:00:00. > :00:00.to death in a rubbish truck as he tried to get fish confiscated by
:00:00. > :00:00.police. Welcome to HARDtalk
:00:00. > :00:18.I'm Stephen Saackur. This is the headquarters of the
:00:19. > :00:28.World Trade Organisation. My guess is today is the director-general
:00:29. > :00:32.here, Roberto Azevedo. The WTO is committed to protectionism and
:00:33. > :00:34.freeing up global trade, but that seems out of step with the spirit of
:00:35. > :00:40.the age. From Donald Trump's protectionist
:00:41. > :00:42.messages to the Brexit vote in Britain, there seems to be
:00:43. > :00:45.a backlash against economic So, is the WTO swimming
:00:46. > :00:59.against a powerful tide? Roberto Azevedo,
:01:00. > :01:11.welcome to HARDtalk. Thank you. You are one of the worlds
:01:12. > :01:16.most important advocates of free trade at a time when a protectionist
:01:17. > :01:21.spirit is alive across the world. How difficult does that make your
:01:22. > :01:26.job? It is pretty difficult to be advocating for free trade at this
:01:27. > :01:35.point in time, but I have been quite honest in going out and saying, does
:01:36. > :01:41.trade gives... Provoke disruption, or sometimes affect the situation of
:01:42. > :01:48.jobs in particular communities? Sometimes it does. But it's a minor
:01:49. > :01:57.component, I think. Less than 20% of jobs are lost today in advanced
:01:58. > :02:01.economies due to trade. But you know a lot of people don't believe that.
:02:02. > :02:06.Especially in the US, where you can go to towns that used to be steel or
:02:07. > :02:12.mining towns and they will tell you that trade deals done by the US to
:02:13. > :02:18.further the idea of free global trade have been a disaster. They
:02:19. > :02:23.have been job killers. Believing or not is not the issue. The issue is
:02:24. > :02:28.whether there is a fact or not. With respect, it does matter because
:02:29. > :02:31.politics comes into play and if the message to politicians, I now begin
:02:32. > :02:36.of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton fighting for the US presidency, if
:02:37. > :02:42.the message they get is that there's a real resonance to an anti- trade
:02:43. > :02:46.message, that matters. The fact is that organisations like might have
:02:47. > :02:49.to put the facts out there. To a situation where you have a
:02:50. > :02:54.discussion that doesn't want to hear the facts, it is mostly emotional,
:02:55. > :02:58.it is tough. There's nothing you can say that will change that sentiment.
:02:59. > :03:02.But the reality is that if you don't know what the cause of the problem
:03:03. > :03:07.is, you apply the wrong medicine. And if the medicine that you
:03:08. > :03:10.prescribe to that patient is protectionism, you will be hurting
:03:11. > :03:15.the patient, not helping the patient. That's what we need to do.
:03:16. > :03:20.So when you hear Donald Trump, for example, and I am quoting directly,
:03:21. > :03:24.at the WTO is in disaster, I will never signed any trade agreement
:03:25. > :03:28.which hurts our workers or which diminishes our freedom and our
:03:29. > :03:32.independence, what do you say? The World Trade Organisation was not
:03:33. > :03:37.imposed on anybody, it was created by precisely these players. Why a?
:03:38. > :03:41.Because there was a world before without the WTO and people realised
:03:42. > :03:51.that they needed it. Why did they needed? In the mid- 80s there was a
:03:52. > :03:57.lot of unilateral sanctions, one on dairy, sugar, D. Once it was a
:03:58. > :04:01.barrier on your site, don't expect others to look and contemplate. They
:04:02. > :04:06.will impose barriers as well. You are losing the argument. Why are you
:04:07. > :04:12.doing so badly with the argument you are making? You say you love facts,
:04:13. > :04:17.look at the facts. According to statistics composed by the global
:04:18. > :04:20.trade alert, governments took more than 400 to Scrivener tree actions
:04:21. > :04:26.against foreign competition twinge any Riyadh August of this year. --
:04:27. > :04:29.discriminatory actions. Not just in the US but across the world a
:04:30. > :04:33.protectionist sentiment is leading to protectionist policies right now.
