Reforma na OMC? - Jamil Chade (The Geneva Observer)

** ✺ A SHAKEN WTO SECRETARIAT
------------------------------------------------------------
By Jamil Chade
Change is coming to the WTO’s Secretariat, but not without creating some waves within the organization. It was to be expected, WTO watchers tell The Geneva Observer, since the Secretariat has not been the subject of much organizational attention under the two previous D-Gs, Pascal Lamy and Roberto Azevedo. Dr. Ngozi has made the project one of her top priorities, and soon after her nomination, following a public tender, she entrusted consulting company McKinsey with the task of assisting her with her plan.

Ngozi ran for D-G on the promise that she would extensively reform and reshape the WTO, and harbors lofty ambitions for the organization, whose role she sees as larger than simply being the maker and enforcer of the rules governing global trade. Ngozi has often publicly expressed the view that the WTO has the potential to restore faith in international cooperation, contribute to fighting climate change, and of course help the world defeat the pandemic.

“Should it not exist, the WTO should be invented” she told an interviewer; a bold statement about an organization that is facing what some WTO experts call a make-or-break moment. Some suspect that, given the chance, she would reinvent it from scratch—an impression reinforced by the way she has approached the reform of the Secretariat.

‘Transformation’ might be a better word, for she sees it as the cornerstone of the modernization of the WTO, which will require the development of a new conceptual framework and set of rules to deal with digital trade, e-commerce and environmental goods.
The role of the 625-person-strong Secretariat is “to provide top-quality, independent support to WTO member governments on all of the activities that are carried out by the Organization,” according to the organization’s website (https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/secre_e/intro_e.htmhttps://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/secre_e/intro_e.htm) . It has no decision-making powers, its main duties being to supply impartial technical and professional support to the WTO members. The WTO’s D-G—the first ever woman and African to lead the organization—has wasted no time or energy in her efforts, proving right the prediction of European Bank Director Christine Lagarde that Dr. Ngozi would “rock the place.”

As far as the Secretariat is concerned, she’s rocking it with the support of a large numbers of members who have been closely involved in the review process. Looking for wide and early buy-in from staff, the audit involved the review of more than a hundred documents, with McKinsey’s team conducting more than seventy one-on-one interviews, five focus groups, and two surveys, in addition to getting input from around sixty member states. The consultant’s audit revealed that the WTO Secretariat has a highly capable staff with deep knowledge and expertise, driven by the purpose of the WTO and by the desire to serve its members. It also established that staff felt comfortable in the ecosystem in which they were working, sources close to the audit’s conclusion tell The Geneva Observer.
SOUND FUNDAMENTALS
According to participants of the recent “town-hall-style meetings” spoken to by The Geneva Observer, Dr Ngozi called the Secretariat a “treasure” when she went before the staff a few days ago to share her vision for the organization, the rationale for her reforms, and the results of the audit. But, although the audit concluded in essence that the Secretariat’s fundamentals are sound, it nevertheless flagged several issues of importance when confronted with the most pressing need: how to address the challenges of a completely transformed trade environment.

According to the same sources, familiar with the audit and its participants, a large majority of Members agree that there is a potential to amplify the organization’s overall impact by having the Secretariat develop a clearer vision, better aligned with the WTO’s strategic priorities. The body also suffers from siloed ways of thinking and an ineffective structure, which often leads to uncoordinated answers on horizontal issues. Rigid resource allocation, a weak approach to talent management, recruitment and promotion, and ineffective processes were also mentioned, as well as difficulties in leveraging data and technology to its full potential.
"A HARD HAND IN A SOFT GLOVE"
However, the presentation of the plan appears not to have gone as smoothly as expected. Documents, minutes of meetings, letters, and recordings of various meetings confidentially obtained by the The G|O reveal deep tensions within the organization. More broadly, they shed a light on the difficulties and complexities involved in reforming international organizations. In this instance, a particularly contentious point centers around what some critics of the WTO’s management and of McKinsey consider to be an unbalanced process, skewed towards the demands of the members.

Staff were consulted and, according to figures quoted by McKinsey, responded with a high level of engagement, with a 50% response rate to the surveys. Critics of the process (including people in senior positions who talked to The G|O) do not dispute the figure, but claim that their input was not fully taken into consideration—a perception exacerbated by the fact that the audit was not shared in its entirety, and that no official document has yet been officially produced.

In addition, the decision to take early retirement made by two senior members highly critical of Dr. Ngozi’s management style has amplified some of the tensions. For some, including among her supporters, Dr Ngozi can appear abrasive. “She is this wonderful, soft, very gentle woman with an authentic approach to problems but, boy, under that soft glove there is a hard hand and a strong will behind it,” Christine Lagarde told Bloomberg a year ago.

Time plays in Dr. Ngozi’s favor. Altogether, seven senior positions will have to be filled this year—more if other voluntary departures occur. This is an opportunity for the D-G to bring what she calls “fresh blood” into the Secretariat.

How does she assess the situation? Dated February 3^rd, her latest status report to the Members reads: “Change process can be unsettling. As in any change process, there will always be residual noise in the system by those who feel more comfortable with the status quo. […] This may manifest in counterproductive behavior that targets the change process itself or those implementing it.” She also took pains to reassure them that the noise was not loud enough to “distract her.”

