Who is WTO Director General Michael Moore?

The new WTO head, Mike Moore: a view from NZ
Wednesday, 15 September 1999, 4:01 pm

New Zealander Mike Moore has become the Director-General of the
WTO in controversial circumstances. Who is he? This view comes
from a New Zealander, Bill Rosenberg, who researches and writes on
foreign investment and New Zealand's economic relationship with
the world with New Zealand organisations GATT Watchdog and the
Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa.

P.O. Box 2258, Christchurch, New Zealand;
w.rosenberg@its.canterbury.ac.nz. Campaign Against
Foreign Control of Aotearoa [the indigenous - Maori -
name for New Zealand] is a 25 year old organisation
opposed to overseas economic, cultural and military
control of New Zealand. It networks widely amongst
like-minded groups, including trade unions, Maori,
environmentalist and left political parties, both in New
Zealand and internationally. Members receive the
magazine Foreign Control Watchdog. See
http://canterbury.cyberplace.org.nz/community/CAFCA.
(1).

Mike Moore came to the international arena as a result of holding
a number of posts, including most significantly Minister of
External Relations and Trade, in the Labour Government which came
to power in 1984.

This government introduced one of the most radical programmes of
neo- liberal restructuring any country has inflicted upon
itself[22] For detail from a critical perspective see, for
example, "The New Zealand Experiment - A World Model for Structural
Adjustment?", by Jane Kelsey, Auckland University Press with
Bridget Williams Books, Auckland, New Zealand, 1995. Also
published as "Economic Fundamentalism: The New Zealand Experiment -
A World Model for Structural Adjustment?" by Pluto Press, London
and East Haven, Connecticut.. It was led by Prime Minister David
Lange and Finance Minister Roger Douglas, and Moore was a high
ranking member of its cabinet. The policies implemented were not
part of the party's election platform, leading to widespread
feelings of betrayal in the electorate.

The programme included unilaterally and rapidly removing all
restrictions on foreign investment, import controls and most
tariffs, floating of the New Zealand dollar, an independent
Reserve Bank with responsibility for controlling inflation,
extensive programmes of corporatisation and privatisation, and
radical restructuring of the public service. The country went into
recession with the highest unemployment the country had seen since
the 1930s depression. Internationally, it was one of the hardest
hit by the 1987 share market crashes.

By 1990, the Labour government was in disarray and on its way to a
massive defeat in the November election. Weeks before the
election, Moore was put in as the caretaker (perhaps better
described as the undertaker) Prime Minister by his party caucus,
in a last minute attempt to reduce the extent of the defeat Ò the
third leader within a year.

As Minister in the 1984-1990 Labour Government, Moore was regarded
as "one of America's best allies" by the US special trade
negotiators in agricultural matters. A former US Ambassador to New
Zealand congratulated the New Zealand Labour Government on its
influence in pushing Third World nations to "economic reform".

Ousted as leader of the Labour Party in 1993, he has never
repudiated the policies followed by the Lange/Douglas Labour
Government. Until his appointment to the WTO position, he
remained, awkwardly, as the core of the right wing of the now
opposition Labour Party, which was trying to distance itself from
its 1980s record, though in economic policies changing more in
image than substance.

In his campaign for the WTO leadership he appears to have gathered
a reputation for being a trade unionist - perhaps because it suits
the current U.S. agenda of token recognition of labour rights in
trade agreements. For example, Jagdish Bhagwati, economic policy
advisor to the GATT's Director General during the Uruguay Round
negotiations, said of Moore during a recent visit to New Zealand
that Ïhis union background might make him seem sympathetic to
labour standards being linked to trade within WTO
negotiationsÓ[33] New Zealand Herald, 29 June 1999, "Bhagwati
slams US on WTO wrangle", p.C2..(3)

It is not clear where Moore got this reputation: he does not have
it at home. He has been a professional politician for most of his
life. Immediately after leaving school, he had about seven years
of work experience as a freezing worker (meat packer to people in
the U.S.) and social worker. He became one of New ZealandÌs
youngest Members of Parliament at age 23 in 1972, and has remained
an MP with a break of only three years early in that period - See
for example,
http://www.labour.org.nz/InfoCentre1/People/MPProfiles/moore.html.(4)
He says he is a supporter of trade unionism.

