The Corporate KoWTOw
The People v. Trade?
By Bruce BarryThe stir in Seattle last week surrounding the World Trade Organization (WTO) meeting probably left many people wondering what the fuss is really about. The assist here goes, as usual, to the broadcast press, which provided saturation coverage of street-level mayhem but minimal attention to the substance involved. Broken windows, tear gas clouds and cops in riot gear make for compelling video, but tell none of the story. Cynical viewers were left to think this was little more than a Pacific Northwest retro vacation opportunity for nostalgic '60s protest buffs.
It all may have looked like a rag-tag assortment of every marginalized social movement left standing after Reagan, but a coherent thread runs through all the anti-WTO rhetoric. The first step to grasping it is putting aside the idea that this is about whether trade is a good thing or not, or even whether having an international body like the WTO is a good thing or not.
Thoughtful critics who took to the streets of Seattle don't oppose trade; they argue with how trading rules are created, and how trade disputes are adjudicated, under this thing called the WTO. It was born five years ago as a new global vehicle for drafting rules that ease trading barriers and handling disputes between countries over trade practices. Like other treaty-based international organizations, the WTO is nothing more or less than a creature of its member countries and their governments - now at 134 and counting.
The basic objection is that the system defined by the WTO - rule making as well as dispute settlement in matters of global trade - is rigged to favor the interests of corporations and their investors over those of workers and consumers. It sounds a bit hyperbolic, but the funny thing is, not only is this assertion basically accurate, everyone pretty much agrees that it is! Critics charge the WTO is more interested in global market efficiency and the free flow of capital than regional or local concerns about employment, the environment or human rights. WTO advocates are basically OK with that: They want a global economic system that privileges capital over labor or the environment, and regard linkage between trade policy and these issues as inappropriate interference in the operation of non-discriminatory global markets.
Worlds collide over the effects of specific WTO rulings in disputes over trade barriers. Backers of the WTO like the fact that when one country charges another with an unfair restriction of free trade, a panel of lawyers in Geneva hammers it out and issues a ruling - ideally, one that keeps the trade playing field level, and threatens wider trade sanctions against offenders.
For example, some Asian countries charged that a U.S. law protecting endangered sea turtles violated WTO rules. The law bans imports of shrimp from countries where nets that are "turtle safe" are not in use. A WTO ruling told the U.S., "no can do." The U.S. claims the European Union violated trade rules by enacting local health and safety standards that exclude imports of genetically modified foods. Odds are the U.S. will win that one. What if a country adopts a law excluding trade with nations that fail to meet basic labor or human rights standards? Activists fear such laws would be disallowed by the WTO.
The pro-WTO response to these kinds of cases is that while it may sound nice to have national laws linking protections of public safety, human rights, or the environment with trade policy, such laws really just stall the engine of global prosperity - which is trade. It's an international trickle down theory, really: Drop the barriers and watch poor countries blossom. As they grow economically, then you'll see them protecting worker rights, expanding democracy and improving the environment all by themselves.
WTO critics are unimpressed with this argument, and who can blame them? Global wealth inequality - the gap between rich and poor nations as well as the gap within most nations - is worse than it was 20 years ago as the modern era of greatly expanded international trade got under way. Free trade marketeers may see environmental or labor protections as downstream byproducts of the efficient use of capital, but WTO critics see them as fundamental social goods in their own right.
Critics are also highly suspicious of the lack of transparency of the WTO dispute settlement process, with panels meeting in secret and providing no public record of their deliberations. This is one area where protesters are being heard, and change in WTO rules is at this writing a distinct possibility.
The bottom line charge is that the WTO system by design and execution elevates trade above other human concerns, fostering a world where market efficiency trumps local culture, national democracy and basic human rights. Supporters of the WTO in its present form, if they're honest, pretty much have to concede this, believing as they do that market-driven economic growth is the engine of all social progress. Forty thousand people in the streets of Seattle last week begged to differ.
Return to home page.