For her critics, her letter only deepened a feeling of distrust towards her, as they felt insulted by the fact she seemed to be stifling criticism. A “transformation unit” has been set-up as part of the change process at the Secretariat. No doubt it will be busy over the next few months.

-JC 

Tit for Tat at the Human Rights Council: China Policy - Jamil Chade (The Geneva Observer)

Tit for Tat at the Human Rights Council

By Jamil Chade

The Geneva Observer Website, 24/09/2021 

http://www.thegenevaobserver.com

China is increasing its pressure on the Human Rights Council while trying to fend off the growing criticism it faces from the Western group about its human rights record in Xinjiang and elsewhere. Beijing’s main target is the U.S., following Washington’s increasingly assertive stance towards China after it entered in a new security alliance with Australia and the UK (AUKUS).

------------------------------------------------------------
The Chinese offensive is mostly conducted by pushing resolutions before the Council, the latest of which denounces colonialism. In a draft proposal seen by The G|O, the Chinese want the Council to take action on “the negative impact of legacies of colonialism on the enjoyment of human rights.”

The sweeping move is interpreted by Western delegations as an effort by China to convince African nations that Beijing is on their side on the issue. It also takes an indirect swipe at U.S. behaviour in Afganistan. (China just called for a lifting of sanctions on Afghanisan, to allow the Taliban access to billions of dollars in frozen assets which the West meant to use as leverage on the new regime.)

However, the initiative was also seen as part of a response to a growing understanding amongst Western allies that China’s human rights record—including the situation with Muslim minorities—needs to be dealt with by the Council.

U.S. human rights record on trial

China, on its side, has stepped up its response, with statements questioning the U.S. and Europe. During the special session on Afghanistan, in August, Chinese Ambassador Chen Xu supported the idea that “the US, UK, Australia, and other countries must be held accountable for the violation of human rights committed by their military in Afghanistan, and the evolution of this current session should cover this issue. […] Under the banner of democracy and human rights, the U.S. and other countries carry out military interventions in other sovereign states and impose their own model on countries with vastly different histories and culture,” Chen said.

On September 14th, at the Human Rights Council, China once again made the US the center of its opening intervention: “We are deeply concerned about chronic human rights issues in the United States,” it claimed, citing “disregarding the right to life, systemic racism, racial discrimination, genocide against native Indians, human trafficking and forced labor.”

Three days later, again at the Council in Geneva, Beijing made it clear it had placed the U.S. as a target of its criticism—first, by delivering a statement accusing the U.S. of having “practiced history abhorrent slavery and slave trade (sic),” and saying it “remains plagued with human trafficking and forced labor to this date.” It also claims that “Under the dominance of White Supremacy, discrimination against migrants, women, children and racial minorities prevails in the U.S.”


China blasts US military interventions


On the 21st of September, in an interview with state agencies, the spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China, Zhao Lijian, claimed the U.S. has committed “grave human rights crimes overseas.”

“During its over 240 years of history, there were only 16 years when the U.S. was not at war. From the end of WWII to 2001, the U.S. has initiated 201 of the 248 armed conflicts in 153 places, accounting for over 80%,” he claims. “It is preposterous that the U.S. claims to be ‘protecting human rights’ at every turn. Is it protecting human rights when staging wars of invasion?”

The next day, in Geneva, the Chinese mission took the floor to “urge the countries concerned to immediately stop illegal military intervention,” and for the UN and individual countries to “carry out comprehensive and impartial investigation into cases of unlawful killing and torture of civilians and other gross human rights violations committed by their military personnel, and hold perpetrators accountable.”

Changing the focus of the debate

Another way to counterpressure the West is to table resolutions that change the focus of the debate, and put the focus on Western powers—hence its recent proposal.

In the draft document, Beijing reaffirms that, “the existence of colonialism in any form or manifestation is incompatible with the Charter of the United Nations, the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” It also “regrets” that measures to eliminate colonialism by 2010—as called for in the General Assembly resolution 55/146 of 8 December 2000—have not been successful.

In fact, the UN has established that the period 2021-2030 is the Fourth International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism. However, Western sources tell The G|O that the move by China goes beyond that single issue. China, they say, wishes that “legacies of colonialism, in all their manifestations, inter alia, economic exploitation, inequality within and among states, systemic racism, violations of indigenous peoples’ rights, contemporary forms of slavery, damage to cultural heritage” be recognized as having a “negative impact on the effective enjoyment of all human rights.”

The proposed resolution also invites United Nations human rights mechanisms and procedures “to pay attention to the negative impact of legacies of colonialism on the enjoyment of human rights,” and calls on the “United Nations bodies, agencies, and other relevant stakeholders to take concrete steps to address [those negative impacts].”

China also requests the UN convene a panel discussion on the question, with the aim to “identify challenges in addressing the negative impact of legacies of colonialism on human rights, and discuss ways forward.”


According to diplomatic sources, Beijing also wants the issue kept on the agenda of the Council in order to maintain political constraint on those governments that may be challenging China on human rights issues. Beijing is using procedure as a mechanism to press its case: it has requested that Office of High Commissioner prepare and submit a summary report on the panel discussion to the Council at its 54th session and to provide “all necessary resources for the services and facilities.”

The resolution will be voted on in the second week of October.