The World Trade Organization has changed the world in the past decade by welcoming China and transforming national fortunes in Cambodia and Saudi Arabia. It provides the catalyst that political leaders need to reform.
PETER D. SUTHERLAND is Chair of BP p.l.c. and Goldman Sachs International. He was Director General of the GATT from 1993 to 1995 and Founding Director of the WTO.
No visitor to Phnom Penh, Beijing, or Riyadh these days can fail to sense change, optimism, and new economic dynamism. Cambodia, China, and Saudi Arabia are on the move, and mostly for the better. Why? For one thing, because all three countries -- along with Croatia, Georgia, Taiwan, Vietnam, and many others -- have joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) in the past few years.
The power of the WTO to aid national transformation is easily forgotten. All too often, many developing countries measure their success in the WTO's Doha Round of trade negotiations by the extent to which they avoid obligations to open up their economies. And in polite conversations in Geneva, the potential of WTO disciplines to encourage radical market, institutional, and regulatory reform is a politically incorrect topic. It is the countries that have joined the WTO over the past decade that have drawn the most benefit from global trade rules. Older members, which did not need to negotiate their entry, have probably gained the least.
The WTO has changed the world in the past decade by welcoming China. And if it has changed national fortunes, in Cambodia and Saudi Arabia, for example, it is thanks to its accession procedures. Compared with the terms of bilateral free-trade areas, the terms of WTO membership amount to a revolution. The process is now lengthier than ever. China applied to the WTO's predecessor (the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or GATT) in 1986 and joined the WTO in 2001, Cambodia applied in 1994 and joined in 2003, and Saudi Arabia joined in 2005 after 12 years of preparation and negotiation.
This is a premium article
You must be a Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you are already a print subscriber, click here to activate your online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
All have heard about the virtual corporation. What the world is witnessing now is the rise of the virtual state. After World War II, led by Japan and Germany, the most advanced nations gave up territorial conquest to compete instead for world trade. As more corporations farm out production and land becomes less valuable than technology, knowledge, and portfolio investment, the state will further shift its efforts from amassing productive capacity to choosing industries and investing in people. War over territory is becoming quaint, but so is the welfare state.
Fidel Castro is not on the way out anytime soon. In fact, he may be the best guarantor of Cuba's peaceful transition to a market-oriented economy and more democratic government. A good analogy is with Spanish autocrat Francisco Franco. Like Franco, Castro allied himself with the losing side in the grand sweep of history, but he has slowly reintegrated his nation with the world by pushing tourism, seeking foreign investment, gradually liberalizing the political system, and expanding civil liberties. Castro has more support in Cuba than many in the West think, and the United States should begin a phaseout of its embargo tied to Cuba's economic and political performance.
The neoliberal economic and political models used by Western analysts to explain Russia's recent transformation ignore the interrelationship between the economy and politics. Russia is in the midst of a social revolution. Economic reform without political reform-as attempted by Yegor Gaidar-will fail. Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin's policies have met with some success because of accompanying political changes. This interrelated pattern of reform must continue.