The Labour Party originated from the union movement, and was
heavily supported by it in gaining power in 1984, but its
subsequent actions led many unions to disaffiliate and distance
themselves from it. Some MPs made attempts to retain the
connections. As a national union president in 1994, I regularly
attended meetings in Christchurch (where MooreÌs electorate is
situated) between local Labour MPs and union representatives.
Though most other Labour MPs attended at various times, Moore
never did. A recent check with a local union leader confirmed that
he still has no contact with unionists, at least in the town of
his constituency base.

While advocating some mild government intervention at home, and
coupling that with a populist position on crime and indigenous
(Maori) rights, but strong anti-racism, he is still a
fundamentalist on globalisation He supports a monetarist line and
an open economy.

His strongest influence on the Labour Party and national politics
has been in the area of trade and foreign investment, where his
presence as their spokesperson on Foreign Affairs and Trade, has
been a roadblock in the way of the party reviewing its strongly
open-economy views despite increasing unhappiness in the
electorate.

For example, the position he recommended to the Labour caucus on
the MAI[5] From "MAI - Proposed Caucus Position" by Mike Moore, 17
November 1997.(5), contained the following passages, along with
vitriolic, and inaccurate attacks on named opponents of the MAI,
including myself (Moore's emphases):

"The MAI's central purpose is to ensure that foreign investors are
not the subject of discriminatory or xenophobic behaviour on the
part of governments in the host country... This is not a new wave
of colonisation or the rise of corporatist world government. The
Agreement is designed to PROTECT and ENCOURAGE foreign investment
because it is such investment that has helped fuel global economic
growth and the increasing globalisation of wealth. Fifty years ago
the United States was literally the only wealthy nation; now
Europe, North Asia, and South East Asia can all genuinely be
described as wealthy regions, with Latin America and East Asia
fast becoming economic powerhouses as well. Foreign investment is
the instrument of this economic success, and international
agreements liberalising trade and investment have played key
roles: the GATT, APEC, ASEAN, NAFTA, MERCASUR, CER - it could even
be argued that the post-war Marshall Plan had this effect (from
which the OECD was formed). Small nations need institutional
rules."

'The MAI will be of the greatest long-term benefit to developing
nations. They are not currently covered by negotiations but will
be anxious to join up as soon as they can... Over the past two
decades, open economies grew by an average of 4.5% while other
economies grew by an average of 0.7%. Developing countries now
account for one- quarter of world trade where the figure was 20% a
decade ago. At present rates it will reach 40% in 2010 and 50% in
2020. What has fuelled this growth? Liberalisation of markets for
their goods, and a TREBLING of foreign direct investment.

"The MAI is good for the developing world. It regulates foreign
investment and subjects it to internationally agreed and
transparent processes. It encourages infrastructure investment by
offering some assurances against changes in volatile political
landscapes. As a direct result, it will also therefore have the
effect of discouraging short- term, speculative investment made
often with the collusion of corrupt local officials. It is this
short- term investment that all too often damages the economy and
the environment of the host economy. As long as investment in the
developing world is beholden to political interference and
patronage, it will engender corruption and unethical practice..."

In another speech, to economists, he stated - Address by Moore to
a seminar on "International Liberalisation", 25 August 1997,
Department of Economics, University of Canterbury, Christchurch,
New Zealand.(6):

"Crazy literature is being sent to MPs by wacko, conspiracy types
suggesting the MIA [sic] will copyright the DNA of Maoris, sell
our National Parks and thereÌs a secret deal being, or even
done...

"The [MAI] agreement sets firm rules that will work to the
advantage of small and developing countries. Small guys need the
Police, need clear rules, or they are picked off by the big guys."

