(Page 376, Chapter 12.3, "Prevent the Continued Growth of Islamist Terrorism," The 9/11 Commission Report, July 22, 2004)

As President Bush weighs what he can do swiftly to implement recommendations from the 9/11 Commission Report, he should seize the rare opportunity to send a clear message about what the United States stands for at world trade talks in Geneva, where 147 nations are rushing to agree on a "July Package" to expand the World Trade Organization. The WTO is an important policy arena where decisions impact how nations can develop and whether they can lift people out of poverty, which is the focus of the WTO's current negotiations.

US foreign economic policy not only shapes much of the world's opinion about us; it can directly encourage many of the conditions of social and economic marginalization that engender terrorism. For example, America's willingness to blindly support investor-friendly governments in oil-exporting nations has helped create a region where the only political expression possible is violence. Many Americans may dismiss such situations to "corrupt local officials" but other people often view us as the enabling hand sponsoring repressive regimes. The US positions put forth in world trade talks can advance the larger "struggle of ideas" to influence the way the world–from hesitant military partners to potential terrorist recruits - views the United States.

So, how are current US positions measuring up to the principles recommended in the 9/11 Report?

The US agreed in 2001 to give other poor nations "less than full reciprocity" with respect to access to US markets. This means that, if the US opens its markets wider to more imports from poor nations, then we would not require poor nations to open their markets by an equal amount. In the last WTO round, poor nations opened their markets, allowing cheap imports to flood domestic markets and drive under family businesses, infant industries, and precious jobs. Meanwhile the richest nations opened only those markets they wanted to.

Now, US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick is breaking that promise by insisting that all nations undertake "mandatory and comprehensive" liberalization of market access, ignoring earlier pledges to take into account the most vulnerable nations. If the U.S. is to carry moral authority in the eyes of other nations and lead a just international system, we can no longer conduct in negotiations with schoolyard bullying tactics.

The G90, a grouping of the poorest ninety nations, has said that the WTO's proposed July Package "would further deepen the crisis of de-industrialization and accentuate the unemployment and poverty crisis in our countries." Indonesia, the nation with the largest Muslim population, has rejected the proposal, saying that developing countries would not accept a deal that forces even the poorest countries to reduce their tariffs, as opposed to opening voluntarily.

G90 Ministers took the unusual step of formally expressing its dismay at how poor nations' inputs are routinely ignored by the chairs of negotiating groups. Humane treatment implies a commitment to addressing, not ignoring, the legitimate needs of the most marginalized people; failure to do so creates distrust in political processes as a means to resolve differences peacefully.

Many poor countries see the US as an imperial power flouting world trade rules, even though American corporations mainly wrote them. Perhaps the best known example is US export subsidies for cotton, a crop that is key to the economies of nations critical to countering terrorism, such as Egypt, Turkey, and Pakistan. A recent WTO ruling reconfirmed the illegality of US cotton subsidies because they deflate world cotton prices and artificially reduce foreign farmers' incomes. US subsidies for cotton increased from over $30 million to almost $3 billion between 1996 ‚ 2001, with less than 10 percent America's cotton farmers receiving almost 80 percent of the $10 billion in subsidies.

In Pakistan, the country where Osama bin Laden is believed to be hiding and whose capture depends on Pakistan's willingness to cooperate with the US, 67 percent of export earnings are based on cotton. Together with a large block of developing nations, they are insisting that the US reduce its export subsidies. But the current US position makes no clear commitment to reducing them. In fact, the US is now trying to change rules to allow the expansion of export subsidies. We will never win the hearts and minds of people with empty stomachs and open ears that hear us say only, "do as we say, not as we do."

Although most Americans may not be paying attention, you can bet much of the developing world is watching, especially in nations where people suspect the WTO as a tool of the US to govern the global economy to its own advantage. The US can either confirm or deny such suspicions, depending on our positions taken in WTO this week. The world will read a subtle but unmistakable message that either the US is rigging the system for itself or that it wants to apply principles of fairness and equity to everyone everywhere, even in hard-nosed rules of global commerce.

On the day the report was released, President Bush pledged that he looks forward to "working with the responsible parties in my administration to move forward on the recommendations." A change of mind on trade would be a first step toward showing that we are truly willing to "walk the walk" of building a new international system to promote world peace and global justice.