Many a feather is being ruffled this week in Seattle. There’s a mean wolf in the hen house, and it’s name is WTO, short for the World Trade Organization. A plethora of things are at stake, including, some say, democracy itself. The WTO is working to better trade between nations, rich and poor, by lowering and, in some cases, killing trade restrictions. Tariffs and non-tariff barriers that protect environmental and health industry standards are impeding the progress of the WTO. They are socially necessary for us, but are blocks in the road for them.The WTO replaces the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, established in 1947, as an organization that only wanted to reduce, not destroy, trade barriers through multilateral negotiations. That is, with the inclusion of two or more parties. The replacement of the GATT by the WTO SHOULD be disconcerting to many people. The WTO would have more power to enforce trade regulations, leaving less of a voice for citizens AND national governments. The global authority of the WTO would be your favorite and mine, the unelected bureaucrat. Though the GATT was replaced by the WTO, its final round of talks in Uruguay has remained an inspiration. WTO talks are binding. This means that if one member nation, rich or poor, finds the laws or regulations of another member nation to be protectionist and in violation of the WTO standard, the offending nation must bring their laws into compliance with the standard. Failure to do so would lead to the imposition of trade sanctions. What does this mean to you? Well, if you like to save the dolphins from being caught in tuna nets and some podunk nation finds that to be unfair because that’s the only way they can fish, you can say goodbye to Flipper, because you-know-who doesn’t want a slap on the hand if freedom of trade is at stake.What’s in more peril, as I mentioned earlier, is the essence of democracy itself. The majority of U.S. negotiators in the WTO must consult with non-governmental advisory committees. These non-governmental advisory committees have a disproportionate number of corporate lobbyists sitting at the table. This leaves Joe Shmoe with no hope for his future. He would be unable to contact a public official in a position of addressing his concerns for public welfare. I’m not talking food stamps here-the safety and the economic stability of the community itself would be in trouble. Family farm, consumer, health and other citizen groups are not represented at all on these advisory committees. Moreover, the WTO is not required to consult with non-governmental organizations and it doesn’t have to release documents at any time until final decisions are made.Members of the WTO have even refused to create a process studying the inclusion of internationally recognized workers’ rights. This is due to southern opposition and their concern for non-tariff barriers against imports of low-income countries. These barriers would include the refusal of another country to buy things produced by the hands of children. The least trade restrictive means available for achieving health-related goals also will become the world’s standard.As for me, the consequences of the WTO’s power, which could control more than 90 percent of the world’s trading, far outweigh the benefits which I also deem to be unfair. These include easing barriers for banks and insurers, who may already be too greedy. Michael Moore, the WTO’s chief, thinks we’ll be better off in the long run. Meanwhile, I’m holding a debate with myself. Do I want to remain the subject of a democracy with greedy, opportunistic businessmen holding the key to my future? Would I rather have extremely dictatorial (not dogmatic) communist and socialist leaders of other countries in control? I think our economy and our livelihood will be the cost of this debate.
Valerie Howland is a senior English and psychology major from Conneaut, Ohio.