The WTO and Democracy - David Jessup, November 29, 1999

Who are these people anyway? "Global Civil Society" and the World Trade Organization (WTO) - David Jessup, December 2, 1999

Bridging the North/South Divide -- After Seattle, What's Next - David Jessup, December 6, 1999

A Planetary Alternative to the Global Economy - David Koren, January 2000

**To see all Related Documents on the WTO, including reactions from labor, government and other NGOs, please access them here.

Thanks for sending me your article. I expect soon to be posting an analysis of the WTO protests. We should be wary of putting our hopes on fixes within our current economic system. Indeed, without a fundamentally new economy, there is no hope for fair trade, only for slightly less unfair trade. We are in for a long, tough battle. What Seattle did for us was to establish the WTO as an enemy. While it's good to have alternatives, we should be careful not to promote reforms which end up shoring up essential injustice. The emphasis of Campaign for Labor Rights is on supporting struggles that can result in worker empowerment. These so far are micro struggles. It would be naive to imagine that we will gradually win the day through an accumulation of such micro victories. We need both local battles and structural fixes. It is a challenge to pick the structural fixes which alter the balance of power between capital and labor, rather than simply adding a gloss of reform. GSP has been used to good advantage in worker struggles in Guatemala. Does that mean that we should be pushing for enhanced GSP etc. legislation? Tough call.

Trim Bissell [clr@igc.apc.org]
National Coordinator
Campaign for Labor Rights
www.summersault.com/~agj/clr

Analysis wanted.

Among the strands from Seattle I'd like to see further explored are:

1. An assessment of the last-ditch effort to put together a statement on labor standards and the roles of the different country players. Even after President Clinton's interview to the local Seattle paper on sanctions, which set the cat among the pigeons, this group met under the chair of the Guatemalan trade minister to try to work out a statement. The first meeting, inappropriately called 'the working group on labor standards and trade' (which just riled many delegations further), ended in much turmoil and gridlock. But the next day it revived and began producing drafts, each one more watered down than the previous, but thereby suggesting that somebody really was trying to make an effort to get out some kind of statement on labor. Then later in the day the whole meeting collapsed, I would think more over the more central trade issues such as agriculture and dumping questions, although I note that the press credited (i.e. debited) the labor issue as being the reason for failure. It would be good to reconstruct what actually happened at these sessions and find out whether this subgroup actually reached a consensus on a labor statement before the whole conference collapsed.

2. Another point that struck me was the large number of trade unionists, affiliated to the ICFTU, who attended the meeting, some perhaps as delegates for their countries, including some from developing countries. If these people, as ICFTU members, were all supporters of the WTO coming out with something on labor standards -- and if it's true they were all or mostly all members of their own national country delegations -- the question is whether they tried to play a role in influencing the position of their respective governments on the labor standards question. We assume that they have little influence, but did they try?

3. The third thing that interests me is the need for an analysis of the principal countries that oppose WTO involvement in labor questions. To what degree are these countries democracies or dictatorships? To what degree are labor rights respected in these countries? Is their opposition to a social clause based on genuine fears that U.S. insistence on labor standards is merely a cover for trying to take away their natural low-wage comparative advantage? Or is it fear that these rights, if they were respected, would lead to a fundamental shift in political power in their respective countries? Or is it more simply a manifestation of a desire not to be kicked around by the more powerful developed countries and told how they should organize their societies? Or is it a combination of all three? What are the prevailing elite views in these countries as to how well they have done, how much they have benefited from globalization and First World tutelage (via World Bank, IMF, GATT, etc.), and how well do these views synch with or differ from our perceptions? An examination of the countries is called for, I believe, including, if possible, interviews with the key players, assessments of their written statements, etc.

Human Rights perspective.

Thank you for sending your article. I wholeheartedly agree with your analysis on free versus cheap labor, and the use of discreet mechanisms such as CBI and other arrangements to promote freedom of association and other trade union and environmental issues. Do keep me posted. My area of "expertise" is international protection of human rights, so I'm interested in the trade union issues from a rights perspective.

Roberto Alvarez, [RobAlSDQ@aol.com]
Washington Representative
Participacion Ciudadana and Fundacion Institucionalidad y Justicia (Finjus) of the Dominican Republic

Nike as a model.

I was also in Seattle and was disheartened by the disruption but encouraged by the debate. Nike is so often held up an example of what's wrong with global trade because of our business model -- however, we probably stand as one of the best examples of how trade and human rights standards can peacefully co-exist.

One micro-example is on age standards/child labor. Consumer Reports (August '99) published a chart of companies who reported their minimum age standards for factories around the world. Nike had the highest age standards -- higher than all of the other major recognized brands on the list.

Vada O. Manager, [Vada.Manager@nike.com]
Nike Director
Global Issues Management

What about labor mobility?

