Brazil’s ambassador to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), Roberto Azevêdo, is to be approved by acclamation, as the Geneva-based organisation’s new director-general, at next Tuesday’s meeting of its general council.
Dr Azevêdo is only the WTO’s second leader from the developing world in its 18 years of existence. The fact that, this year, the majority of the nine aspirants to the post were from emerging economies and the result would appear to represent the general view in Geneva that the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations will have a greater chance of success under the leadership of a representative from a developing country, albeit, in the case of Brazil, a more developed, developing country.
According to a WTO release, Dr Azevêdo “enjoyed support from members from all levels of development and from all geographic regions and has done so throughout the process.” The head of the WTO is chosen by consensus rather than election and, fittingly, Dr Azevêdo has built a reputation as a bridge-builder during his five years in Geneva; this despite having had to defend robust positions taken by Brazil, regarded by many as not being sufficiently supportive of multilateral trade and protectionist, because of its large domestic market, even as it has sought more liberalised global trade regimes for its export of commodities. But Dr Azevêdo’s triumph in a highly political race probably owes as much to the sophistication and persistence of Brazilian diplomacy as anything else.
Dr Azevêdo was pushed hard up to the final round by another Latin American, Herminio Blanco of Mexico, the preferred candidate of trade heavyweights, the USA, the European Union and Japan. Having served as his country’s chief trade negotiator at the time of the conclusion of the Uruguay Round and the creation of the WTO and then, as trade minister, leading Mexico into more free trade agreements than any other country in the world, Dr Blanco was also seen as a strong candidate. Interestingly, both men hold doctorates in economics from the University of Chicago, a bastion of neo-classical economic thinking and free market policies.
More importantly, the fact that both finalists were from Latin America would seem to be a reflection of the continent’s growing economic clout and increasing weight in world trade. Moreover, Brazil, as one of the BRICS (along with Russia, India, China and South Africa), sees itself as a global player and a leader of the global south and, indeed, its internationalism may well have tipped the scales in its candidate’s favour.
The challenge for the new world trade supremo now is to reassure all the WTO’s members that they have a stake in the organisation, while attempting to revive the Doha Round. Although he is not supposed to show national or regional bias, he will inevitably be influenced by the policies of his government and the dynamics of Latin American development and integration initiatives.
As a respected diplomatic negotiator with first-hand knowledge of the workings of the WTO and as someone who should possess a clear understanding of the needs of emerging economies, Dr Azevêdo should be well placed to broker a deal between industrialised countries and developing countries. As to whether, however, he truly appreciates the challenges faced by less developed and less competitive, small, vulnerable economies, such as Guyana and our Caricom partners, is difficult to say.
Small states, such as those in the Caribbean, tend to be small producers of the same goods that bigger, developing countries, such as Brazil, Thailand and Malaysia, produce themselves. The erosion of preferential markets due to trade liberalisation is leaving less competitive producers terribly exposed. The WTO, however, has generally been more concerned with trade than development, and while small states might wish for more attention on development to ensure food security, for example, the WTO tends to focus more on whether a country is competitive or not, rather than on its development challenges.
Of Caricom members, only Barbados, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago have permanent missions in Geneva, while the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States has a technical mission there. In the case of Guyana, it is our ambassador in Brussels, Dr PI Gomes, who is accredited to the WTO and commutes between the two cities as circumstances and his budget dictate. It is debatable how effective an arrangement this is.
Guyana, of course, enjoys a strong bilateral relationship with Brazil and, presumably, Dr Gomes has good working relations with Dr Azevêdo. Obviously, those countries with Geneva-based representatives would have an advantage in their dealings with the new director general and even though Guyana can generally rely on its Caricom partners for support on common issues, we may be missing out from not being able to maintain the type of sustained engagement necessary in this particular multilateral process.
With the International Monetary Fund predicting economic growth of 5.5 per cent this year and 6 per cent in 2014, and with the government committed to a policy of economic diversification, the time is ripe to work towards becoming more competitive and to insert ourselves into global supply chains. In forums like the WTO, we will need a fair and sympathetic hearing from Dr Azevêdo, who, it is to be hoped, will not listen only to the major players. But we need a permanent presence, not only to be heard but also to contribute to finding solutions and to engage on a continuous basis with the new director general, who will be called upon to play the role of bridge-builder and dealmaker in the negotiations to come. It might therefore be a good time for the government to consider opening a mission in Geneva.
