Arab attitudes toward the World Trade Organization (WTO) are mixed: at one extreme is Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi, who opened the latest Africa-European Union summit at the end of November by branding the WTO, and other international trade organizations, as “terrorists.” “We call for the elimination of the WTO, because it does not serve our interests,” Qaddafi said. “It wants us to open our borders to foreign goods to kill our industries.”
Though most of the region does not share this point of view, there is a palpable indifference to the organization throughout. The Arab world is greatly underrepresented in the WTO, with only 12 out of 22 Arab League members having joined, a much weaker representation than in other regions.
Interest in the WTO among Arab states is growing, however: from the initial nine that were founding members of the WTO, three have acceded in the years following while eight more are currently in the process of doing so. The accession of Arab countries has tended to take longer than that of states in most other parts of the world. Jordan’s accession, which came in 2000, took around six years, longer than its peers who joined in 1999 or 2000. Saudi Arabia, which acceded in 2005, took more than 12 years to negotiate membership, having started under the WTO’s predecessor, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). As for Arab countries now seeking to join the WTO, they tend to resemble the Saudis more than the Omanis, who took just five years.
Syria should do a Turkey
Syria, the latest to begin negotiations, is a good example of the difficulties faced by some states in the Middle East and North Africa region; it was forced to wait for a full nine years before its application to join was even acknowledged. The start of Syria’s accession process a few months ago was good news for those seeking more liberalization, as moves to join the WTO have already prompted discussions of sorely needed Syrian domestic policy reform.
With 14 percent of Syrians living in poverty and 20 percent unemployment, the country’s Deputy Prime Minister for Economic Affairs Abdullah Dardari acknowledged in late 2010 that the “challenges facing us are formidable.” Syrian economist Nabil Sukkar concurred in January when he stressed to Executive the need to meet the endlessly growing demand for jobs, calling the task “enormous.”
So is WTO membership an effective tool to help solve Syrian economic problems?
Whatever the details of the recipe for reform, which include changes in the foreign trade regime, most observers agree that “business as usual” is not an option. Paul Salem, director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut, said recently that the Syrians should follow the example of Turkey, now on its way to becoming an economic power, but which 30 years ago “resembled [the] Syria of today.” Turkey’s blossoming was partly achieved through massive exports to new markets, due in large part to its WTO membership and to bilateral trade deals, which in turn interacted positively with economic reform and restructuring at home.
A tall ladder to climb
However, for Syria and other Arab countries, finally joining the WTO may take some time and involve much effort. Ever since the organization was officially launched in 1995 as the successor to GATT, the average accession process has lengthened over time. The average since the WTO was founded is 8.5 years, but that number has steadily risen since the first batch of entrants in the late 1990s, which typically required only two years.
Such delays are not purely political. Lebanon’s accession, which was initiated over a decade ago, is hampered by problems related to intellectual property rights (IPR) and other economic issues, more than a decade after the country applied for membership. Granted, such a delay for Beirut has much to do with its political situation, as it does in Syria, although officially the only issues on the table relate to economics.
The danger now in Syria or in other Arab states is that those who oppose opening up to global markets could plead the existence of political obstacles, in an effort to derail economic change and delay WTO accession. To help counter this mentality, more training and technical assistance could be sought, as has happened in Jordan, Yemen and other Arab states, to enhance trade-analytical capabilities.
In this vein, Syria could also use accession negotiations as leverage for more aid from state donors. For example, if the United States or EU grumble that Syria’s IPR situation leaves something to be desired, Damascus could counter with a demand for technical assistance from the West for training and public information campaigns.
Faced with the daunting process of accession, the countries of the region should seek all the foreign technical assistance they can get, as well as learn from the experience of other Arab states that have already joined or are in the process of doing so. Tamam el-Ghul, a former Jordanian WTO negotiator and ex-minister, recently described the admission process as “complex,” requiring extensive technical expertise.
Accession also calls for a change in public attitudes, but the media in this respect have not been helpful, with many economic journalists still unfamiliar with the WTO and incapable of enlightening people about trade. In this regard, a linguistic dilemma arises: Arabic is not an official WTO language, as it is at the United Nations and many other international organizations. That is not a merely superficial problem, as adopting Arabic as a working language could have far-reaching positive implications. The buzz at WTO headquarters in Geneva suggests that the issue could start to be taken more seriously from 2012, as more Arab members join the organization. One WTO official, speaking off the record, told Executive: “For Arabic to become an official language, financial backing from rich Arab states would be needed.” Translation is already a huge expense at the WTO, but it is clear that Colonel Qaddafi and other WTO naysayers could profit from more clarity in understanding the benefits of accession.
