The notion of the World Trade Organization seems optimistic. They promote free trade, and according to their own studies help alleviate poverty around the globe. Unfortunately there is a strong force of people that oppose the WTO for a number of justified reasons. My beliefs fall somewhere in the middle but lean against the WTO. I don’t feel that the WTO has made the right decision in many cases, and free trade often can damage the economies of weaker states. It is difficult to argue against the existence of the WTO, but it is easy to disagree with their decisions and operations. Overall I believe that the organization is necessary, but that some of their practices must change. Too often human rights, labor rights, environmental protection, and national sovereignty give way to corporate ambition.

Some basic negative effects of the WTO are illustrated in the harm that the organization has brought to human rights, the environment, and world hunger. In terms of labor rights, the WTO ruled that it is illegal for any government to ban a product on the basis of how it was produced. This means that corporations can get away with outsourcing cheap labor, even child labor, to reduce production costs. The WTO has failed to promote internationally recognized labor standards, which simply encourages corporations to seek out the least expensive labor often discarding ethics in the process.[1] In terms of the environment the WTO has stood in the way of many environmental protections throughout the world. In the United States there have been two heavily scrutinized cases pertaining to environmental protection. Case number one came with the very first WTO panel. The ruling undermined the U.S. Clean Air Act, which required that both domestic and foreign producers make cleaner gasoline. It was estimated by the U.S. government that this ruling would created a five to seven percent increase in annual emissions of nitrous oxide from imported gasoline.[2] The second case came when the WTO ruled against U.S. Endangered Species Act rules that protected sea turtles from getting killed in shrimpers’ nets. In this situation the U.S. complied with the WTO, and replaced the requirement that all countries seeking to sell shrimp in the U.S. had to ensure that their shrimpers used turtle-safe devices.[3] In addition to human rights and the environment, the WTO is undermining efforts to reduce world hunger. Farmers technically produce enough food in the world to feed everyone, yet “because of corporate control of food distribution, as many as 800 million people worldwide suffer from chronic malnutrition.[4]” Unfortunately the WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture stresses that market forces should control agricultural policy, instead of state commitments to regulate decent farmer incomes and ensure food security. Additionally some policies of the WTO have generated a trend of outside industrially produced food being dumped into poorer countries. This not only increases hunger, it also destabilizes local production. Many of the problems lie with the unfair system by which decisions and trade laws are made.

Individuals and groups alike who oppose the WTO often argue that it is essentially undemocratic. This type of criticism falls in a separate category which deals with the structure of the organization. The WTO website even admits that “it would be wrong to suggest that every country has the same bargaining power,” however they argue that the “consensus rule” means every country has a voice.[5] Unfortunately this rarely holds true, as the WTO allows the world’s most powerful trading blocs (the EU and the USA) to bully weaker countries. Poor countries can also be threatened with losing foreign aid, debt relief, or trade opportunities if they do not sign to certain agreements. Citizen input is consistently ignored, whereas corporate input often becomes law. For this reason environmental, consumer, labor and human rights organizations are overlooked time and again. More problems lie with the commitment involved in signing WTO agreements. If governments are under pressure from the World Bank or the IMF to deregulate, decisions can be reversed if electorates so wish. This is not the case with the WTO. Governments signing WTO agreements are making legally binding decisions that automatically favor the WTO’s bias. WTO officials present this as a positive step, shielding governments from their own interests at times. Too often this binding measure only serves to have states surrender to unaccountable market forces. The WTO is not actively biased or undemocratic; it simply assists and permits powerful groups to dominate the others. The other main criticism of WTO practices is that it does not implement its ideas objectively. While there are some measures that protect developing states, the developed world writes in advantages and loopholes for numerous trade agreements. By this view the WTO has simply institutionalized the large advantage already held by the developed world, as trade laws retain several protectionist measures for the wealthiest states.

The entire problem stems from too much corporate influence, and too many prosperous countries that continue to support the agendas of multi-national corporations. This leads to an overemphasis on liberalization and deregulation of all trade markets, even when it shows to be harmful to developing states. It is clear to see that while liberalization can help the poor in some circumstances, in many others it can do serious harm. The most obvious example is the huge influx of cheap food imports across the globe that destroys the work of small farmers. For example maize prices obtained by poor Mexican farmers have been cut in half since Mexico opened its borders to cheap US maize, causing severe damage to local food production. One Latin American representative stated at the Geneva conference that “if you have a really open economy like ours, it’s impossible to protect your farmers with WTO rules.[6]”

In theory, the WTO merely deals with governments. In practice, however, multi-national corporations have a large, often invisible presence. Pharmaceutical companies drove the dialogue on intellectual property rights, namely patents, and even drafted the agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs).[7] This agreement increased corporate control at harmed millions of lives in underdeveloped countries. In fact, of the 650 “NGOs” listed to attend the Qatar ministerial meeting, it was said that at least 240 of them were in fact industry representatives, including the American Sugar Alliance, the United Egg Producers Association, and the Motion Picture Association.[8] The WTO lacks any rules that dictate the role of corporate lobbying.

In the words of Ralph Nadar, the WTO deals with “trade agreements that don’t stick to trade… They subordinate environmental and labor issues to the imperatives; the supremacy of international commerce.[9]” Fortunately there is a movement afoot to change the way that the WTO works. Enormous protests in Seattle during the 1999 Ministerial Conference brought a halt to the meeting. In 2001 the WTO had to go to Qatar, a country that lacks some freedom of speech rights. In 2003 and 2005 conferences met thousands of activists in protests. There are also countless organizations, serving to protect things like the environment or basic human rights, which stand firmly against positions the WTO has taken. These groups have pressured their governments to restrain from selling off the public interest in the name of corporate trade rules.

The WTO is an unfair system with flawed views and actions. Yet in this era of globalization it is a necessary organization. What must happen is a change in the way agreements are made, and there must be less attention to corporate agendas, and more attention to national and local interest. Regardless of their intentions, the WTO is harming millions across the globe. Until something changes, the gap between rich and poor will likely continue to grow, and the progress of poorer nations will be significantly slowed.

Works Cited

“CAFOD rough guide to WTO.” Miscellaneous factZ – The online home of Rufus Pollock. 19 May 2009 .

“Public Citizen | WTO and the Environment, Health and Safety – WTO and Environment, Health & Safety.” Public Citizen | Welcome. 19 May 2009 .

Who Controls the World?: a field guide to activism in the age of globalism. 19 May 2009 .

“WTO | 10 misunderstandings – menu.” WTO | Welcome to the WTO website. 19 May 2009 .

“YouTube – PovertyIsPolitical’s Channel.” YouTube – Broadcast Yourself. 19 May 2009 .

[1] http://www.rufuspollock.org/wto/cache/CAFOD_rough_guide_to_WTO.html

[2] http://www.citizen.org/trade/wto/ENVIRONMENT/

[3] http://www.citizen.org/trade/wto/ENVIRONMENT/

[4] http://www.rufuspollock.org/wto/cache/CAFOD_rough_guide_to_WTO.html

[5] http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/10mis_e/10m00_e.htm

[6] http://www.rufuspollock.org/wto/cache/CAFOD_rough_guide_to_WTO.html

[7] http://www.youtube.com/user/PovertyIsPolitical?gl=GB&hl=en-GB

[8] http://www.rufuspollock.org/wto/cache/CAFOD_rough_guide_to_WTO.html

[9] http://whocontrolstheworld.com/experts/ralph-nader-the-negative-effects-of-free-trade/.