Less of Moore is not good politics

By Rod Oram

Between the lines

The World Trade Organisation could pay a hefty price if it succumbs to the temptation of solving its leadership crisis by sharing the job between New Zealand's Mike Moore and Supachai Panitchpakdi of Thailand.

The proposal was the most useful thing to come out of this week's Apec trade ministers' meeting in Auckland.

While Apec only nudged ahead its own agenda, the real action was on the sidelines over the poisonously deadlocked fight for the WTO director generalship.

But job sharing with each candidate serving, say, three years would be fraught with bad politics and impracticalities. Both camps and, indeed, all WTO members need to weigh the pros and cons very carefully.

The main plus is an end to the exhausting leadership battle, thus allowing the WTO's Millennium Round of global trade negotiations to kick off on time in Seattle in September.

In contrast, the list of negatives is long. First, it is bad politics because it rewards the Thais for their intransigence and makes a mockery of the carefully crafted process, to which all parties agreed, for building a consensus around a winner. In their stubborn refusal to honour the system, the Thais have undermined the WTO's key principle of unanimous, consensual decision making.

Second, it is seriously impractical. The big issue is who serves first since the lucky man will have a big influence over the shape and outcome of the Millennium Round.

Theoretically, the director-general merely serves member countries but in reality he leads with his own strong vision, just as Arthur Dunkel, the legendary head of Gatt, did through several rounds of its negotiations.

He who follows the leader will have to implement a hugely complex trade treaty not of his own making or agenda. He will be tempted to relitigate or otherwise tamper with the treaty.

Timing is a subsidiary but crucial issue. If the terms were fixed at three years, there is a real danger the job would change hands before the treaty was concluded. The new man would then have even more scope for asserting his own vision, delaying the outcome.

This could be overcome by making the first term for, say, the duration of the negotiations plus one year of implementation. But that leaves his successor in the unenviable position of hanging around for an unknown time to take on an inferior job.

Even if negotiations in coming weeks paper over these issues, one intractable problem remains: the first man up would be dogged in office by the shadow of the second. The tension could only taint the treaty talks.

Thus job sharing is a damaging compromise. Sadly, no better solution is around yet. But it's worth seeking one.

Better to start the Millennium Round late than badly.