Re: wto legit?

This is very much off the top of my head, but my understanding is that the
WTO grew out of, and replaced, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
during the past decade.  GATT, which had existed since the second world war,
was a negotiating body and, as I understand it, the inability of the last
round of GATT negotiations, the "Uruguay Round", to deal effectively with
emerging international trade issues indicated that something stronger than
negotiation was needed if trade was going to be liberalized on a global
basis.  What governments then felt was needed was not only negotiation but
leadership, rule setting and dispute resolution.  Some urgency was attached
to this because of the emergence of large competing trading blocks, such as
NAFTA and the European Union, as an alternative to the goal of open,
multilateral trade.

Though GATT was effective in lowering tariffs and non-trade barriers it
ultimately failed because, beyond a certain point, governments felt they had
to protect their domestic vested.  It would appear that the WTO is running
into the same kind of thing.  Its first major international venture into
rule setting, the MAI, proved disastrous.  While NGOs claim a lot of the
credit for having brought it down, that is not really what happened.
Governments simply did not favour the degree of cooperation and give and
take that would have been needed to implement it.  Nor would it seem that
they now really want to get into things like agricultural subsidies and
intellectual property.

What will probably happen to the WTO is that it will quietly recede into the
background.  It's time has not yet come.  It will be a little like the World
Court.  It will settle disputes that are brought before it, but when it
comes to leadership and working out a general set of rules under which trade
and international investment take place, forget it.  Once again, NGOs such
as the Company of Canadians will claim credit for having driven it into a
remote corner, but the truth of the matter is that governments really don't
want it.  When driven to the wall or even in the general direction of the
wall, they think parochially, not globally.

Instead of liberal, multilateral free trade, what is likely to happen is the
continued formation and strengthening of large blocks which are mainly about
trade but which will increasingly also become political.  A number of such
blocks already exist, the EU and NAFTA foremost among them.  Initially,
competition among them will be economic, but eventually one can see intense
political rivalries developing and perhaps even military rivalries.  Instead
of a multilateral world, we will likely have one that is highly polarized.

What will be most tragic about this is that ever so many people will be left
out because nobody will want them as part of their block.  Except to
exploits its natural resources, who wants Sub-Saharan Africa?  Who will want
the fractiousness of India or Pakistan, or a very loosely glued together
Indonesia?  Russia will want Russia.  It will probably also want the
Ukraine, Byeloruss, and other pieces of its former empire.  You can bet that
in a polarized world it will again become one of the strongest poles.

I know that the WTO is far from perfect, but I've personally seen it as an
organization that could further the development of a process, begun shortly
after WWII, of breaking down international barriers and developing common
interests which could offer some assurance that we will not again have to
live through global conflict.  This is why I'm so disappointed in what has
happened in Seattle.  My disappointment is not with the protesters because
despite Bill Clinton's kind words they are really very much beside the
point.  My disappointment is that larger games are going on behind the
scenes, games which led to polarized and conflict-ridden world in the past
and may do so again in the future.

Ed Weick

>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
>
>
>
>