Yet another round in the great globalization debate is just around the corner. Monday, the World Trade Organization's director-general, Mike Moore, announced that representatives from the WTO had agreed to continue with the next round of global talks as originally planned, with a meeting scheduled for Nov. 9 to 13 in Doha, Qatar. Doha was originally selected as this year's meeting site in part because it was thought that fewer protesters would crash the party than in Seattle.
The threat of another debacle on the scale of Seattle placed the Doha meetings in limbo even before the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes on the United States. For both proponents of an international system of free trade'as I am more often than not'and those skeptical of it, the very occurrence of the Doha conference should be viewed as an entirely good thing.
The reason is simple: In the post-Sept. 11 political environment, the question of where either movement goes from here is up in the air. Doha will give the international community the opportunity to sort out the future direction of international trade and will give globalization's critics another backdrop for their arguments. Granted, a re-enactment of the public fervor on the scale of Seattle will be impossible in Doha, but the background is there nonetheless.
Aside from the wholly too-vague notion of promoting trade, the WTO's mission at Doha is up in the air. Liberalization with regards to industrial, agricultural and service goods will be on the table, but the form that liberalization will take is anyone's guess at this point.
More important is where the organization goes from here. The importance of Doha should not be underrated, even within the context of terrorism and war. As The Economist reported in its July 28 issue, 'Few believe the organization could easily survive another failure in Doha. It would 'go into hibernation,' says one Geneva official, and the multilateral trading system might wither.' Some from the anti-globalization crowd may look at this as an opportunity for victory. They shouldn't. If the WTO were to truly go into hibernation or fall apart, it would simply increase the prominence of regional trade pacts such as the North American Free Trade Agreement or the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas. An international system regulated primarily by regional, or worse yet, bilateral trade agreements would damn poorer countries to bargaining from a position of near-infinite weakness, without as resolute a grievance procedure as established by the WTO. For all its faults, the WTO does, at least, have an international grievance procedure that allows any country, regardless of wealth, to bring forth claims that another country is providing a barrier to trade.
Yes, this grievance procedure has undermined laws intended to protect workers and the environment. Nonetheless, WTO rules also, for instance, allow governments to break patents when faced with a health emergency, a stipulation that will continue to gain importance as nations search for cheaper AIDS drugs.
However, the lack of similar grievance procedures for basic human rights and protections for workers and the environment is a weakness of the WTO. The banal, cruel argument that poor countries cannot afford rich country standards gives the removal of trade barriers a bad name. Granted, it has taken decades of work, but the European Union has some such mechanisms. If, as recently occurred, citizens near London's Heathrow Airport can have the EU deem late-night flights a violation of their human rights, there is no reason why the WTO should not be able to impose duties on the Nigerian government and the multinational oil companies that tacitly or overtly support paramilitary violence.
There is reason for hope that such measures could become a part of the international system in the future.
The bilateral free trade agreement ratified Sept. 28 between the United States and Jordan stipulated that labor unions or groups of workers 'representative of an industry' may seek redress under the terms of the agreement. In practice, such grievances would be more likely to impose subsidies to protect domestic industries (the notorious anti-dumping measures) than to protect workers' rights, but the fact that the grievance system is not limited to firms and governments is reason for celebration nonetheless.
In a speech Oct. 9, Director-General Moore stated, 'No single nation alone can combat AIDS, clean the environment, run a tax system and manage airlines without the cooperation of others. Nor can they deal in isolation with the threat of international terrorism. Institutions such as the United Nations, the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO are expressions of the international community's commitment to work together.'
That sounds nice. In little more than two weeks the WTO will have an opportunity to put those notions into practice.