:04:34. > :04:40.Protectionist policies that we see today cover altogether, although is
:04:41. > :04:46.500... 400 measures, whatever they are, they cover about 5% of global
:04:47. > :04:51.trade. In the 30s, when there was no video, no disciplines, nothing, it
:04:52. > :04:58.wiped out two thirds of the global trade. -- no WTO. Is there
:04:59. > :05:03.protectionism today? Yes. But it is much smaller than it was before. Why
:05:04. > :05:08.do you think that in the United States the two big trade, regional
:05:09. > :05:14.trade, deals that the government has embarked upon, that is the
:05:15. > :05:18.Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment
:05:19. > :05:23.Partnership, both are now looking extraordinarily vulnerable. Because
:05:24. > :05:28.trade deals are sensitive. There is a sentiment out there, and anti-
:05:29. > :05:32.globalisation, antiforeign sentiment. You need to change that.
:05:33. > :05:39.All that I am arguing is don't blame trade for that it was trade is not
:05:40. > :05:42.the uncertainty that is causing those kinds of anti- globalisation
:05:43. > :05:46.feelings that you see in the population today. They are scared of
:05:47. > :05:49.losing their jobs, scared that if they lose their jobs they would find
:05:50. > :05:54.another job and if they don't find another job then governments are not
:05:55. > :05:58.helping them. 80% of those people are facing the situation not because
:05:59. > :06:01.of trade but because of other factors. Like new technologies,
:06:02. > :06:07.increased productivity, innovation. Are we going to stop that? Even if I
:06:08. > :06:15.was to accept your premise... It is not a premise, it's a fact. Facts
:06:16. > :06:24.are often disputable. You said 20% of jobs lost in the US can be that
:06:25. > :06:29.to be the two free trade. 5 million manufacturing jobs have been lost
:06:30. > :06:33.since 1960. This even if we accepted your premise, that would be 1
:06:34. > :06:37.million manufacturing jobs in the US that have disappeared as a result of
:06:38. > :06:41.the free trade deals that have been done. Do you think Americans should
:06:42. > :06:48.accept that? A lot more has been created. Job manufacturing, jobs in
:06:49. > :06:53.the manufacturing sector in the US, they are at a record level. The
:06:54. > :06:57.reality is that due to higher productivity, those jobs have
:06:58. > :07:00.disappeared not because there are cheaper imports from other countries
:07:01. > :07:05.at because today these jobs are disappearing because of new
:07:06. > :07:09.technologies. To flip that argument around, if technology and automation
:07:10. > :07:13.are going to create such a crisis in the jobs market anyway, why let so
:07:14. > :07:17.many other jobs, and let's just talk about the steel industry for a
:07:18. > :07:22.second, why let so many other jobs that used to be in the US can reach
:07:23. > :07:25.a way to China when China is using work practices and is dumping steel
:07:26. > :07:33.in a way that is completely counter-productive for the US steel
:07:34. > :07:37.industry, but still remains? A free trade argument between China and the
:07:38. > :07:42.US on steel, according to American steelworkers simply kills their
:07:43. > :07:47.jobs. Of course and I think that if you have situations which are topic,
:07:48. > :07:54.like steel, for example, there are mechanisms in the WTO that can be
:07:55. > :07:58.applied for that. Any other country that is subsidising or jumping their
:07:59. > :08:04.products -- dumping their products in the market. It is not only China.
