World Trade Organization (WTO)

In December, 1999, the streets of Seattle, Washington, filled with billowing clouds of tear gas and pepper spray as squadrons of police in full riot gear skirmished with surging masses of protestors in the most confrontational political demonstrations in the United States in nearly three decades. The angry crowds were there to confront delegates from 135 member nations of the World Trade Organization (WTO) who were meeting to hammer out an agenda for the next round of negotiations to regulate international trade.

Few people in America had ever heard of the WTO before the historic protest in Seattle, and yet, this exclusive body has power that affects us all. Created in 1995 by an international treaty, the WTO is the successor to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Grade (GATT), established at the end of the World War II to eliminate tariffs and trade barriers. Both GATT and WTO are part of the Bretton Woods system (named after the location in New Hampshire where the system was established in 1944) that includes the World Bank group and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Where GATT was limited to considering economic issues, however, the scope of the WTO has been expanded to "noneconomic trade barriers" such as food safety laws, quality standards, product labeling, workers rights, and environmental protection standards. With legal standing equivalent to the United Nations, the WTO operates largely in secret. When considering trade disputes, it meets behind closed doors based on confidential evidence.

WTO judges are trade bureaucrats, usually corporate lawyers with ties to the industries being regulated. There are no rules against conflicts of interest, nor are there requirements that judges know anything about the culture or circumstances of the countries they judge. No appeal of WTO rulings is allowed. A country that loses a trade dispute has three options: (1) amend laws to comply with WTO rules, (2) pay annual compensation—often millions of dollars—to the complainants, or (3) face nonnegotiable trade sanctions. Critics claim that the WTO always serves the interest of transnational corporations and the world's richest countries.

Among the most controversial issues brought up in this round of WTO negotiations are agricultural subsidies, child labor laws, occupational health and safety standards, protection of intellectual property, and environmental standards. Environmentalists, for example, were outraged by a 1998 WTO ruling that a U.S. law prohibiting the import of shrimp caught in nets that can entrap sea turtles is a barrier to trade. The United States must either accept shrimp regardless of how they are caught, or face large fines. Some other WTO rulings that overturn environmental or consumer safety laws require Europeans to allow importation of U.S. hormone-treated beef, Americans must accept tuna from Mexico that endangers dolphins , and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cannot bar import of low-quality gasoline that causes excessive air pollution . In some pending cases, Denmark wants to ban 200 lead compounds in consumer products; France wants to prohibit asbestos ; and several countries want to eliminate electronic devices containing lead, mercury , and cadmium . Under current WTO rules, all these cases probably will be ruled illegal.

More than 50,000 people came to Seattle from all over the world to show their displeasure with the WTO. French farmers, Zapatista rebels from Mexico, Tibetan refugees, German anarchists, First Nations people from Canada, labor unionists, environmentalists in turtle suits, animal rights activists, and organic farmers were among those who filled the streets. They held teach-ins, workshops, and peaceful marches with thousands of participants (sometimes described as "turtles and teamsters"), but what got headline coverage was civil disobedience including blocking streets, unfurling banners from atop giant construction cranes, and, for a few of the most radical anarchists, breaking windows, setting fires in dumpsters, and looting stores. These destructive acts were condemned by mainstream groups, but got most of the press anyway.

Unprepared for such a massive protest movement, the police reacted erratically. Ordered to avoid confrontation on the first day of the protests, the police stood by while a small contingent of black-hooded anarchists smashed windows and vandalized property. The next day, stung by criticism of being too soft, the police used excessive force to clear the streets, firing rubber bullets and tear gas indiscriminately, spraying innocent bystanders with pepper spray, and clubbing nonviolent groups engaged in passive sit-ins. The mayor declared a civil emergency and a 24–hour curfew in the area around the Civic Center. Eventually, the National Guard was called in to assist the thousands of city police. As often happens in confrontations, positions harden and violence begets more violence.

Most of the people protesting in Seattle agreed that the current WTO represents a threat to democracy, quality of life, environmental health , social justice, labor rights, and national sovereignty. Underneath these complaints is a broader unease about trends towards globalization and the power of transnational corporations. Although the diverse band of protestors shared many concerns, many disagreed about the best solutions to these problems and how to achieve them. While many claimed they wanted to shut down the WTO, others actually want a stronger trade organization that can enforce rules to protect workers, environmental quality, and endangered species .

