|
Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 03:16 P.M. Pacific WTO: This time, loudest dissent may come from within By Alwyn Scott Seattle Times business reporter CANCÚN, Mexico – Antonia Juhasz read the World Trade Organization's future in a coffee-shop restroom on Capitol Hill in 1999. "WTO" was scrawled on the wall. Around it: a circle with a slash – the international symbol for "No." For much of that year, Juhasz had traveled the U.S. to stir interest in an obscure arbiter of trade rules, which was then just 4 years old. Few knew about WTO. Few cared. She thought graffiti meant her message might be getting through – at least in lefty Seattle. Several weeks later, she had proof. Protesters from across the country took to the streets, violence erupted and the WTO splashed onto front pages. And Seattle landed in history as the city that connected "WTO" and "No" in the public's mind. Today, as trade ministers from 146 countries sit down in Cancún for five days of talks on trade rules, the debate is more highly charged and the world is more aware. But this time it may not be the protesters who matter. The World Trade Organization (WTO) What: 146 trade ministers meet to discuss global issues When: Today through Sunday Where: Cancún, Mexico Why it matters: Rules and regulations set by the WTO affect whether wheat farmers receive subsidies, how companies that produce airplanes are taxed, whether you can call a glass of Chablis produced outside of France Chablis. Remember when: WTO came to Seattle in November 1999 and protesters disrupted the meeting, forcing ministers to leave without starting a new round of talks – their No. 1 objective. Fair trade This time, the writing on the wall is coming from WTO's own members. Poor countries have stepped up opposition to rules they say impoverish their people and enrich wealthy countries. Among other things, they want to sell sugar and wheat to rich countries, just as rich countries sell to them. Wealthier countries also are talking tough. Australia, Canada and other big agricultural exporters known as the Cairns group demanded yesterday that the U.S., Japan and the European Union open their markets and stop paying subsidies to farmers. The big three, Cairns says, keep putting money in farmers' wallets, using tariffs to keep out competing crops and dumping their own surpluses on world markets, producing misery for farmers elsewhere. They do this while demanding other countries cut tariffs and subsidies. The Cairns group has joined forces with the Group of 20, a collection of developing nations that includes heavyweights such as China, Brazil and India to push the big three on agriculture. The U.S. has said it is willing to get rid of tariffs and subsidies, which totaled $300 million to Washington state farmers last year, if Europe and Japan do, too. Neither appears willing. "The battle here is how far can we get to elimination," Robert Zoellick, the U.S. trade representative, said yesterday. Protesters are weighing in, too. While they sometimes concede that trade has generated prosperity, they widely condemn globalization, the process of integrating economies by loosening government restrictions. Globalization, they say, might produce lower prices and a wealth of variety in stores. But its other costs are high: shifting rich-country jobs to poorly paid workers overseas, wiping out culture and degrading the environment. They also charge that WTO's proceedings are secretive and undemocratic, since WTO decisions can alter or veto national laws. The perception of a common enemy has drawn together many long-standing adversaries – environmentalists, steelworkers, Teamsters, human-rights activists – and given the protest movement power. Those forces are on display as groups organize alternative forums and teach-ins here. The Battle in Seattle made the protesters' job easier. "Instead of starting with what the WTO is, you start with what has it done to you lately," said Juhasz, a project director at the International Forum on Globalization in San Francisco. But some people from poor countries are pessimistic that these forces will produce a deal they like. "In my talks with Philippine officials, they have been uniformly cynical about there being any progress in Cancún that would reconcile developing-country and developed-country interests," said Walden Bello, director of Focus on the Global South, a Bangkok-based group working on trade and development issues. "The best thing for developing countries in Cancún is stalemate or a derailed ministerial." To its credit, the WTO responded to the anti-globalist rage that boiled over in Seattle. Its subsequent meeting, in November 2001, was held in Doha, Qatar, a tiny Middle Eastern emirate with well-controlled borders. In that setting, WTO issued a statement that recognized that most members are poor countries and promised to "seek to place their needs and interests at the heart of the work program." That program, known as the Doha Development Agenda, has been the starting point for talks. But protesters and others say it has failed to live up to its promises. Among their criticisms: • An agreement last month allows needy countries to import cheaper, generic drugs for malaria, tuberculosis and AIDS. But developing countries say the rules water down what was discussed in Doha, and restrictions will make them unworkable. • Developed countries want to put four new issues on the table: investment, government procurement, trade facilitation and competition. Supporters say they will bring competition and efficiency to such areas as health care, water services and education, perhaps bettering living standards for millions. Critics contend they will lead to corporate control of these sectors, with worse outcomes for the world's poor. 900 interest groups The potential for conflict is great. More than 900 interest groups are here. That compares with a few dozen admitted to the talks in Doha. This peninsular resort is teeming with policy experts, protesters and police. Mexico has stationed white-jumpsuited security guards nearly every 50 yards around the conference hotels, and trucked in forces with riot gear. Coast-guard ships are plying the tranquil turquoise waters, with helicopters and airplanes on alert. Police briefly shut access to the hotel strip yesterday, halting a protest march. There were no reports of violence. Organizers say they plan to bring farmers from the fields of Mexico to march today and talk about how free trade has harmed them. One sign of change: Few if any Seattle organizations made the trek to Cancún. Jeremy Simer, director of the Community Alliance for Global Justice, a Seattle group active in 1999, said the group decided to skip Mexico and focus on a November meeting in Miami of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), which would extend NAFTA-type rules to 34 Latin American countries. "We thought it was more strategic" to get the word out about FTAA, he said. In Seattle, protests captured the headlines and put WTO on the map. But Cancún may be quite different. This time, what happens at the table – whether poor nations confront the rich – might be far more significant than anything that happens on the street. Especially if they hold out for what they say they want. Return to home page FAIR USE NOTICE: This document contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. The International Forum on Globalization is making this article available in our efforts to advance the understanding of environmental, corporate accountability, human rights, labor rights, social justice issues, etc. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. |