Formidable environmental challenges face several Asian countries, but I am optimistic about the future. Asian governments today are much more conscious of the need to address them. With growing prosperity, they are better endowed to deal with the problems. Their peoples are rising up and demanding that the state do something to clean up the environment and afford them a higher quality of life. They are no longer willing to breathe polluted air, to drink contaminated water, and to allow their natural environment to be destroyed. Asia must change. Asia will change.

Transparency and non-discrimination
When Singapore hosted the first WTO Ministerial Conference in 1996, I was part of the Chairman’s team that worked closely with the Secretariat to make the Conference succeed. Subsequently, the WTO has appointed me to three dispute panels, twice as Chairman. I regard it as one of the world’s most important international organizations, because I believe that the facts show that free trade produces prosperity. Those developing countries – such as those in Northeast and Southeast Asia – who have plugged themselves into the world trading system, have succeeded in increasing prosperity and reducing poverty. The WTO is very important because it has developed multilateral rules that govern trade among the world’s economic entities, and upholds and enforces them. These rules promote fairness, and curb the instinct of states to act arbitrarily. Its two governing principles are transparency and non-discrimination.

A country’s capacity to protect its environment and its prospects of achieving sustainable development are enhanced if its adherence to the rule of law is strong

I find no contradiction in my support for UNEP, the WTO and the rule of law. Indeed, the rule of law is important to both bodies. The real question is whether there are contradictions between the governing principles of the WTO and some features of some of the multilateral environmental agreements. The honest answer to that is yes. There are approximately 200 multilateral environmental agreements, about 20 of which contain trade provisions – including the Montreal Protocol, the Basel Convention and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, or CITES. Some of these trade provisions contradict the WTO’s principle of non-discrimination because they restrict trade of certain products between parties and non-parties of the agreement, and because they impose a ban on trade.

Schools of thought
The WTO is currently examining Article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which provides for general exceptions to the agreement. There are two schools of thought on this: that the article should be clarified – for example, through an amendment – to make clear the scope of the exceptions; and, conversely, that there is no need for this since, to date, no conflict has arisen between WTO provisions and trade measures taken pursuant to multilateral environmental agreements. While this is being discussed the scope of the article is actually being clarified by WTO jurisprudence, resulting from the decisions of the WTO’s Appellate Body. My own view is that any accommodation of environmental concerns by the WTO should be accompanied by safeguards to ensure that they could not be used for protectionist purposes. We should not support any move to amend the rules that would allow members to restrict imports on the basis of some unilaterally determined standards. Contrary to perception in some quarters, countries do not lower their environmental standards in order to gain trade advantage.