The WTO was born in 1995 from Marrakech Agreement. The basics of the Organization are:[1]
- Non discrimination treaty is promoted between national and foreign companies.
- Nations attempt to give similar concessions one another.
- Negotiations and processes must be fair, opened and must be governed by similar rules.
- The necessity of positive discrimination for developing countries is recognised
The practical application of these basics into the worldwide reality can not avoid debate and reflection. Even in the internal system some imperfections can already be detected. For instance, start of negotiations can be agreed by simple majority if consensus is not achieved (art. IX) and, although 1 person = 1 vote, developed countries take advantage of this situation.[2] This graphical example will be enough to corroborate it: In the Hong Kong summit European delegation was composed by 832 people, EU representation was integrated by 356 people and by 229 for Japan. These details must be compared to representation of Bolivia 7, Rwanda 7, Gambia 2 and Central African Republic which did not have any representative.[3]
On the other hand, it must be considered that WTO has helped developing countries being listened and considered in the worldwide commerce. Now developed countries have to deal with interests of countries which did not have in mind for decisions taking previously. According to WTO data, more than 1500 millions of people have joined global commerce since its birth.[4]
It can be considered that, at least, world powers have now processes which restrain them. However, critics estimate that the aforementioned basics are just a declaration of intentions because it is clear that WTO policies just privilege richest countries.[5]Wordwide trade has tripled but weak countries do not seem to profit by this situation.[6] Actually, WTO regulations can have a deep impact in these economies. Ghana manages short of cash and owns a substantial foreign debt. As a condition of its loans, it has to follow IMF rules for structural adjustment. What this usually means is removing subsidies from local agriculture or industry, opening up its market, welcome to privatization and poverty in the agricultural sector of these countries as an overall consequence because they can not compete against cheaper imports originating from developed countries.[7]
As opposed to this lack of solidarity, it is possible to focus on Peter Sutherland´ speech (GATT and WTO Director-General from1993 to 1995). He advises that WTO “was not created as a development agency”. When he deals with the present African situation, he considers “its failures are not WTO faults.” The problem is that the continent has not been able to participate in globalization, it has not infrastructures, even not formation and education and in addition, its governments are corrupt.[8]
So, who are the great favoured in this “Agreement for the equality”? Developing countries has, at least, a forum which they can demonstrate in and they also enjoy some advantages that were not even thought before.[9] However, it seems that someone else owns power and money. Is there a failure in the system? Should it be corrected? If that is the case, who wants to correct it…?
[1] G Hidayat, ‘WTO and Neoliberalism’ [2008]Dedynhidayat.blogspot.com
[2] M García, ‘ La OMC en el marco de la globalización capitalista’(2001) 3 DERECHOS PARA TODOS
[3] New Internationalist Magazine, ‘Junk the WTO’(2006) 4(388) New Internationalist Magazine
[5] It must be considered the suspension of the WTO Ministerial Conference in Seattle. One of the reasons was supported by Southern countries, which showed its disaggrement with the fact of not being mostly invited to the "green room" meetings celebrated before the Conference and having to sign a Conference draft which they did not participate in.
[7] n3
[8] Universia-Knowledge@Wharton, ‘La OMC a merced de los países desarrollados’ (2007)
[9] B Ramsey, WTO membership is a trade-off for nations[2008] Seattlepi Business
No comments:
Post a Comment