:08:05. > :08:08.In China the cost of labour are going up. Then the jobs go somewhere
:08:09. > :08:22.else. In textiles most have gone to Bangladesh. Or Taiwan. Or Roberto --
:08:23. > :08:27.or Laos, Cambodia. That would be the solution. The solution is, how do
:08:28. > :08:33.you take care of the uncertainty that exists today in the labour
:08:34. > :08:39.market? You can and you should if you find they are being dumped, but
:08:40. > :08:42.they are being unfairly subsidised. Do you believe sitting here as the
:08:43. > :08:48.boss of the WTO, other Chinese dumping? I can say that in some
:08:49. > :08:52.areas may be. Clearly there are investigations. That's why you have
:08:53. > :08:57.the process. The national authority has to investigate. On the existence
:08:58. > :09:01.of dumping and the subsidy. Number two, whether there is an injury
:09:02. > :09:05.being caused. Number three, whether there is a link between the two.
:09:06. > :09:12.That's what the investigation is all about. You have to look at it
:09:13. > :09:15.case-by-case. In Europe, too, I imagine you see the same problem for
:09:16. > :09:20.your message. It isn't resonating any more. Look at the mass protests
:09:21. > :09:25.we have seen in Europe, especially Germany, as people learn more about
:09:26. > :09:28.the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. They don't
:09:29. > :09:32.like it. Look also at the significance of Brexit and the
:09:33. > :09:37.degree to which that was a British vote against many of the
:09:38. > :09:42.side-effects of globalisation. Do you see a similar sentiment in
:09:43. > :09:46.Europe? Yes. Not only that, across the globe in many areas you see
:09:47. > :09:51.these uncertainties propping up. The natural reaction of the population
:09:52. > :09:57.is to go against whatever is foreign. In Europe, for example, in
:09:58. > :10:01.the UK, a lot of the problem is towards migration. It is a slightly
:10:02. > :10:07.different problem. The reality is that if you don't realise what the
:10:08. > :10:10.cause is of those uncertainties, what is causing that anti- trade,
:10:11. > :10:17.anti- globalisation sentiment, you will not be dealing with it. The
:10:18. > :10:22.vote on June 23, which will take Britain out of the European Union,
:10:23. > :10:25.it leaves an awful lot of uncertainty in the short, medium and
:10:26. > :10:30.long-term about what Britain's trading relationships with the might
:10:31. > :10:34.be. How big a mess to be right now? I think it is unpredictable to tell
:10:35. > :10:38.exactly what will happen. I've been saying this for a while. For the
:10:39. > :10:43.vote I said that and I am still saying that. It is impossible to
:10:44. > :10:47.predict what will happen. But, with respect, I looked at what you said
:10:48. > :10:51.before the vote and before the vote you seemed to be suggesting to the
:10:52. > :10:55.British people that it would if foolhardy to vote to leave and he
:10:56. > :10:59.suggested that if they did then even trying to establish a relationship,
:11:00. > :11:04.a new relationship, outside of the EU with the WTO could take many
:11:05. > :11:09.years. At one point he said, look, it took Russia 20 years to negotiate
:11:10. > :11:14.a deal. Be aware of how complicated it is. I never said it was
:11:15. > :11:19.foolhardy. You don't think it was foolhardy? I think it is up to the
:11:20. > :11:24.British people to decide. All I said at that time was giving them the
:11:25. > :11:28.fax. The facts are, if you pull out, don't ask me what's going to happen,
:11:29. > :11:31.I don't know. Also don't tell me this is exactly what will happen
:11:32. > :11:37.because nobody knows what is going to happen. Now, negotiations are
:11:38. > :11:43.going to be out there and a lot will depend on the terms of separation
:11:44. > :11:46.between the UK and EU. That will set the stage for a number of other
:11:47. > :11:53.negotiations that will have to happen. How long it will take, I
:11:54. > :11:57.don't know. But the advocates within the British government of what they
:11:58. > :12:02.call the hard Brexit, that is cutting ties with the EU and not
:12:03. > :12:06.seeking a preferential deal with the European single market, but they
:12:07. > :12:11.would say instead going back to being a member of the WTO and
