An interview with Robert Zoellick

Greg Sheridan pens a profile of Robert Zoellick, World Bank head, in The Australian.

He notes the following about Zoellick:-

A former US trade representative, a former deputy secretary of state and before that an under-secretary of the treasury, Robert Zoellick – notoriously one of the brainiest people in Washington – has to bend the disparate institution he heads to answer the crises of the day.

Then a little further on he notes:-

Zoellick is a proponent of globalisation, but he wants sustainable globalisation, and above all globalisation that works for the world’s poor.

He is a life-long Republican, although of the centrist kind, and while his commitment to the World Bank is complete, you could imagine him as secretary for virtually anything in a McCain administration. He is part of the permanent global governing class.

A workaholic and a long-time friend of Australia, and of Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, Zoellick embodies the traditional core Republican value of competence in government.

Adam was very interested to see that Zoellick has a strong connection apparently to Rudd. It is hard to think of our current PM having personal relationships with consummate American insiders, especially ones from across the divide.

Sheridan talks about what Zoellick is trying to on the food crisis and other matters, but these comments caught Adam’s eye:-

But his argument on the Doha Round is simple and compelling. If the world cannot even bring itself to agree to a trade liberalisation that will undoubtedly bring economic benefits to everyone, how on earth will it be able to agree to a meaningful climate change arrangement that will have costs as well as benefits?

Here it is essential that the protectionist tendencies of many nations must be resisted. It is for this reason that Adam has such forebodings about the French assuming the EU Presidency for the next 6 months and the recent sniping by French President Sarkozy at Peter Mandelson, the EU Commissioner negotiating on the Doha Round. Adam sees an unholy alliance of the French and the Germans on defending the CAP to the last drop of economic life in the developing world. OK, an exaggeration but their track record on the CAP and Doha is lousy.

If the poorer and middle-income countries are denied the substantial development benefits that would flow from a successful conclusion of the Doha Round, in Zoellick’s view they are even less likely to accept a negotiation on greenhouse gases that would put them under obligations.

To Adam that view makes sense.

Zoellick believes there is a deal to be done in the Doha Round – and that it’s almost there.

His friend, Pascal Lamy, the director-general of the World Trade Organisation, has called for a ministerial meeting on the round next month.

“He’s taking the fundamental step of moving beyond the negotiators to the ministers,” Zoellick says. “If Lamy isn’t successful, the Doha Round could just fade from the scene.”

So will this be a smart move by Lamy? Can Lamy bridge the gaps and bring a deal to conclusion?

Sheridan asks Zoellick about the climate change issue and again we see an interesting response:-

One thing that has struck me as I travel around Asia is that no one in a poor country is willing to pay any price at all to limit greenhouse gas emissions. There are understandable reasons for this, but given how big a proportion of greenhouse gases comes from developing countries such as China, India and Indonesia, I wonder if the project is not doomed to failure from the start.

I put all this to Zoellick in a fairly direct fashion, and his response is realistic and measured. He is tackling the problem with his eyes wide open.

“The climate change negotiations are likely to be more challenging than many people have expected,” he says.

Zoellick has concerns about some of the planned methods of dealing with climate change.

“If you look at some of the proposed cap and trade systems they have questionable trade components.”

In other words, combating greenhouse gases could become an excuse for protectionism.

In fact this has started to happen with our old friends the EU, egged on by the French and Germans.

“But if you’re serious about climate change problems, you have to engage developing nations. And developing nations are going to be very sensitive about the idea that (combating) climate change is going to interfere with their development.”

A very interesting article, which repays reading in full. Zoellick in that last quote touches on one of the most thorny issues and one which many in the West choose to ignore in Adam’s opinion.

Sheridan notes:-

It is difficult for anyone to imagine poor countries signing up to agreements that tie them to specific reductions in the total greenhouse gasemissions, but Zoellick believes there might be other types of agreements, on technology use and the paths of development, that poorer countries could adopt if they see the deal as a win-win situation. In his view, there have already been advances in the efforts of global governance institutions to deal with this.

One of the important consequences of the Bali climate change summit was that it recognised and agreed to give credit for foregone deforestation.

Deforestation accounts for something like 20 per cent of global greenhouse emissions. The Kyoto Protocol previously recognised forestation efforts as a greenhouse offset, but did not recognise deforestation foregone as an equally important contribution.

Adam was intrigued by this reference to foregone deforestation as it was the first time he had seen such reference. IS there an impact for NZ in this?

Overall worth a look and consideration of the comments made in the article. It would be good to think that NZ had such well placed friends in high places, connected and likely to remain connected through varying administrations.

UPDATE: The Hive provides some additional background on Zoellick