[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.These negotiations hadbeen expected to finish long before, but were instead delayed by theaccidental bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade.The negoti-ations with China were stalled, then continued, and finally concludedjust shortly before the WTO ministerial.This prevented the UnitedStates from making all of the efforts that were needed to reach agree-ment on an agenda.But agreement might have been elusive anyway.Large differencesdivided the participants, including whether even to discuss certainissues.In agriculture, the United States and LDCs sided with otheragricultural exporters wanting to push ahead with negotiations.TheEuropean Union and Japan wanted nothing to do with that.The EUwas however on the side of the United States on another issue: laborstandards.Both wanted at least to talk about them in a new round,while LDCs, as noted here, were firmly opposed.LDCs, EU, andJapan sided together, against the United States, on anti-dumping.They wanted to reopen negotiations on this, in hopes of restrictingthe increasing use of these policies, but the United States refused.Finally, LDCs were unhappy with the backloading of the textile agree-ment and wanted to renegotiate the timetable, feeling that theyb723_Chapter-02.qxd 7/15/2009 9:58 AM Page 47What the Public Should Know about Globalization and the WTO 47had gotten very little market access in return for their acceptanceof the TRIPS agreement.Here too, the United States and EUrefused.On all of these issues, one of the parties did not want themeven discussed.There also were other problems encountered in Seattle.TheUnited States, as host of the meeting, was pushing for a new roundthat would include many issues and proceed rapidly, perhaps causingsome countries to feel they were being railroaded.Key players in thenegotiations were new to their jobs, including especially Mike Moore,who had been installed as Director General of the WTO only a shorttime before.Finally, the desire for further multilateral liberalizationmay have been diminished by many countries participation in variousregional agreements, such as NAFTA, Mercosur, and the various freetrade agreements of the EU.Meanwhile, the protestors were gathered in unprecedented abun-dance.They included representatives of U.S.labor unions, laborrights activists, environmental groups, human rights advocates, andanti-corporate interests.Their disruption of the meeting was confinedto conventional forms of protest, such as picketing, chanting, andblocking streets.However, the event and publicity also attracted agroup of self-described anarchists.They had no particular interest intrade or the WTO, but were bent only on destruction, and they madenews and enemies by throwing rocks and breaking windows.Thisdrew more attention than peaceful protest ever would have, but it isnot clear what effects it really had.Toward the end of the week of meetings, with the negotiationsmaking little progress, President Clinton arrived in Seattle and madea speech that seems to have derailed them completely.Previously,the United States and EU had both hoped to insert labor rights intothe negotiations, but only in a small way.They tried to persuade thedeveloping countries that the issue would only be discussed, notnegotiated, and that there certainly would not be any use of tradesanctions in pursuit of labor rights.Whether this could have suc-ceeded is unclear, but in any case, Clinton s speech explicitly men-tioned using trade sanctions to enforce labor rights.From then on,developing country opposition hardened, even to discussion, and itb723_Chapter-02.qxd 7/15/2009 9:58 AM Page 4848 A.V.Deardorff & R.M.Sternbecame clear that no agreement on an agenda for a new round wouldbe reached.As we said, the protestors take credit for this failure, while thenegotiators say that the protestors made little difference.We do notknow who is right, and perhaps nobody does.It does seem thatClinton s speech was the final straw that prevented agreement, and hemay have been influenced by the protests.On the other hand, even ifhe was responding to the protests, he may have decided that themeetings were going to fail anyway, and thus opted to collect politi-cal points for Al Gore from the opportunity.Or his first priority mayhave been permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) with China, andhe did not want to anger labor further until after the election.Wehave no way of knowing.It should be noted, however, that a failure of trade negotiations ishardly unprecedented.In the early 1980s, the United States alsofailed to initiate a new round, at another ministerial meeting.Later,with the Uruguay Round underway, negotiations collapsed severaltimes, with no apparent hope of being restarted.Nonetheless theydid, and the round eventually concluded successfully.It is thereforequite possible that what was not accomplished in Seattle will happenlater, at another time and place.What to Do?What are the possible next steps, for those who support the WTO?20What can they (we) do? The most obvious option is simply to con-tinue along the path already laid out in the Uruguay Round negotia-tions, which specified negotiations (the  built-in agenda ) that mustbe pursued under that agreement.That is happening.Indeed, lessinformed protestors must have wondered, on February 8, 2000,20For those who oppose it, the choices are working to cause its demise or workingto change it.The first might best be accomplished by getting the United States towithdraw, perhaps by putting pressure on Congress.The second might ultimatelyhappen in response to continued protests, although it would help if the protesterscould agree on what they want.b723_Chapter-02.qxd 7/15/2009 9:58 AM Page 49What the Public Should Know about Globalization and the WTO 49when the Wall Street Journal headlined  WTO Will Launch Talks toLower Trade Barriers, just how this could happen.This is not thenew round that failed in Seattle, but only a scheduled review of bar-riers in agriculture and services.But it is good that countries are onceagain talking.Perhaps most important for WTO supporters, however, would beto pursue any changes on which they and opponents can agree.Thiscould increase support for the WTO.Many would favor improvedtransparency in the operations of WTO panels, and a greater effort onthe part of the WTO and its friends to explain itself to the public.Indeed, this paper is an effort in the latter direction.Some supporters of the WTO may also favor, or at least accept,greater participation by NGOs.If that participation is limited tothe filing of friend-of-the-court briefs, which dispute settlementpanels could choose to read or not as they see fit, then thismight open up the process without unduly weighting it in favorof those with the most resources.21 However, we still prefer thatNGOs express their views through duly constituted national gov-ernments.If greater transparency serves better to inform the NGOsof what is being addressed in WTO discussions and DSM panels,then they should have no difficulty using governments to conveytheir views and the often valuable information that they canprovide.There is, however, one area where we definitely favor greaterparticipation in the WTO [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]