:12:12. > :12:15.applying WTO rules to their trading relationships around the world, you
:12:16. > :12:19.are suggesting that that in itself isn't straightforward, that could be
:12:20. > :12:25.complicated? Absolutely. Everything is complicated. It is not going back
:12:26. > :12:32.to be a member of the WTO, the UK never left. But the UK right now is
:12:33. > :12:38.a member of the WTO as a part of the market. But WTO rules apply, they
:12:39. > :12:42.applied before and will continue to apply. The UK was a member before
:12:43. > :12:47.and will continue to be a member. Every member of the WTO has a
:12:48. > :12:53.contract, with all the other 163 members. Once the UK leads the EU,
:12:54. > :12:59.that contract will have to be put to the members again. The UK and the EU
:13:00. > :13:03.both are going to have to come to members and say, after Alan split
:13:04. > :13:09.this... These are the terms of our contract. This is what applies to
:13:10. > :13:15.other WTO members. UK and EU will do that. Other WTO members at that
:13:16. > :13:18.point in time, not while negotiations are ongoing, at that
:13:19. > :13:22.point in time WTO members will look at what is being proposed to them
:13:23. > :13:28.and will react to that. They may well say, that's perfect, all done.
:13:29. > :13:34.Are they may say, hold on... They could drive a hard bargain. They
:13:35. > :13:40.could. One of the leading foreign affairs commentators in the UK, from
:13:41. > :13:43.the FT, said the danger is that after Article 50, the two-year
:13:44. > :13:47.negotiations that is the clock ticking on the EU - British
:13:48. > :13:53.negotiation to leave, if at the end of those two years Britain, which is
:13:54. > :13:58.very likely, as negotiated a new trading arrangement with the EU, it
:13:59. > :14:02.could fall off a trading cliff. It will not know quite what its future
:14:03. > :14:06.deal or trading arrangement with the EU will be and it won't know what
:14:07. > :14:10.its future relationship with other WTO members is, because you are
:14:11. > :14:13.saying it will actually involve negotiation and that negotiation
:14:14. > :14:15.won't start until the two years is up so Britain is left with no
:14:16. > :14:24.trading certainty whatsoever. Uncertainty is the name of the game
:14:25. > :14:29.and I have said that all along. We need to know what happens. It is
:14:30. > :14:33.tough to speculate. Should the British people be worried about
:14:34. > :14:40.this? There are distinctions to be made. One thing I think is clear is
:14:41. > :14:45.that Britain is a WTO member and will continue to be. In two years,
:14:46. > :14:49.if the UK and that you don't have an agreement, there will be a lot of
:14:50. > :14:54.uncertainty about the legal basis on which trade is going to be
:14:55. > :14:59.happening. I don't know under what terms that will happen. It does not
:15:00. > :15:02.mean the trade has to cease and stop at that time. It will continue. But
:15:03. > :15:11.there may be challenges and uncertainty about what tariff will
:15:12. > :15:15.apply with certain partners. The UK has 36 free trade agreements with 77
:15:16. > :15:23.partners, which are under preferential terms, negotiated by
:15:24. > :15:28.the EU. Once they leave the EU, those relationships with 77
:15:29. > :15:32.different partners, what is the basis for that relationship, what
:15:33. > :15:36.kind of tariffs would apply? Would be under preferential terms or back
:15:37. > :15:43.to WTO turns? What happens? I don't know what happens. Director-general,
:15:44. > :15:46.of onshore honest analysis. When you talk to the British right now in
:15:47. > :15:51.these early preliminary stages of negotiations, do you have an idea
:15:52. > :15:55.that they know what they want? They want a smooth transition and to keep
:15:56. > :16:01.the same terms of trade that apply today to apply tomorrow. Do you
:16:02. > :16:05.think they want to maintain as best they can the current access to the
:16:06. > :16:10.European single market? I suppose that is what they say publicly. That
:16:11. > :16:14.is what they say to me. I don't see a clash between what they tell me
:16:15. > :16:18.what they tell the public. They tell me the same things you key in the
:16:19. > :16:27.press. Exactly the same. -- they tell you. There are a few questions.
