Roberto Azevedo, Director General of WTO HARDtalk

to death in a rubbish truck as he tried to get fish confiscated by

police. Welcome to HARDtalk

I'm Stephen Saackur. This is the headquarters of the

World Trade Organisation. My guess is today is the director-general

here, Roberto Azevedo. The WTO is committed to protectionism and

freeing up global trade, but that seems out of step with the spirit of

the age. From Donald Trump's protectionist

messages to the Brexit vote in Britain, there seems to be

a backlash against economic So, is the WTO swimming

against a powerful tide? Roberto Azevedo,

welcome to HARDtalk. Thank you. You are one of the worlds

most important advocates of free trade at a time when a protectionist

spirit is alive across the world. How difficult does that make your

job? It is pretty difficult to be advocating for free trade at this

point in time, but I have been quite honest in going out and saying, does

trade gives... Provoke disruption, or sometimes affect the situation of

jobs in particular communities? Sometimes it does. But it's a minor

component, I think. Less than 20% of jobs are lost today in advanced

economies due to trade. But you know a lot of people don't believe that.

Especially in the US, where you can go to towns that used to be steel or

mining towns and they will tell you that trade deals done by the US to

further the idea of free global trade have been a disaster. They

have been job killers. Believing or not is not the issue. The issue is

whether there is a fact or not. With respect, it does matter because

politics comes into play and if the message to politicians, I now begin

of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton fighting for the US presidency, if

the message they get is that there's a real resonance to an anti- trade

message, that matters. The fact is that organisations like might have

to put the facts out there. To a situation where you have a

discussion that doesn't want to hear the facts, it is mostly emotional,

it is tough. There's nothing you can say that will change that sentiment.

But the reality is that if you don't know what the cause of the problem

is, you apply the wrong medicine. And if the medicine that you

prescribe to that patient is protectionism, you will be hurting

the patient, not helping the patient. That's what we need to do.

So when you hear Donald Trump, for example, and I am quoting directly,

at the WTO is in disaster, I will never signed any trade agreement

which hurts our workers or which diminishes our freedom and our

independence, what do you say? The World Trade Organisation was not

imposed on anybody, it was created by precisely these players. Why a?

Because there was a world before without the WTO and people realised

that they needed it. Why did they needed? In the mid- 80s there was a

lot of unilateral sanctions, one on dairy, sugar, D. Once it was a

barrier on your site, don't expect others to look and contemplate. They

will impose barriers as well. You are losing the argument. Why are you

doing so badly with the argument you are making? You say you love facts,

look at the facts. According to statistics composed by the global

trade alert, governments took more than 400 to Scrivener tree actions

against foreign competition twinge any Riyadh August of this year. --

discriminatory actions. Not just in the US but across the world a

protectionist sentiment is leading to protectionist policies right now.

Protectionist policies that we see today cover altogether, although is

500... 400 measures, whatever they are, they cover about 5% of global

trade. In the 30s, when there was no video, no disciplines, nothing, it

wiped out two thirds of the global trade. -- no WTO. Is there

protectionism today? Yes. But it is much smaller than it was before. Why

do you think that in the United States the two big trade, regional

trade, deals that the government has embarked upon, that is the

Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment

Partnership, both are now looking extraordinarily vulnerable. Because

trade deals are sensitive. There is a sentiment out there, and anti-

globalisation, antiforeign sentiment. You need to change that.

All that I am arguing is don't blame trade for that it was trade is not

the uncertainty that is causing those kinds of anti- globalisation

feelings that you see in the population today. They are scared of

losing their jobs, scared that if they lose their jobs they would find

another job and if they don't find another job then governments are not

helping them. 80% of those people are facing the situation not because

of trade but because of other factors. Like new technologies,

increased productivity, innovation. Are we going to stop that? Even if I

was to accept your premise... It is not a premise, it's a fact. Facts

are often disputable. You said 20% of jobs lost in the US can be that

to be the two free trade. 5 million manufacturing jobs have been lost

since 1960. This even if we accepted your premise, that would be 1

million manufacturing jobs in the US that have disappeared as a result of

the free trade deals that have been done. Do you think Americans should

accept that? A lot more has been created. Job manufacturing, jobs in

the manufacturing sector in the US, they are at a record level. The

reality is that due to higher productivity, those jobs have

disappeared not because there are cheaper imports from other countries

at because today these jobs are disappearing because of new

technologies. To flip that argument around, if technology and automation

are going to create such a crisis in the jobs market anyway, why let so

many other jobs, and let's just talk about the steel industry for a

second, why let so many other jobs that used to be in the US can reach

a way to China when China is using work practices and is dumping steel

in a way that is completely counter-productive for the US steel

industry, but still remains? A free trade argument between China and the

US on steel, according to American steelworkers simply kills their

jobs. Of course and I think that if you have situations which are topic,

like steel, for example, there are mechanisms in the WTO that can be

applied for that. Any other country that is subsidising or jumping their

products -- dumping their products in the market. It is not only China.

