Mon, Apr 01, 2002 page4

• Taiwan may forge new role in WTO

  A Nobel Peace Prize nominee and recipient of various international acclaimed peace and humanitarian awards for his instrumental role in forging the Ottawa Treaty in 1997 -- a landmark global treaty banning anti-personnel landmines -- former Canadian foreign minister Lloyd Axworthy is now the director of the Liu Center for the Study of Global Issues at the University of British Columbia in Canada. Axworthy discussed a number of issues with `Taipei Times' reporter Monique Chu on Saturday.

  • /
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  Axworthy urged Taiwan to focus on its adjustment to WTO rules and its strategic role in WTO trade talks by identifying the areas where the country enjoys comparative advantage such as services, by acting with like-minded countries, and by taking advantage of the call for transparency of the trading system. He also believes the Ottawa Treaty has considerable relevance to Taiwan's offshore islands where the defense ministry's "national security" consideration made them far from being land-mine free, as well as his view on the world after Sept. 11 attacks.

  Taipei Times: The middle powers' coalition leading up to the Ottawa Treaty in 1997 made one think of the Cairns Group under the multilateral trading body. What should Taiwan, as a small or middle power, bear in mind when it is to identify its strategic position following its WTO accession?

  

  Former foreign minister of Canada Lloyd Axworthy speaks with the Taipei Times about WTO accession and landmine use.

  PHOTO: CHIANG YING-YING, TAIPEI TIMES

  Lloyd Axworthy: Once you are inside the arena, it becomes a matter of very important strategic choices: who you are allied with; what kind of issues you think are in your interests; and what kind of innovations. I don't think people have quite fully identified with the impacts of the Doha round. You can know the priority issues themselves, but there is also an increasing demand now for a higher level of accountability and transparency of the WTO. To me, those are all advantages for small and medium-sized countries.

  The more that you open it up, then you don't get the kind of thing where very large economic powers can dictate, overturn or be indifferent to the rules. The more transparent the rule of the game, the better it is. But the lesson is you can't do it by yourself. You need to be working with like-minded countries, so there is a high level of diplomacy. This is not just a technical question. And one also has to be engaged very actively with your own industries, your own unions, and even your own NGOs (non-governmental organizations).

  In my own country there are several NGO groups that have become very actively involved in Geneva in determining how you set up precautionary principles in relation to the environment so that it can't be used as a trade barrier and in recognizing the impact that trade could have on environmental issues.

  So I mean it's a fascinating but also a very creative time. Taiwan is coming in at a time when we see quite a substantial dramatic shift in a lot of the conventional economic rules -- I think all the better, frankly.

  TT: You've argued it's better for Taiwan as a new WTO member to focus on the multilateral trading system before putting efforts in forging free trade agreements (FTAs) with others. But arguably, one of the obstacles to the multilateral trade talks is the extensive numbers of countries involved, thus forcing countries such as Singapore to go ahead with its FTAs. What is your view on that?

  Axworthy: I don't think the economics behind FTAs is very good, because they are too small. To me, there are two big advantages in a broad multilateral system.

  One is there is an enormous amount of flexibility. You are not limited to the partners you have to trade with, and you don't divert trade as a result.

  Secondly, there is the politics of it. A trade regime is like any other international agreement, and you have to be able to provide counterbalance and force in order to make your interest served... So there is a very active diplomatic and political side in trade agreements, especially along with all those new issues. Obviously Taiwan has a comparative advantage in the area of information technology, and it has a huge take in the whole negotiations on services.

  TT: Back to the Ottawa Treaty. To what extent can the essence of the treaty be applied to Taiwan's offshore islands such as Kinmen and Matsu where the defense ministry's "national security" considerations have made the areas far from landmine-free?

  Axworthy: I haven't looked at those two specifics. But I'd like to simply point this out that the evidence that was produced during the treaty on landmines simply showed that landmines have very low military utility. They don't do very much to either defend or to alert changes, especially with the new technology moving into the arena where information systems and satellite systems are much more effective in detection. Many use landmines as a tripwire if something is happening, the reality is it's pretty ineffectual. It's one of those weapon systems that probably do more damage than they do good.

  One of the things that made the treaty on landmines possible is that through the effort of the International Committee of the Red Cross, they just assembled very complete testimony of all kinds of significant military people who said they don't work and they just aren't worth the effort. And for the countries who do it, they end up creating bigger problems for themselves. But it's hard to get the people in defense to change their mind.

  TT: So that is the tricky thing. Since the landmines campaign started from the premise that the lives of the millions of civilians take precedence over military and national security interests, how far do you think that objective has been achieved?

  Axworthy: Right now, for the countries that we've encountered, it has been very successful. The numbers of fatalities and casualties have fall dramatically in countries like Cambodia, Mozambique and Nicaragua. As long as you had a free flow of exports of landmines, as fast as you pulled them out of the ground, people would put them back in. So the limitation of the exports of landmines [is crucial].

  Even countries that were not our signatories, such as Russia and the US, have lived up to the standards of the treaty -- by and large.

  There are still arms traders who are engaged in the use of landmines, but the general impact has not only provided a pretty higher level of reduction, but the other part of the treaty was to get wealthier countries to make major contributions to the demining and the revocation [of mining]. I think the last count was about US$600 million being allocated to demining and revocation [of mining].

  TT: You've argued that a new form of diplomacy seemed to be emerging after the Ottawa Process as it was a campaign without larger powers such as the US being part of the core group plus inputs by state and non-state actors. Do you think it is still the case even after the Sept. 11 attacks, especially as some argue that countries like the US tend to act rather unilaterally?

  Axworthy: There is no doubt about that. I think the Bush administration came into office with the an antipathy towards any form of international architecture. They are certainly people asserting the idea that they will not limit themselves, limit their techniques or methods to international agreements.

  At the same time, I think there is a counter group. To give you one clear example of a success story for what I called the "human security coalition," and that is that within a couple of months, the International Criminal Court will be a reality. There are now 56 countries that have ratified it, and there are eight or nine lined up. And it only takes 60, so probably by this summer the International Criminal Court will be in existence. There again Canada played an active role... It would be a cornerstone of the emergence of the new international criminal justice system.

  I think there is a fundamental debate going on. The debate is not as Mr. Bush said between those who are the so-called "axis of evil" versus the good guys; the real debate is between those believe in the rule of law, international cooperation and collaboration, as opposed to those who think you can make your way by using force.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Bologna advance to face AC Milan in Coppa final

  • 2

    Bukele proposes prisoner swap with Maduro

  • 3

    Wild’s top line too much for Vegas Golden Knights

  • 4

    HK, Macau residency rules tightened

  • 5

    Eric Chu, 2 others to be questioned for leading illegal assembly last week