Posted on August, 27 1999
At a recent conference, I listened to a well-known economist extolling the virtues of trade liberalisation on an international scale. I suspect that, even for committed supporters of the system, he went a little over the top in suggesting that open world markets would not only encourage the growth of trade, but also take care of most of the social and environmental problems that are currently causing concern.
This economist did not shrink from presenting the World Trade Organisation as a candidate to take over many of the responsibilities of both national authorities and international institutions. The WTO could, he enthused, become a sort of benign world government - if only the awkward squad of labour unions, social reformers and environmental campaigners did not insist on trying to have their say in multilateral trade negotiations.
Now I do not even attempt to argue against globalisation. It is happening whether we like it or not. Neither do I contest the view that the liberalisation of trade might well bring benefits, at least to some societies in the world. However, I do object to the idea that the deliberations of the 135 national members of the WTO somehow have nothing to do with anyone else. And that the trade negotiators should simply be left alone to pursue their goals without a murmur from the people whose lives and environment the WTO seeks to control.
The next round of WTO negotiations, likely to last between three and four years, is to be launched in the USA in November. Already there are fears among supporters of greater liberalisation that they will be disrupted by an asssortment of so-called activists who have the temerity to oppose some of the things the organisation is trying to achieve. Expected demonstrations in Seattle, the venue for the WTO's Ministerial Conference, have given rise to dark mutterings that the world will be the loser if such people manage to undermine public support for the aims of the WTO.
Yet if the talks are disrupted, it will not primarily be the protesters who are to blame but the WTO itself. Its evident lack of transparency has been a problem all along, and suspicions that the organisation does not necessarily have our best interests at heart can only be reinforced by any further attempts to exclude voices of concern from making themselves heard by the negotiators.
I cannot speak for those worried about the globalisation process. I can only represent the views of WWF, and campaign on behalf of the environment. But it is clear to me that whatever other concerns might be raised in Seattle, the environmental impact of free trade - and I mean that in its widest sense to include the social effects of trade and trade liberalisation - must be considered alongside economic issues.
As just one example, there should be discussions about the effect of liberal trading reforms on sustainable development. The WTO must take account of the fact that the world's resources are limited. And that a trade policy, which puts profit before resource management and the provision of sustainable economic activity for poorer societies, can only benefit those already rich - and then merely in the short term. Far from becoming a "world government", the WTO should be seeking to involve in its plans agencies such as the United Nations Environment Programme and the UN Development Programme, which specialise in managing development sustainably.
On a wider front, if the WTO wishes to attract broad public support, it must make clear that its aims are not purely commercial. The five key elements of reform that will help to reassure people that trade will not be expanded at the expense of other vital concerns are:
*The environmental and social impacts of current trade practices should be carefully considered before further proposals for liberalisation are pursued.
*The WTO must fully respect the authority of international agreements such as the Conventions of Climate Change and Biological Diversity.
*WTO members should ensure that liberalisation is accompanied by improved environmental and sustainable development policies.
*Liberalisation measures, which offer direct and immediate environmental benefits, should be prioritised.
*The WTO should not attempt to exceed the limits of its competence by widening its remit to investment and other new areas of commerce.
If indeed the WTO will increasingly take over tasks leading to worldwide consequences, if not quite becoming a world government - as some would like to see it, it must also accept the fact that the world will want to be involved in the formation of its policies.
(858 words)