wto legit?

WSNers: the issue has been raised as to the legitimacy of the wto. It seems
worth getting clear about. Isn't the wto an organization created by gov'ts 
trade
reps (per the instructions of their political bosses) or other officials? (I
don't know the actual history, so it might be good for someone who has the
lowdown on the creation of the wto to give wsn an account so our
ethico-political discussion can be grounded in some reality) If so, why 
isn't it
ok for govts to do so? The bureaucrats are chosen by elected officials, so 
there
is some connection to the democratic process. The argument in favor of 
increased
democratization must be that the decisions they are making are of such
importance that either our elected officials (in the case of the U.S.) 
should
take a more direct role in its workings or that the decisions should be 
made by
referendum or some such procedure. Clinton did attend the meeting and did 
ask
for greater democratization, more voices at the table.

Now what about the agenda? What is the wto doing, exactly, that requires our
immediate attention? I must confess I don't know enough about the wto's
workings, so again, our efforts could be helped by someone with a little of 
the
right historical knowledge. Nevertheless, some of it certainly involves 
global
trade issues. In my view it is important to separate union nationalism from
ethical or efficiency considerations. The fact that a factory moves 
somewhere
else is not in itself an issue for ethical analysis. It might anger workers 
in
the home country, but that is simply a matter of competing interests between
home country workers and the workers of other countries. It only becomes an
issue if there is some injustice such as an attempt to avoid paying fair 
wages
by paying unfair wages elsewhere. Or avioding environmental legislation by 
going
to a country without such legislation. Am I wrong on this?

Randy Groves