:16:28. > :16:31.The way to answer those questions, there are several alternatives, and
:16:32. > :16:36.we put those to them. Let's bring it back now from the specific of what
:16:37. > :16:40.will happen to Britain to your prime concern, which is to try to deliver
:16:41. > :16:48.a multilateral global free trade environment. Now, even before your
:16:49. > :16:53.time, it is fair to say that the WTO appeared to have lost its way in
:16:54. > :16:59.terms of the grand overarching roadmap, the Doha development round,
:17:00. > :17:06.the objective since the beginning of the century to deliver this really,
:17:07. > :17:09.really significant improvement on free trade arrangements around the
:17:10. > :17:14.world, especially aimed at helping the least developed countries. It
:17:15. > :17:18.has failed. Would you accept that? I think the premise is about to begin
:17:19. > :17:22.with. There was never an attempt to go to a free trade agreement any
:17:23. > :17:26.time soon. It was out of the question. We never tried that. Not
:17:27. > :17:34.even the Joe Hart round attempts to do that. All of these rounds, they
:17:35. > :17:39.intend to improve the conditions -- Doh. But not go to zero, free trade.
:17:40. > :17:43.We never attempted that. That would be foolhardy, because it is just
:17:44. > :17:53.impossible. Not at this right time. This is a progressive element. Over
:17:54. > :17:59.time, over the decades, the predecessor to the WTO, most of
:18:00. > :18:02.those negotiations locked in unilateral agreements. Countries
:18:03. > :18:06.liberalised and did a lot of movement and reduced tariffs, and we
:18:07. > :18:10.got betting. You contract here so we will not raise those tariffs again.
:18:11. > :18:15.That is the way it went all the way to the Doha round. It was going to
:18:16. > :18:21.be very ambitious, but it never attempted to be a free global
:18:22. > :18:29.agreement. So we can take much free trade rather than free trade. I will
:18:30. > :18:33.accept that. -- much freer tray. The world has to decide about this Doha
:18:34. > :18:37.round. The impasse is already harming the prospects of all those
:18:38. > :18:41.who rely on Che today. It would disadvantage all those who would
:18:42. > :18:46.benefit from a reformed modernised global trading system. -- rely on
:18:47. > :18:52.trade. Who do you point the finger of blame at? Who is responsible for
:18:53. > :19:00.this impasse? Or 164 members. What a copout. To get an agreement, you
:19:01. > :19:06.need 164. But to get no agreement, all it takes is true. That is the
:19:07. > :19:10.reality. Most of the problems we see in the multilateral system are
:19:11. > :19:16.between two very. All four or five or six. -- between two or three.
:19:17. > :19:20.What we have to do now, and have been doing for the last years, we
:19:21. > :19:24.are focusing on what we can actually do. We started this conversation by
:19:25. > :19:29.focusing on how ordinary people, some of whom have lost their jobs,
:19:30. > :19:33.do not believe in this global goal of free trade any more. One reason
:19:34. > :19:36.they do not believe in it is because they do not see it as transparent.
:19:37. > :19:46.They don't know what is happening. When you tell me, they know who they
:19:47. > :19:50.are, I will not name names. I will not go into the detail of why their
:19:51. > :19:53.positions are blocking progress, you are not being transparent either.
