Mike Moore steps down soon as director-general of the World Trade Organization. He tells Ashleigh Lezard about his achievements and the challenges ahead for the WTO.

Why do you think it is important that there are multilateral regulations for FDI?

There are many advantages to a multilateral agreement. It would set up common rules, it protects small countries, particularly from the major corporations trying to find out who has the best tax break. It creates transparency and becomes an issue of good governance. I cannot think of a country that has too much investment.

Ironically, a number of countries that oppose investment agreements left Doha and then signed them up one by one. There is a lot of misunderstanding about this, which arose from the MAI [the failed Multilateral Agreement on Investment].

Will the World Trade Organization be consulting the Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development in the negotiations?

Members will be – what we are doing now is setting up the framework for negotiations, capacity building and so on. A lot of countries feel this as an attack on sovereignty, that they would lose certain levers of development. What they decide to do in terms of their national policy is their business, they must work it out, it is their decision.

Will multinationals have powers to over-rule environmental and trade union policies?

No, that would not be in an investment agreement. Whatever a government decides on environmental conditions is a matter of domestic politics. One of the reasons I like multilateral rules is that once they are agreed, firm, transparent public conditions apply. This means governments are not put in the position where somebody comes to you and says: “I can pump 5000 jobs into this depressed part of the country but to do that you must give me a tax break, provide free land and build a university to train my staff.” It prevents them getting into protracted bidding wars.

However, sovereign governments and corporations should engage in tough negotiations. They can work that out but the more transparent the rules, the easier it is for sovereign governments to act in unity – therefore pushing standards up.

What are the plans after the agreement at Doha?

The WTO plans to continue work on this area, to build capacity because a lot of governments do not have the resources or staff. We have to put governments in a position where they can make their own minds up, based on their own interests. What matters is that we provide resources for them to do this. The WTO has neither the resources nor the expertise [to do the capacity building]. There are organisations out there that can do this – the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (Unctad) is doing some good work on investment – they may be the partner.

If investment rules were to be introduced, would the WTO oversee them and do you think it is the right body to oversee it?

I think we probably are the right body unless you create a new one.

But you have been accused of lacking transparency in your own operations.

Are Unctad or the OECD more transparent? I don’t know – the OECD obviously has the depth of staff, and Unctad has the technical resources to give good advice but where should it be managed? I think we are the right body. We are the best placed because we have the most members, we are used to running these negotiations, we have a mechanism to handle the differences governments might have over the agreements that are signed.

Could you not deepen the General Agreement on Trade in Services agreements?

You could but I think that if the opportunity is here and, given some patience, we should carry on with a new agreement.

At the WAIPA conference, the shift in attitude towards globalisation was discussed as a result of September 11 and Argentina? Do you think this will have an effect on negotiations?

These things stumble but the steady progress shows it is absolutely clear that negotiations will continue. The phenomenon is not new. The aberration in world history was the break in globalisation, as it is called now, from after the first world war leading on to the great depression and the second world war.

Do you think regional conflicts and political unrest will affect the global economy?

Except over the past six months, I think regional conflicts are less pronounced now. Most wars now are internal, most refugees are internal. Twenty years ago, South and Central America were run by generals and colonels and Eastern Europe was in chains. I think it’s a good story. You can say there are bad people in North Korea and Afghanistan, but look at the progress in Afghanistan, as girls return to school. That is down to globalisation.

Could you not say that economic liberalisation is the cause of unrest in some cases?

In the case of Argentina, its problem is an absence of trade. We can spend time creating institutions and trying to assist countries, but it is down to the government to decide if they would rather spend money on arming police than arming their children with education. I do not know what the WTO or United Nations or anybody else can do about it.

Do you think China’s accession will cause more disputes?

Any type of new member creates the possibility of more differences. People want China in because it is a great exporter. At the moment there are no rules and no way of handling differences. How can smaller countries go up against that giant? That is why it good to have China under rules because it is a great exporter with or without us. And China gets the security that its exports will continue.

The US FAST Track Trade Authority is now in the Senate. What effect will it have on the next trade round?

The US administration got fast track through eventually. This shows how hard it is for everybody – even the greatest exporter [to make reforms]. These are very difficult problems. Ministers now have as many problems negotiating at home as they do against each other. Pascal Lamy [the EU’s trade commissioner] has all his member states, which are all different – some are freer over agriculture, some are more conservative.

What are your views on the Free Trade Area of the Americas and regional trade blocs versus a global system such as the WTO?

I do agree with them, as long as they are compatible and they are not substitutes. I find it amusing that the European newspapers are saying that America has lost its multilateral rights. American newspapers do not comment that the European Union has lost its rights by trying to extend the EU. The world is a better place because of the EU and the US.

What is your opinion of your handover to Supachai Panitchpakdi?

We are putting in place a sequence of events that make it much easier for my successor; he will not face the problems that I have faced. We will deliver him a better organised and better funded organisation.

Are you sorry or happy to be leaving this position?

I am neutral. I knew the conditions of employment so even though I will miss a lot of friends I have made I accept this new part of my life. I am neither sad nor happy.