WTO 101

The WTO is coming! The WTO is coming!

Get ready for traffic jams, the “protest of the century,” SWAT teams, fat-cat trade ministers, price gouging by local hotels, Bill himself, street sweeps of the homeless, the actual content (oh yeah) of Seattle negotiations, and on and on. Clearly, and no matter what your feelings about the WTO itself, it’s a big story.

But the local media—Weekly included—has not done a good job thus far of describing why people should care. Aside from the downtown traffic jams for a week, why is the WTO important? How will it affect people’s daily lives? So, for the next couple weeks, I’ll try to summarize in this column what the big deal is about: why the protesters are protesting, what the issues are, some of the arguments and responses of free trade proponents—why, in short, you should care.

The WTO was created in 1994 as a successor to the GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, that had governed international trade since World War II. The GATT and other so-called Bretton Woods institutions such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund served for decades as the model by which developed countries dealt with each other and attempted to develop—or, some would say, exploited the natural resources of—the Third World. This was (and is) known as the neoliberal model, and the WTO is firmly based on it.

With the advent some two decades ago, in the US, Britain, Germany, and other developed countries, of a powerful new conservatism, came growing acceptance of a free market ideology that has led directly to the WTO. The WTO is markedly different from the previous regime in two important ways. First, its “free trade” agreements require the privatization of a wide array— everything, really—of public resources. It requires, in the First and Third World alike, the logical extension of the neoliberal model: letting the free market make all public policy and control the movement of capital, goods, and services.

Secondly, the WTO includes provisions that make its agreements much more legally enforceable than previous trade agreements. If a jurisdiction’s law is found to be “WTO-illegal” and it is not withdrawn, the offending nation faces continuing sanctions equal to the alleged lost value of trade. This is expensive, and, especially for poorer countries, this is a powerful incentive to comply.

Free trade or fair trade?

Generally—despite statements by free trade proponents from President Clinton on down—critics of the WTO oppose not world trade, but the specific mechanisms with which the WTO governs it. These can be divided into two broad categories: the specifics of subagreements on different industries (which I’ll discuss next week), and the structure of the WTO itself.

The power of the WTO to strike down laws is one of the major objections of WTO critics to the organization itself. It represents usurpation of democratically elected bodies by an undemocratic, unelected body that is almost completely dominated by corporate interests. When a country, usually at the request of a company or industry, lodges a complaint that another country’s law is “WTO-illegal,” the complaint is then heard by a secret tribunal of corporate lawyers in Geneva. Proceedings are closed to the public. No appeal is possible. So far, in four years, the Geneva tribunals have decided in favor of every complainant heard.

The judgements have included: overturning a European ban on US hormone-fed beef; overturning a provision of the US Endangered Species Act that protected sea turtles from shrimping nets; striking down American and Brazilian programs that underwrote exporting companies; siding with Chiquita bananas (and the US) against a European program that bought bananas from former Caribbean colonies; and a successful challenge of a US Clean Air Act provision that banned a particular gasoline additive.

More important, perhaps, are the laws never enacted in the first place. The WTO has had a tremendous chilling effect on jurisdictions. We saw a notable example in Seattle when the City Council refused to enact a selective purchasing ordinance in support of pro-democracy forces in Burma. Sure enough, a similar law in Massachusetts is being challenged before the WTO.

The biggest structural concern with the WTO is, quite simply, that transnational corporations are calling the shots and are the primary beneficiaries of its rulings, at the expense of countries that want to protect their environment, food safety, workers’ rights, or other public policy values unrelated to profit. The problem with the WTO, in this view, is not that it promotes free trade; it’s that it bans any other factors as a legitimate basis for public policy. We are left with a secretive, corporate-dominated, free-market-above-all entity that can trump any national government in its policy-making.

That’s the WTO’s structure, and it has raised concerns mostly for the theoretical possibilities for abuse. Next week, I’ll cover the record that’s already been compiled in four years: the impact of agreements that have already been reached, and what’s on the agenda to be added in Seattle.

More in News & Comment

State high court upholds $1,000 fines on ‘faithless electors’

They signed pledges to back their party’s nominee, Clinton, in 2016, but then voted for Colin Powell.

Pow! Bam! Inslee delivers a one-two punch of executive power

Governor shifted $175M to culverts and vetoed a sentence he said threatened funding for transit.

Self-driving cars: Heaven or hell?

Depending on factors, traffic and environmental impacts could become better or worse.

King County’s $5 million derelict boat problem

When a boat sinks, it costs a lot to bring it up, with millions being spent since 2003 on removals.

Ashley Hiruko/illustration
Susan’s quest for ‘justice’ and the civil legal system dilemma

While citizens have the right to an attorney in criminal cases, they’re not afforded the same rights in civil litigation.

Upon further review, EPA wants to redo water quality rules

Feds say they’ll use what the state submitted in 2016 even though they’re no longer the state’s faves.

King County Councilman Reagan Dunn sent a letter to the FBI asking for them to help investigate Allan Thomas (pictured), who is under investigation for stealing more than $400,000 of public funds and skirting election laws in an Enumclaw drainage district. Screenshot from King 5 report
King County Council requests report on special districts in wake of fraud allegations

Small, local special districts will face more scrutiny following Enumclaw drainage district case.

The Marquee on Meeker Apartments, 2030 W. Meeker St. in Kent, will feature 492 apartments and 12,000 square feet of retail. The first phase of 288 apartments is expected to be completed in early 2020. Developers are targeting people in their 20s and 30s to rent their high-end, urban-style apartments. Steve Hunter/staff photo
Housing study pokes holes in conventional wisdom

High construction and land costs will incentivize developers to build luxury units.

File photo
Eviction reform passed by state Legislature

Tenant protections included longer notices and more judicial discretion.

Most Read