:19:54. > :19:57.People don't like that. Everybody knows what the problems are, come
:19:58. > :20:01.on. What we need to do now in the WTO is find solutions for the
:20:02. > :20:06.problems that we can handle. And we have been doing that. Ever since
:20:07. > :20:13.Bali in 2013, three years ago, we have managed to strike a deal on
:20:14. > :20:21.trade facilitation, which is worth about $1 trillion. It will increase
:20:22. > :20:28.exports globally by $1 trillion. $730 billion in developing
:20:29. > :20:32.countries. We have a subsidies for something we have been trying to do
:20:33. > :20:36.for over 20 years, and we couldn't. We just did. We struck an
:20:37. > :20:43.information technology agreement bringing down to zero tariffs of
:20:44. > :20:46.over $1.3 trillion in trade. We have the environmental goods agreement,
:20:47. > :20:50.which is being negotiated now. All of these things are happening. These
:20:51. > :20:55.are all relatively small achievements. No, they are big
:20:56. > :20:58.achievements. They are not small achievements. You know what
:20:59. > :21:03.Christine Lagarde said, the head of the IMF? She said what we need is a
:21:04. > :21:08.globalisation that works for all people, including, she went on to
:21:09. > :21:12.suggest, higher taxes on the rich, more focus on education, job
:21:13. > :21:16.training, an increase in minimum wage levels across the world.
:21:17. > :21:22.Watching seems to be saying is let's focus on free trade and more focus
:21:23. > :21:31.on fair trade, and everything that goes with a fair economy -- what she
:21:32. > :21:35.seems to be saying. I agree. We were together in Washington saying the
:21:36. > :21:41.same things. Together. Me and her. The difference is, some of that is
:21:42. > :21:46.trade and some is not trade at all. Education, adjustment for people who
:21:47. > :21:52.are abusing and transitioning from one job to another -- using. High
:21:53. > :21:56.schools. Even a safety net for people who are unemployed. It is
:21:57. > :22:00.much cheaper to support the person who was the drop them to support the
:22:01. > :22:05.position that was lost. All of those things are absolutely right. Maybe
:22:06. > :22:11.it is time for you to adapt your language and little bit, to accept
:22:12. > :22:16.that free trade in and of itself cannot be the answer to delivering a
:22:17. > :22:20.global prosperity that lifts all. I don't have to adjust anything. I
:22:21. > :22:26.have been saying this for quite some time. And a final thought. We began
:22:27. > :22:29.talking a lot about politics. If you are honest, do you feel the current
:22:30. > :22:37.generation of political leaders across the world are incapable of
:22:38. > :22:44.delivering the freer trade you believe is one of the keys to global
:22:45. > :22:50.prosperity? Negotiation at a global level is necessary. Do you see the
:22:51. > :22:54.global leadership you believe to be necessary today? I think we have to
:22:55. > :22:58.have it. It is not an option not to have the readership. Otherwise it
:22:59. > :23:02.will be a catastrophe. We have seen before what happened after the
:23:03. > :23:08.Second World War when there was no global co-ordination -- leadership.
:23:09. > :23:11.Two thirds of the global economy disappeared, the global trade
:23:12. > :23:16.disappeared just before the Second World War. You saw what happened
:23:17. > :23:20.after the Second World War. We have to have leadership that understands
:23:21. > :23:24.that what you do at home is not isolated from the rest of the world.
:23:25. > :23:29.You have to have global co-ordination. You have to talk to
:23:30. > :23:34.others and understand what the impact of what your actions will be
:23:35. > :23:39.over a whole bunch of other places, and that these things are not
:23:40. > :23:44.disconnected. You don't rule looking at your country only. That is
:23:45. > :23:48.something that is very clear looking from where I am, from a multilateral
:23:49. > :23:53.system. Roberto Azevedo, we have to end there. But thank you for being
:23:54. > :24:18.on HARDtalk. It was a great pleasure. Thank you very much.
:24:19. > :24:21.We have lost the mild weather, the foggy mornings,
:24:22. > :24:26.We say hello to the colder days with sunshine and a return
:24:27. > :24:32.During the night, most places will be clear.
:24:33. > :24:36.A few showers affecting northern Scotland and maybe Northern Ireland