WTO Needs to Give Up its Secrecy
12/2/99
*******************************
RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:
Title: The WTO Isn't Enough
Source: The Washington Post via International Herald Tribune
Status: Copyright 1999, contact source for permission to reprint
Date: December 2, 1999
Globalization is a maddeningly elusive foe. The bundle of forces that
it connotes - mobile capital, mobile labor, mobile goods - has no
clear location or author; there is nobody to go and shout at.
So perhaps it is not surprising that the conference of the World
Trade Organization was met with violent street protests on Tuesday. A
mute resentment had been building up for years. The conference
offered an opportunity for a statement.
This may turn out to be no bad thing, if the trade ministers in
Seattle draw the right lessons. The first is that the advance of
globalization cannot be taken for granted, no matter how much
prosperity it promises.
Trade advocates, the Clinton administration foremost among them, have
failed to convince voters of their case, largely because they lack
the courage to defend trade as opposed to exports. At every
opportunity, the administration boasts of how much America is selling
abroad, but it neglects to add that imports are good, too. Imports
reduce prices, spur competition and prevent the dollar from growing
so strong as to stifle exports. Because politicians only defend half
of trade, voters believe that trade is only half good. This concedes
the argument to trade's opponents.
Next, it is clear that the international organizations that oversee
the new globalized order suffer from a certain perceived lack of
legitimacy.
A few years ago the World Bank was the target of furious protest from
environmentalists and nongovernmental aid agencies. The bank has
responded by reaching out to critics and by channeling a growing
share of its money through those agencies. In the same way, the
International Monetary Fund now stands accused of arrogance and
secrecy. It is under pressure to make the selection process for its
new boss more open than it used to be. Mike Moore, the World Trade
Organization's chief, understands the need to win over critics. He
has showered the nongovernmental groups in Seattle with invitations
to consultations and briefings. The Clinton administration is even
more eager. Commenting on Tuesday's protests, President Bill Clinton
declared that the protesters should be brought within ''the
process.'' In principle, one might object that unelected advocacy
groups have no right to special treatment, but the Internet has
handed these groups too much power to make their complete exclusion
practical.
To reach out to the critics, the World Trade Organization needs to
become more open; in particular, its dispute settlement panels should
give up their current secrecy. But the WTO should not seek to buy
legitimacy by taking all criticisms to heart. If it took on as much
of the role of protecting labor standards and the environment as its
critics want, it would quickly lose focus. Those issues may need
international regulation of some kind, but they should come under the
umbrella of United Nations agencies or Kyoto-like programs.
This holds a final lesson, one that some Republicans in Congress
might ponder. Trade these days is so entwined with social issues that
selective internationalism is decreasingly possible. It used to be
fine to support trade but denounce international environmental
accords at the same time. But in the absence of a strong regulatory
framework for the environment, disputes about animal conservation and
air pollution have ended up at the WTO, putting the organization
under great strain. The health of the WTO may turn out to require
something like a world environmental organization.