In China the cost of labour are going up. Then the jobs go somewhere

else. In textiles most have gone to Bangladesh. Or Taiwan. Or Roberto --

or Laos, Cambodia. That would be the solution. The solution is, how do

you take care of the uncertainty that exists today in the labour

market? You can and you should if you find they are being dumped, but

they are being unfairly subsidised. Do you believe sitting here as the

boss of the WTO, other Chinese dumping? I can say that in some

areas may be. Clearly there are investigations. That's why you have

the process. The national authority has to investigate. On the existence

of dumping and the subsidy. Number two, whether there is an injury

being caused. Number three, whether there is a link between the two.

That's what the investigation is all about. You have to look at it

case-by-case. In Europe, too, I imagine you see the same problem for

your message. It isn't resonating any more. Look at the mass protests

we have seen in Europe, especially Germany, as people learn more about

the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. They don't

like it. Look also at the significance of Brexit and the

degree to which that was a British vote against many of the

side-effects of globalisation. Do you see a similar sentiment in

Europe? Yes. Not only that, across the globe in many areas you see

these uncertainties propping up. The natural reaction of the population

is to go against whatever is foreign. In Europe, for example, in

the UK, a lot of the problem is towards migration. It is a slightly

different problem. The reality is that if you don't realise what the

cause is of those uncertainties, what is causing that anti- trade,

anti- globalisation sentiment, you will not be dealing with it. The

vote on June 23, which will take Britain out of the European Union,

it leaves an awful lot of uncertainty in the short, medium and

long-term about what Britain's trading relationships with the might

be. How big a mess to be right now? I think it is unpredictable to tell

exactly what will happen. I've been saying this for a while. For the

vote I said that and I am still saying that. It is impossible to

predict what will happen. But, with respect, I looked at what you said

before the vote and before the vote you seemed to be suggesting to the

British people that it would if foolhardy to vote to leave and he

suggested that if they did then even trying to establish a relationship,

a new relationship, outside of the EU with the WTO could take many

years. At one point he said, look, it took Russia 20 years to negotiate

a deal. Be aware of how complicated it is. I never said it was

foolhardy. You don't think it was foolhardy? I think it is up to the

British people to decide. All I said at that time was giving them the

fax. The facts are, if you pull out, don't ask me what's going to happen,

I don't know. Also don't tell me this is exactly what will happen

because nobody knows what is going to happen. Now, negotiations are

going to be out there and a lot will depend on the terms of separation

between the UK and EU. That will set the stage for a number of other

negotiations that will have to happen. How long it will take, I

don't know. But the advocates within the British government of what they

call the hard Brexit, that is cutting ties with the EU and not

seeking a preferential deal with the European single market, but they

would say instead going back to being a member of the WTO and

applying WTO rules to their trading relationships around the world, you

are suggesting that that in itself isn't straightforward, that could be

complicated? Absolutely. Everything is complicated. It is not going back

to be a member of the WTO, the UK never left. But the UK right now is

a member of the WTO as a part of the market. But WTO rules apply, they

applied before and will continue to apply. The UK was a member before

and will continue to be a member. Every member of the WTO has a

contract, with all the other 163 members. Once the UK leads the EU,

that contract will have to be put to the members again. The UK and the EU

both are going to have to come to members and say, after Alan split

this... These are the terms of our contract. This is what applies to

other WTO members. UK and EU will do that. Other WTO members at that

point in time, not while negotiations are ongoing, at that

point in time WTO members will look at what is being proposed to them

and will react to that. They may well say, that's perfect, all done.

Are they may say, hold on... They could drive a hard bargain. They

could. One of the leading foreign affairs commentators in the UK, from

the FT, said the danger is that after Article 50, the two-year

negotiations that is the clock ticking on the EU - British

negotiation to leave, if at the end of those two years Britain, which is

very likely, as negotiated a new trading arrangement with the EU, it

could fall off a trading cliff. It will not know quite what its future

deal or trading arrangement with the EU will be and it won't know what

its future relationship with other WTO members is, because you are

saying it will actually involve negotiation and that negotiation

won't start until the two years is up so Britain is left with no

trading certainty whatsoever. Uncertainty is the name of the game

and I have said that all along. We need to know what happens. It is

tough to speculate. Should the British people be worried about

this? There are distinctions to be made. One thing I think is clear is

that Britain is a WTO member and will continue to be. In two years,

if the UK and that you don't have an agreement, there will be a lot of

uncertainty about the legal basis on which trade is going to be

happening. I don't know under what terms that will happen. It does not

mean the trade has to cease and stop at that time. It will continue. But

there may be challenges and uncertainty about what tariff will

apply with certain partners. The UK has 36 free trade agreements with 77

partners, which are under preferential terms, negotiated by

the EU. Once they leave the EU, those relationships with 77

different partners, what is the basis for that relationship, what

kind of tariffs would apply? Would be under preferential terms or back

to WTO turns? What happens? I don't know what happens. Director-general,

of onshore honest analysis. When you talk to the British right now in

these early preliminary stages of negotiations, do you have an idea

that they know what they want? They want a smooth transition and to keep

the same terms of trade that apply today to apply tomorrow. Do you

think they want to maintain as best they can the current access to the

European single market? I suppose that is what they say publicly. That

is what they say to me. I don't see a clash between what they tell me

what they tell the public. They tell me the same things you key in the

press. Exactly the same. -- they tell you. There are a few questions.