His increasing isolation in the Labour Party was emphasised by
their overruling his position, which asked only for reservations
for the Treaty of Waitangi (the countryÌs founding document under
which the British Crown guaranteed Maori rights), and the right to
impose special conditions on privatisation of assets. The Labour
Party adopted a position of support for the MAI, as long as it
protected New Zealand's current (very weak) foreign investment
provisions, had recognition of labour rights and environmentally
sustainable development in the preamble, a commitment Ïnot to
drive downÓ environmental or labour conditions, reservation of
Maori rights under the Treaty of Waitangi, and debate was allowed
on it in Parliament. They supported it being moved to the WTO, and
Ïmatched by ongoing workÓ in the ILO and UN Earth Summits. It is
important to note that even this weak and equivocal position was a
strengthening of MooreÌs recommendation, forced on the Labour
Party by strong opposition to the MAI in New Zealand. Moore's
later statements often avoided expressing his partyÌs
reservations.

For example, he went out of his way to express regret at the
indication from the US in February 1998 that it was not going to
sign the MAI at that point - "US withdrawal from MAI
disappointing", Press Release: New Zealand Labour Party, Sunday,
15 Febuary 1998.(7):

It is disappointing that the United States is signalling it is not
going to sign the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI)
because a successful negotiation, given appropriate reservations,
would have stimulated the worldÌs investment growth and thus jobs,
LabourÌs foreign affairs and trade spokesperson Mike Moore said
today.

"However, each country has to reserve aspects of its economy. For
New Zealand it is the Treaty, public health system and our
overseas investment laws. There are other areas, of course, that
we would reserve"

"It will be disappointing also if agreement is not reached because
later on many developing countries will want to sign up. The
absence of this agreement gives more power to the already powerful
corporations and powerful countries. They can and have pressured
governments to accept investment on certain criteria. This
agreement would assist in ensuring that all countries and
companies are treated equally. Thus this is an advantage for
poorer countries and weaker economies," Mr Moore said.

Moore is an ardent supporter of the International Monetary Fund,
World Bank and WTO. He has a naively expressed faith in the
ability of these institutions and free trade and investment to
bring prosperity, peace (etc) to the world. For example - Address
by Moore to a seminar on "International Liberalisation", 25 August
1997, Department of Economics, University of Canterbury,
Christchurch, New Zealand.(8):

"I have fought for economic openings, not only because I believe
it is good for New Zealand, but because I believe it is the best
way of assisting poor and developing countries. A deeper
motivation is that it will build a more secure, safe, peaceful and
growing world...

"Internationalism and globalisation will be to the 21st Century
what Nationalism was to the 20th Century. Thus mankind has learnt
the most profound lessons of this century from the great
depression and the second world war. It can even be argued that
the twin tyrannies of our century, Fascism and Marxism came out of
the economic failure of the great depression. The great depression
was accelerated and made deeper by protectionist legislation, in
the United States and elsewhere. During the second world war, the
great war time leaders met to discuss a post war world. In that
post war world they dreamed of great and noble institutions, such
as the United Nations, the World Bank, IMF, and the World Trade
Organisation. I see economic liberalism as continuing that high
ideal. Democratic global institutions are needed to give legal
life to globalisation. No Nation, not even the great Nations can
prosper alone or isolated. Pollution, aids, cancer, or refugee
problems cannot be solved by one Nation alone."

"Far from weakening the integrity of a nationÌs state and allowing
the great multi-nationals to ravage the world, I believe the GATT
and the World Trade Organisation does the opposite. Small
countries need rules. World Trade Organisation rules prevent the
super economies from muscling and pushing around the smaller
nations... Far from exploiting developing countries, the opposite
is true. ItÌs developing countries with their tropical products
and manufacturing skills that have the most to gain..."

"The lesson of the last 25 years tells us that no individual
country can anymore successfully prime an economic pump, even
Mitterand discovered this in the 80s when, by priming the French
pump, all he did was flood his country with imports from Italy and
from Germany. He reversed that position. Tony Blair, a modern
Social Democratic Labour Leader has discovered that too. The irony
is that BlairÌs Government is going through the same process as
the Labour Government did in New Zealand. He is called
progressive, we were called reactionary. The 1987 stock market
crash was greater and deeper than the Wall Street crash of the
20s. But, the world did not plunge into lasting depressions.
Leaders nerves held, there wasnÌt an orgy of protectionism and
tariff increases which exacerbated the 20s crash. Governments now
have Reserve Banks. The G7, GATT, World Bank, IMF held firm. We
got through it, we have learnt."