Thanks for your message and article. There is a lot to think about. Prior to Seattle, I had discussed with some Brazilian friends some of these issues. Frankly, I have mixed feelings about linking sanctions to labor conditions. This can be a powerful instrument to widen the good aspects of what we call here globalization: international integration, free trade (better income distribution, higher educational standards, etc.). But it can also be used as a tool to block a country (like Cuba, for political-ideological reasons) not "adjusted" to "Northern" patterns, and that is dangerous and grounds for concern.

The Brazilian government's position is clear: End the subsidies for agricultural commodities in the EU and USA. I think everybody could agree with that, but at the same time we have the worst case of income distribution in the world, we still use a lot of child labor, and we are rapidly destroying the environment.

One point I haven't seen in the discussion: The word "trade" applies to commodities, services, and products (including inputs). Why not also discuss the labor force (an input) freedom to move freely from country to country? The labor market around the world would be shaken to the core if people could move around freely....For me that is a part of the trade-off and conditions to be established.

Silvio Sant´Ana, [esquelbr@esquel.org.br]
Esquel Foundation
http://www.esquel.org.ec/paginas/ingles.htm

On to the Americas.

Robin Rosenberg of the North South Center maintains that the debacle in Seattle "set back important advances in market access for both developing and developed countries, a number of win-win initiatives in the environment/trade relationship, and a reasoned consideration of labor issues within the multilateral trading system." Rosenberg cites internal weaknesses of the World Trade Organization as the main cause of the breakdown of the trade talks. Yet the failure of the Seattle Ministerial, Rosenberg says, "should not be allowed to derail the centerpiece of a Western Hemisphere project to forge an Inter-American community of prosperous democracies."

The collapse of the WTO negotiating round may be good news for the regional trade integration process in the Americas, Rosenberg argues. "The Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) will benefit from having negotiators freed up from global liberalization talks to focus on the more far-reaching goals of a free trade agreement among a community of democracies with much more cohesion than the disparate and conflicting interplay of interests at the WTO," he says. Rosenberg recommends the developing countries of Latin America coordinate their negotiating position to develop more effective and efficient contributions to the FTAA process.

(For the complete Rosenberg article, "Stillborn in Seattle: The WTO Debacle – An Opportunity for the FTAA?", please click here.)

Robin Rosenberg
Deputy Director
North-South Center, University of Miami
http://www.miami.edu/nsc/

Getting the word out abroad.

Thank you for the invitation to comment. I deeply enjoy your thoughtful articles. I profoundly agree that trade opening will force developing countries to deal with and improve environmental and labor standards, if it is done right. I don't know if you have a way to incorporate your articles in foreign newspapers, since for the majority of developing country citizens, these issues are non-existent or are portrayed with a wrong picture. Have you ever tried to do this? It would be a major input in helping to influence public opinion and build pressure over government positions.

Patricia Gay, [pgaywebb@igc.org]
Environmental Policy and Development Latin America and the Caribbean

Think domestically.

Thanks for sending me your article. During my years on the senate finance committee staff, I was in charge of "trade policy." I wrote extensively on the GATT issue and developed suggestions for the Trade Act of 1974, which the Committee largely adopted and fought through the conference committee. I also organized hearings on the multinational corporation at which George Meany testified and spoke positively about the staff document outlining the issues. I would be happy to make those materials available to you on a loan basis.

Your suggestions seem reasonable at first glance, although I would have to study them more. My main suggestion is to concentrate on domestic legislation. Trying to rewrite the international agreements proves to be a difficult and I think fruitless task. We wrote "procedures" into the 74 Act for unions to petition under the antidumping, countervailing duty, "escape clause", and "retaliation provisions." I don't know to what extent the unions have taken advantage of these provisions; industry certainly has. We also included fair labor standards as a negotiating goal along with reciprocity. I can see putting basic child protection clauses as qualifying language in the GSP sections to encourage beneficiaries not to exploit child labor. If I were labor I would concentrate on domestic legislation not on trying to rewrite the WTO.

Bob Best, [bbest@culture-of-life.org]
The Life Research and Communications Institute
www.culture-of-life.org

UN si, WTO no.

These are complex issues you raise. I must admit that I'm among those who stands solidly against strengthening the WTO or expanding its mandate simply because it has teeth. That argument is somewhat like turning to the fox to guard the chicken coop for the same reason--because he has teeth. Bear in mind the long experience of Southern countries of having things imposed on them from the North in the name of helping them. It goes all the way back to colonialism. They have good reason to be uneasy when a Northern country starts talking about dictating their standards and imposing sanctions if they do not acquiesce. It is hard to imagine the folks who represent us in the WTO imposing sanctions for anything unless in the end it is to serve the narrow interests of one or another Northern corporation.

In my view we can have only one world governing body to deal with all the complex issues that are linked to trade. For all its limitations, the appropriate body is the United Nations. I did an article on this that came out in the Green Party U.S. journal that came out about the time of the WTO meeting. (See "A Planetary Alternative to the Global Economy" in Related Documents above.)

Dave Korten
President
People-Centered Development Forum
http://iisd.ca/pcdf