Moore is the man for the underdog

By Rod Oram

Between the lines

Splitting the director general's job at the World Trade Organisation is a fudge fraught with tensions for the 134 countries which use the WTO to set the course for international trade.

But having resorted to compromise to break the deadlocked leadership race, hostile countries must now work to ensure the peace formula of three years of Mike Moore followed by three of Supachai Panitchpakdi delivers a trade environment which is freer, fairer and more secure than we have now.

History offers some hope. The WTO and Gatt, its predecessor, have had big bust-ups before but countries repaired their working relationships. This time the hostility is far deeper. Developing nations believed the pay off for backing Renato Ruggiero of Italy as the previous director general would be a successor from one of their countries. So they were aggrieved when Thailand's Supachai was dislodged as front-runner by a late entry from Moore, heavily backed by the US.

The suspicion of developing countries that they might sometimes be disadvantaged by a trade and investment agenda shaped by developed countries has only strengthened with economic catastrophe over the past two years in Asia then Russia and Latin America.

These tensions could rumble on. The first opportunity for disharmony comes quickly. Moore takes over on September 1 but by November 30 he, the WTO's staff and the member countries have to draft an agenda and declaration to kick off the Millennium Round of trade negotiations in Seattle.

In agenda-setting and all WTO work on facilitating trade and resolving disputes, the director general is supposed to be a dispassionate bureaucrat running a staff of 500 and a annual budget of Swiss francs 120 million ($145 million). But in reality the director general has to be a strong leader of the process. That's why the choice of Moore for first crack at the split job is so interesting.

He is passionate about the vital role trade plays in economic development whilst being blunt about the sometimes serious short-comings in current international economic relations. He talks of a "being a fighter for the underdog". As he said in a recent interview: "I understand developing countries and am more comfortable in Kuala Lumpur than London."

The fact that the US backed him gives some hope he can bring his concerns to bear on the WTO agenda. It would be a mistake for any developing country to dismiss him as an Anglo-Saxon from a developed country. The truth is, he is the first non-European to hold the post, and one from a very small country which daily experiences the intense and often painful pressures of international economic forces.

If developing countries come, rightly, to see him as a very good friend then the WTO might survive its current tensions.