7:11 AM Dec 13, 1995

RUGGIERO, SOFTLY, PUSHES INVESTMENT, COMPETITION

Geneva 13 Dec (Chakravarthi Raghavan) -- The WTO head, Renato Ruggiero, in a report Wednesday to the General Council of the World Trade Organisation, the WTO head Renato Ruggiero called for an "essentially non-confrontational agenda" for the Singapore Ministerial meeting, but advocated work to begin there on investment and competition policies.

Ruggiero presented these views in an overview of developments in the international trading system. Besides ongoing work, he argued, for consideration at Singapore (as mandated) the implementation of the Uruguay Round accords, and consideration of new areas including regionalism and the multilateral system as also investment and competition policy issues.

The need for further examination of investment policy and competition policy in relation the trading system, he argued, has been prompted by the perception of a need for broader conception of market access in an increasingly globalized and integrated world economy, addressing not only traditional trade policy measures but also areas important for ability of companies to supply markets including commercial presence in overseas markets for supply of goods and services, and control of anti-competitive policies that hinder market access.

This, he said, had generated interest in exploring options for future international arrangements, including the role of the WTO, and alluded to possible future WTO action for a set of multilateral rules on investment and the intensive negotiations already under way in the OECD for a "Multilateral Agreement on Investment".

Unlike in some of his recent speeches where he has openly advocated a WTO investment negotiations, in his report Ruggiero posed it as a question, namely whether because of the substantive interlikages in areas of trade in services, intellectual property and trade-related investment measures, and need to ensure a truly multilateral dimension, it was desirable that the WTO decide at an early stage to initiate examination of the investment issues. He also noted in this connection that along with OECD and perhaps WTO, the issue is also on the agenda of NAFTA, APEC and the US-EU initiative at their Madrid meeting, and whether "instead, the focus should be on a single multilateral negotiations at the WTO".

He also referred to the relations between trade and competition policy -- under consideration at the OECD and on the UNCTAD-IX agenda - and some competition-related issues covered in some of the WTO accords.

These, he said, raised the question whether WTO should only deal with competition policy related issues in an ad hoc manner in the context of specific trade policy questions, or whether an overall examination of links between trade and competition should be initiated to develop a coherent multilateral view of how trade policy and competition policy could be mutually supportive.

He also referred to the Marrakesh 'laundry list' -- new issues mentioned by one or the other of the Ministerial participants there as possible candidates for a WTO agenda -- and mentioned in this regard relationships between trading system and internationally recognized labour standards, relationships between immigration policies and international trade, and the interaction between trade policies and policies relating to financial and monetary matters including debt and commodity markets.

"Among those which have attracted considerable attention in the media and public statements," he said, "is the one involving labour standards".

Arguments for linking trade and labour standards, he said, stressed that non-enforcement of such standards result in "unfair" competitive advantage or in violation of human rights and if political and popular concerns on these are not addressed substantively there would be increased pressures for unilateral trade measures.

Alternatively, the report said (meaning presumably arguments against such a linkage), there appeared little empirical evidence linking non-enforcement of internationally recognized labour standards to trade issues and that enforcement of such standards should be dealt with in ILO using means other than trade measures.

Despite extensive examination of the issue in other international fora including the ILO and OECD, "there is no agreement on the existence of a link between trade and enforcement of labour standards."