The "economic openings" he refers to here are explained in his
most recent book - "A Brief History of the Future: Citizenship of
the Millennium", by Mike Moore, Shoal Bay Press, Christchurch,
1998, ISBN 0 908704 77 1, p.55.(9):

"What is true for our [New ZealandÌs] kiwifruit, sheepmeat and
fish is equally true for sugar of the Philippines, the rice of
Thailand and the manufactured products of Malaysia."

He takes the New Zealand government (and Cairns Group) view that
food is just another commodity.

In the same book, he says110 P. 71, op cit.0(10):

"The International Labour Organisation (ILO) was derailed because
of its resolutions on labelling Zionism as racism, and the World
Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) have unearned
reputations born of the Cold War of being anti- poor,
anti-developing countries. The opposite should be the truth."

But, he says, "no one believes that any more, except a few
deranged misfits on the edges of obscure universities, people who
tuck their shirts into their underpants, the remnants of pressure
groups and a few geriatrics who claim that Marxism, like
Christianity, has not been tried yet."

A press release in August 1998 on the developing financial crisis
in Asia stated - ÏMoore - US Trade NegotiationsÓ, Press Release:
New Zealand Labour Party, Tuesday, 11 November 1997.1(11):

A new form of economic diplomacy is needed to cope with the
economic problems faced by the battered economies of Asia, Russia
and most likely Latin America, LabourÌs foreign affairs and trade
spokesperson Mike Moore said today.

"Every nation's prosperity is based on the capacity of its
neighbour to purchase. Economic security becomes an issue of
political security, and in this regard the IMF's work in our
region is as important as that of the US Seventh Fleet," Mike
Moore said.

"RussiaÌs problems are predictable. New Zealand is a shareholder
in the IMF and World Bank, and we are respected members of the
WTO. All of these organisations hold the key to stability, growth
and thus security"

He released statements supporting the establishment of the Euro
and regretting the failure of the US Congress to give President
Clinton fast track authority - "World economic crisis calls for
new approach", Press Release: New Zealand Labour Party, 30 August
1998.2, - ÏMoore: Euro good, but an ANZAC currency?Ó Press
Release: New Zealand Labour Party, 29 December 1998.3.(12,13)
These gratuitous pronouncements were coupled with his opposition
to a common currency between New Zealand and Australia; and
support for the New Zealand government negotiating a free trade
agreement with the US, "although Chile and Singapore joining such
an agreement should be done in parallel".

His books quote liberally from the extreme right through to the
centre- left. For example, his latest book Ò modestly titled ÏA
Brief History of the Future: Citizenship of the MillenniumÓ Ò
quotes enthusiastically from ÏThe Sovereign IndividualÓ by James
Davidson and Lord William Rees- Mogg, which condemns opponents of
globalisation as Ïreactionary losersÓ - "A Brief History of the
Future", op cit. p.89.4(14).

The books make frustrating reading, spiked heavily with unresolved
contradictions, and with barely related, tenuous generalisations
following in close succession. Some examples from "A Brief History
of the Future" - These were pointed out by Dennis Small, who
reviewed 'A Brief History of the Future" in Foreign Control
Watchdog, no. 91, August 1998, p.33-43, publ. Foreign Control
Watchdog Inc, P.O. Box 2258, Christchurch, New Zealand.5(15).

On capitalism

"Western capitalism and values have triumphed for the present ÷
Strategic resources are safe."(p.117)

"However, it is clear that the powerful elite of business people,
politicians and intellectuals are out of touch with the general
population, the people who can see the pain of these policies but
not the gain. The elite throughout the world have more in common
with each other than with their constituents and shareholders.
This is not new; it was also true of the princes and merchants of
earlier times."(p.9)

[International trade] "doesnÌt provide a redistribution mechanism
for wealth-" (p.9)

"Increased equality and improved human rights will also flow from
the liberalising of markets." (p.59)