In the end, the delegates adjourned without agreement on an agenda for the "Millennium Round" of the WTO. Developing countries, such as Malaysia, Brazil, Egypt, and India, refused to allow labor conditions into the debate. Major agricultural exporters such as the United States, Canada, Argentina, and Australia , continued to demand an end to crop subsidies and protective policies. Japan and the European Union (EU), on the other hand, maintain that they have a right to preserve small, family farms, rural lifestyles, and traditional methods of food production against foreign competition. Developing countries insist that protection of their environment and wildlife is no one's business but their own.

Following Seattle in 1999, activists have demonstrated against the effects of globalization at a number of world governance meetings. The most violent of these occurred in July 2001, when 100,000 protestors converged on a meeting of the Group of Eight Industrialized Nations in Genoa, Italy. As was the case in Seattle, the vast majority of the demonstrators were peaceful and non-violent, but a small group of radicals attacked police and vandalized property. The police responded with what many observers considered excessive force, killing one man and injuring hundreds of others. Outrage at police behavior spread across Europe as live television showed unprovoked attacks on peaceful marchers and innocent bystanders.

In the aftermath of Genoa, both protestors and government officials began to re-examine their strategies for future meetings. Leaders of many community groups question whether they should take part in mass demonstrations, because of both the personal danger and the negative image resulting from association with marauding vandals. They began to reflect on other ways to carry out their goals while avoiding the violence that marred previous demonstrations. Government officials announced that future meetings would be held in remote, inaccessible locations that limit public participation. The 2001 meeting of the WTO, for example, was held in Qatar, an authoritarian country that strictly forbids any form of public demonstration. Those who weren't official delegates to the meeting weren't even allowed into the country, perpetuating the image of the WTO as a secretive and high-handed organization.

While the location and tactics of the debate about globalization has changed, the basic problems remain. As Renato Ruggiero, the former director-general of the WTO once said, "We are no longer writing the rules of interaction among separate national economies. We are writing the constitution of a single global economy." The politicians and transnational corporations who currently control much of direction of global governance dismiss their critics as an irrelevant collection of environmental extremists and bleeding-heart social activists who know nothing about economics or practical politics. On the other hand, even World Bank president, James D. Wolfensohn admits that "at the level of people, globalization isn't working." We clearly need a way to engage governments and others in a dialogue on how we will organize global trade in an increasingly interconnected world.

Interestingly, the organizational power of protest groups in Seattle and elsewhere shows the growing internationalism of social movements and grass-roots organizations. Internet technology, the declining cost of travel, and rising educational levels have dramatically extended their capacity to both think and act globally. Those who protest globalization and argue for traditional, time-honored ways of doing things are themselves using the technology and power of global organization. Somehow we need to find a way to get beyond "No." How do we want to govern ourselves? How will we respect local autonomy and culture, and still enjoy the benefits that come from the increased flow of goods and services across international borders?

[William P. Cunningham Ph.D. ]

RESOURCES

BOOKS

Gallagher, Peter. Guide to the WTO and Developing Countries. Boston, MA: Kluwer Law International, 2000.

Howse, Robert. "Eyes Wide Shut in Seattle: The Legitimacy of the World Trade Organization." In The Legitimacy of International Institutions. United Nations University Press, 2000.

Von Moltke, Konrad. Trade and the Environment: The Linkages and the Politics. Winnipeg, Canada: International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2000.

PERIODICALS

Cohn, Marjorie, ed. "Human Rights and Wrongs." Guild Practitioner 57 (2000): 121.

Kovel, Joel. "Beyond the World Trade Organization." Synthesis/Regeneration 21 (2000): 6–9.

OTHER

"A Citizen's Guide to the World Trade Organization: Everything You need to know to Fight for Fair Trade." Working group on the WTO. July 1997 [cited July 9, 2002]. <http://www.citizen.org>.

Anderson, Sarah, and John Cavanagh. "The World Trade Organization" Foreign Policy in Focus. The Institute for Policy Studies.1997 [cited July 9, 2002]. <http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/briefs/vol2/v2n14wto.html>.

Murphy, Sophia. "Managing the Invisible Hand: Markets, Farmers and International Trade" 2002. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. [cited July 9, 2002]. <http://www.tradeobservatory.org>.

Seattle Weekly Editors. "Answering WTO's Big Questions: In a Nutshell, What was WTO Seattle?" Seattle Weekly. August 3–9, 2000 [cited July 9, 2002]. <http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0031/news-editors.shtml>.