September 20, 1999
Demonstrations took place around the world last week as environmental, consumer and other public interest groups called for a moratorium on further trade liberalisation and an assessment of the impacts from the Uruguay Round agreements. More than 1000 non-governmental organisations (NGOs) from 77 countries issued a statement opposing a new round of global trade talks. The NGO joint statement said that the organisations were opposed to further trade liberalisation and called for an in-depth review of existing WTO agreements to address the impact on, inter alia, marginalised communities, development, environment, human right and labour rights.
The London-based Consumers' International (CI) representing about 150 consumers groups in over 100 countries last week said it could not back the launch of a new trade round unless fundamental reforms to the WTO were made first. The 14 September announcement followed the release of a CI report in August critical of the WTO. CI had offered its endorsement of the Uruguay Round in 1993, but said that while Uruguay Round agreements promised much, thus far they have delivered very little for consumers. The report, titled "Consumer Rights and the Multilateral Trading System: What Needs to be Done Before a Millennium Round," argues that that consumer rights are being undermined by the WTO system as it exists now.
"Increasing world trade can bring important benefits to consumers," said Julian Edwards, CI Director-General. "But we insist that they must be shared equitably. Governments need to commit themselves to a very specific agenda of reviewing, problem solving and fully implementing existing agreements. Equitable, sustainable development and the needs of the world's poorest consumers must have top priority."
At a Washington, D.C. rally on 15 September, Ralph Nader -- founder of the watchdog group Public Citizen -- warned that the WTO threatens health and environmental standards. "The WTO is the greatest surrender of our national, state and local sovereignty and subordinates our health, safety and environmental standards to the imperatives on international trade," Mr. Nader said. The Washington, D.C. rally was attended by a handful of U.S. lawmakers who called for a reassessment of Uruguay Round commitments before any further trade liberalisation.
Also last week, WTO-reform activists called for transparency in the WTO Dispute Settlement Process. Rhoda Karpattan, president of the U.S.- based Consumers Union, criticised the inability of NGOs to make their views known during WTO dispute hearings. "Consumer interests have no rights," she declared. "This is against the common law jurisprudence of the United States and other countries." Adding to that, Mike Dolan of Global Trade Watch argued that the WTO has a "judicial role that is extremely untransparent and extremely undemocratic."
Observers note that last week's events offer a preview of what is to come when WTO Members meet for the Third WTO Ministerial in Seattle from 30 November - 3 December. Hundreds of thousands of people are expected to converge on Seattle representing environmental, consumer and labour groups opposed to the WTO and further trade liberalisation.
David Hartridge, Director of the WTO Trade in Services Division, said last week that NGOs who contend the WTO does more harm than good are misguided. "To say that the WTO is harmful is literally to say the world would be better off without a multilateral set of rules on trade. It's manifest nonsense. Nobody could seriously defend that position," Mr. Hartridge stated. "But you can perfectly well say that some of the individual rules should be revised. That's okay; that's what rules are for," he said.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C íŸ 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