"Part-time jobs have burgeoned in all Western countries ÷ Working
conditions are eroded ÷ Productivity has become uncoupled from
employment ÷ New technologies and the international competitive
drive mean downsizing to seize and maintain a competitive cost
advantage." (p.104)

On the WTO

"Critics of the WTO are often heard to claim that it serves only
the interests of the large trading powers. Of course, the larger
powers exert a stronger influence than the smaller powers. A
system that failed to reflect certain realities would not command
the confidence of the major powers and would drift quickly into
the irrelevance that frankly captures so many other international
organisations." (p. 73)

Far from weakening the integrity of a nation's state and allowing
the great multinationals to ravage the world, I believe the GATT
and the WTO do the opposite." (p.72)

On labour standards and the environment

US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright is quoted approvingly as
saying: "If we choose to hide behind walls rather than tear them
down, our products will face higher tariffs - we will have no
success at all in promoting higher environmental and labour
standards." (p.46)

"Increasingly today because of difficulties resolving issues
within the ILO and because many of the Multilateral Agreements on
the Environment do not work and the WTO does, there is a worldwide
drive by non-governmental organisations to have the WTO adjudicate
all these complex issues by linking them to trade. The danger is
that the WTO could become unworkable under the pressure." (p.73)

"The issue of wage rates in developing countries is vexed. Wealthy
companies often appear keen to take advantage of lower
environmental and labour standards in developing countries in
order to increase profits which could be seen as exploitative. On
the other hand, why should developing countries not seek to
utilise their competitive advantages?"(p.74)

While his writing may not make any clearer the policies he is
likely to follow in the WTO, there is little doubt from his past
actions that, given the choice, he will follow the US very
closely.

References:

1. Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa [the indigenous -
Maori - name for New Zealand], P.O. Box 2258, Christchurch, New
Zealand; w.rosenberg@its.canterbury.ac.nz. CAFCA is a 25 year old
organisation opposed to overseas economic, cultural and military
control of New Zealand. It networks widely amongst like-minded
groups, including trade unions, Maori, environmentalist and left
political parties, both in New Zealand and internationally.
Members receive the magazine Foreign Control Watchdog. See
http://canterbury.cyberplace.org.nz/community/CAFCA.

2. For detail from a critical perspective see, for example, The
New Zealand Experiment - A World Model for Structural
Adjustment?, by Jane Kelsey, Auckland University Press with
Bridget Williams Books, Auckland, New Zealand, 1995. Also
published as Economic Fundamentalism: The New Zealand Experiment -
A World Model for Structural Adjustment? by Pluto Press, London
and East Haven, Connecticut.

3. New Zealand Herald, 29 June 1999, "Bhagwati slams US on WTO
wrangle", p.C2.

4. See for example,
http://www.labour.org.nz/InfoCentre1/People/MPProfiles/moore.html

5. From "MAI - Proposed Caucus PositionÓ" by Mike Moore, 17
November 1997.

6. Address by Moore to a seminar on "International
Liberalisation", 25 August 1997, Department of Economics,
University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.

7. "US withdrawal from MAI disappointing", Press Release: New
Zealand Labour Party, Sunday, 15 Febuary 1998.

8. Address by Moore to a seminar on 'International
Liberalisation', 25 August 1997, Department of Economics,
University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.

9. "A Brief History of the Future: Citizenship of the Millennium",
by Mike Moore, Shoal Bay Press, Christchurch, 1998, ISBN 0 908704
77 1, p.55.

10. P. 71, op cit.

11. "Moore - US Trade Negotiations", Press Release: New Zealand
Labour Party, Tuesday, 11 November 1997.

12. "World economic crisis calls for new approach", Press Release:
New Zealand Labour Party, 30 August 1998.

13. "Moore: Euro good, but an ANZAC currency?" Press Release: New
Zealand Labour Party, 29 December 1998.

14. "A Brief History of the Future", op cit. p.89.

15. These were pointed out by Dennis Small, who reviewed "A Brief
History of the Future" in Foreign Control Watchdog, no. 91, August
1998, p.33-43, publ. Foreign Control Watchdog Inc, P.O. Box 2258,
Christchurch, New Zealand.