The way to answer those questions, there are several alternatives, and

we put those to them. Let's bring it back now from the specific of what

will happen to Britain to your prime concern, which is to try to deliver

a multilateral global free trade environment. Now, even before your

time, it is fair to say that the WTO appeared to have lost its way in

terms of the grand overarching roadmap, the Doha development round,

the objective since the beginning of the century to deliver this really,

really significant improvement on free trade arrangements around the

world, especially aimed at helping the least developed countries. It

has failed. Would you accept that? I think the premise is about to begin

with. There was never an attempt to go to a free trade agreement any

time soon. It was out of the question. We never tried that. Not

even the Joe Hart round attempts to do that. All of these rounds, they

intend to improve the conditions -- Doh. But not go to zero, free trade.

We never attempted that. That would be foolhardy, because it is just

impossible. Not at this right time. This is a progressive element. Over

time, over the decades, the predecessor to the WTO, most of

those negotiations locked in unilateral agreements. Countries

liberalised and did a lot of movement and reduced tariffs, and we

got betting. You contract here so we will not raise those tariffs again.

That is the way it went all the way to the Doha round. It was going to

be very ambitious, but it never attempted to be a free global

agreement. So we can take much free trade rather than free trade. I will

accept that. -- much freer tray. The world has to decide about this Doha

round. The impasse is already harming the prospects of all those

who rely on Che today. It would disadvantage all those who would

benefit from a reformed modernised global trading system. -- rely on

trade. Who do you point the finger of blame at? Who is responsible for

this impasse? Or 164 members. What a copout. To get an agreement, you

need 164. But to get no agreement, all it takes is true. That is the

reality. Most of the problems we see in the multilateral system are

between two very. All four or five or six. -- between two or three.

What we have to do now, and have been doing for the last years, we

are focusing on what we can actually do. We started this conversation by

focusing on how ordinary people, some of whom have lost their jobs,

do not believe in this global goal of free trade any more. One reason

they do not believe in it is because they do not see it as transparent.

They don't know what is happening. When you tell me, they know who they

are, I will not name names. I will not go into the detail of why their

positions are blocking progress, you are not being transparent either.

People don't like that. Everybody knows what the problems are, come

on. What we need to do now in the WTO is find solutions for the

problems that we can handle. And we have been doing that. Ever since

Bali in 2013, three years ago, we have managed to strike a deal on

trade facilitation, which is worth about $1 trillion. It will increase

exports globally by $1 trillion. $730 billion in developing

countries. We have a subsidies for something we have been trying to do

for over 20 years, and we couldn't. We just did. We struck an

information technology agreement bringing down to zero tariffs of

over $1.3 trillion in trade. We have the environmental goods agreement,

which is being negotiated now. All of these things are happening. These

are all relatively small achievements. No, they are big

achievements. They are not small achievements. You know what

Christine Lagarde said, the head of the IMF? She said what we need is a

globalisation that works for all people, including, she went on to

suggest, higher taxes on the rich, more focus on education, job

training, an increase in minimum wage levels across the world.

Watching seems to be saying is let's focus on free trade and more focus

on fair trade, and everything that goes with a fair economy -- what she

seems to be saying. I agree. We were together in Washington saying the

same things. Together. Me and her. The difference is, some of that is

trade and some is not trade at all. Education, adjustment for people who

are abusing and transitioning from one job to another -- using. High

schools. Even a safety net for people who are unemployed. It is

much cheaper to support the person who was the drop them to support the

position that was lost. All of those things are absolutely right. Maybe

it is time for you to adapt your language and little bit, to accept

that free trade in and of itself cannot be the answer to delivering a

global prosperity that lifts all. I don't have to adjust anything. I

have been saying this for quite some time. And a final thought. We began

talking a lot about politics. If you are honest, do you feel the current

generation of political leaders across the world are incapable of

delivering the freer trade you believe is one of the keys to global

prosperity? Negotiation at a global level is necessary. Do you see the

global leadership you believe to be necessary today? I think we have to

have it. It is not an option not to have the readership. Otherwise it

will be a catastrophe. We have seen before what happened after the

Second World War when there was no global co-ordination -- leadership.

Two thirds of the global economy disappeared, the global trade

disappeared just before the Second World War. You saw what happened

after the Second World War. We have to have leadership that understands

that what you do at home is not isolated from the rest of the world.

You have to have global co-ordination. You have to talk to

others and understand what the impact of what your actions will be

over a whole bunch of other places, and that these things are not

disconnected. You don't rule looking at your country only. That is

something that is very clear looking from where I am, from a multilateral

system. Roberto Azevedo, we have to end there. But thank you for being

on HARDtalk. It was a great pleasure. Thank you very much.

We have lost the mild weather, the foggy mornings,

We say hello to the colder days with sunshine and a return

During the night, most places will be clear.

A few showers affecting northern Scotland and maybe Northern Ireland