economic freedom.  No one shouted, cursed and swore about the evils of globalization
then.
Every mother with a sick child wants the best the world has to offer from science.  No one
wants the old technology when they go to the dentist. They don't complain then about global or
universal values.
I have some empathy with some of these protestors outside.  Not all are bad or mad.
They are right when they say they want a safer, cleaner more healthy planet.  They are correct
when they call for an end to poverty, more social justice, better living standards.
They are wrong to blame the WTO for all the world's problems.  They are especially wrong
when they say this is not a democratic house.  Ministers are here because their people decided so.  Ouragreements must be agreed by Parliaments.  This is a Ministerial Conference.WT/MIN(99)/12
Page 2
I know much of the so-called Geneva "deadlock" is tactical.  The suggestion from one
developing country to hold progress on e-commerce until there is a better deal on implementation
sounds fine in Geneva.  Refusing e-commerce is the modern equivalent of resisting railways, roads
and electricity.  The beauty of this balanced package we will work through is that everyone must win.
In Geneva, we have worked for a year and more to prepare the ground for new negotiations,
and to set out our work programme for the future.  Your representatives have worked extremely hard -
and progress has been made.
But the fact remains that we have not bridged our differences.  Three times we asked capitals
for more flexibility to conclude a deal.  But three times a decision was made not to give Ambassadors
more room.  You made that decision.  You made th e decision that certain issues only Seattle could
resolve.  I understand that.  You are Ministers, you were elected, so responsibility ultimately rests
with you.
All of us recognize, deep down, that a broa d and balanced new trade round is in our shared
interest because all of us have vital national issues at stake.
Many developing countries are experiencing difficulty implementing certain WTO
commitments which they want addressed before taking on new obligations.  And just as important,
they need greater access for their exports.  These issues are especially pressing for the smallest and
most vulnerable among the developing countries.
Other countries are dependent on agricultural exports - and they want the kind of access
which they feel has been denied them in previous rounds.  Still others want new rule-making in areas
like electronic commerce, investment, competition policy, transparency in government procurement,
and trade facilitation.  Then there are those who believe an examination of the relationship betweentrade and social issues needs to be started if we are to give globalization a human face.
The concerns of the least-developed must not be left behind.  What is the real cost to the
wealthiest nations of dropping barriers to their exports - when these exports represent just half a per
cent of world trade?  If we cannot make this small concession to the poorest amongst us, what hope is
there for our grand commitment to poverty eradication in the 21
st century?  The least-developed
countries are not threatened by globalization.  They are threatened by "de-globalization", fallingoutside of the world economy and slipping ever furt her behind.  This is not the fault of the trading
system.  Governments themselves have responsibilities. Some governments are paying up to nine
times more on debt repayment than on health.  The heavy hand of history has its thumb on the
windpipe of many Member Governments.
You face a huge agenda.  Some argue it should be made smaller, more manageable, less
controversial.   But whose interests would we ad vance?  Whose would we ignore?  And when is the
right time to tackle the hard issues?  Next year?  Another Ministerial?  Next Round?  The risk of
financial crises or further marginalization of the poor are not challenges that lie in some far-off future
which we can contemplate in a detached or academic way.  They are already with us.  They are on thetable in Seattle whether we put them there or not.  And they demand answers.
Just consider how interconnected we are.  A quarter of global output now crosses national
borders - and this share is even higher for develo ping countries, almost 40 per cent of their GDP.
Developing countries need a secure and stable world trading system as much as anyone.  They needmore openness, not less.  Stronger rules, not weaker ones.  As much as anyone, they need new trade
negotiations to expand their markets, open up thei r own economies, and to undertake reforms.  The
future of the global economy lies with them.  They are the customers of the future.  The living
standards of the wealthy nations will rely on purchasing power of the poorer nations in the next
century.WT/MIN(99)/12
Page 3
I am optimistic.  I believe that beyond our immediate differences, there is broad agreement
about the kind of balanced negotiation that is needed.  But I also know that mistakes can be made.
Missteps or misunderstandings could still snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
The cost of failure is high.  The poor can't wait, science and technology won't wait.
To me it's a simple proposition.  The first half of this century was marked by force and
coercion.  The next century ought to be one marked by persuasion, not coercion.  Of States settling
their differences through that great equaliser, the law.  Of a binding disputes mechanism to settle
differences of engagement and interdependence.
I'm from a small country but I don't see what we are doing here as a threat to our sovereignty.
I see interdependence as a guarantor of our sovereignty and safety.  The small, the vulnerable and the
poorest among our family need our organization and success in Seattle more than most.
I recall a splendid comment of Julius Nyerere who claimed that as each village's wealth once
depended on its neighbour's ability to purchase, this is now true of nations.  Our parents learned from
the great depression made deeper and more lethal by rising trade barriers from which came the twin
tyrannies of our age, fascism and marxism, thus war; hot and cold.
They swore it would not happen again, and they created an international architecture which
included the UN, IMF, World Bank, and the GATT, now the WTO, to achieve that peaceful purpose
and noble vision.
Are we as good as our parents?  Can we lift our vision beyond narrow national briefs written
in distant capitals?
The decision is whether we march boldly with confidence, compassion and vision into the
next millennium, or limp forward bogged down in  a swamp of indecision, paralysed by vested
interests. I ask you to think of these brave men and women from the 1940s and others who most
recently tore down the walls of economic and political oppression.
Reflect gently on those who have never had much anyway.  Those who come here from the
poorest countries, the most distant islands and valleys, who simply want a chance.  Not favours, but
an opportunity.
If we want Seattle to fail we need do nothing at all.  We can return to capitals with our
interests uncontaminated by compromise.  We can tell our citizens that we defended their positions tothe very last line of text.  But what would that mean?  Would we celebrate stopping the developing
countries from getting a fairer deal?  That we left a more unstable and insecure world? That we
stopped progress?  That’s the equivalent of celebra ting Europe not enlarging.  That's like celebrating a
new Berlin Wall going up.
Soon a new year rises, a new century rises, a new millennium arrives.  Let's welcome it with
confidence.  I do, because too much is at stake for us to falter, be timid or to fail.
__________