Criticisms on the WTO

William Cowper once said, “Freedom has a thousand charms to show, that slaves, however

contented, will never know.” Universal freedom is the capacity to be free from negative coercion and to

be able to access the most basic of human rights without regulation or prejudice. The projected

purpose for the existence of the WTO is for the promotion of free-trade for practically, the entire world.

It is supposed to break down barriers in international trade so as to make the world market available for

all. Right now, that is not the case. It has been evident that the WTO is being used to implement a

series of very protectionist policies in order to promote monopolies and subordinate the value of life to

the value of profit.

The WTOi (World Trade Organization) was founded in the wake of its predecessor, the GATT

(Generally Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), which was founded at the end of the 2nd World War during

the Bretton Woods Conferenceii. One of the purposes of its creation was to help in the post-war

developmental aid effort across the globe. It was a treaty that set rules and guidelines in the practice of

international trade through adjustments in tariffs and quotas. The WTO was officially created and is

based in January of 1995, in Geneva, Switzerland. The WTO serves as an administrator of international

trade rules, a forum for international trade issues disputes, and as technical assistance in the

international trade arena. It currently has 158 members as of February 2013. Its current Director-

General is Pascal Lamy.

During the course of its existence, the WTO has been subjected to numerous criticisms all

questioning its true motives, one commenting that the WTO lacks transparencyiii despite that fact that

transparency has been defined in its main goals. It further states that whenever resolutions on disputes
are made, the details in the decision-making process were very smoky. Behind this veil of smoke, lie the

more powerful nations that control the WTO and take advantage of weaker nations in pursuit of more

beneficial outcomes from the decision. Another critic points out the lack of true democracyiv in the

WTO. It points out the use of a “Green Room” for consensus-making. A consensus is when the WTO

convenes, under the Director-General, a committee composed of the more powerful and influential

representations or the “quad” (the United States, the European Union, Canada, and Japan) plus a few

selected representations to come up with a resolution that will be imposed on the entire body. What

makes this unfair, is that countries that do not have a seat in the Green Room are left voiceless and are

therefore disregarded, effectively ignoring the WTO’s 1 Country, 1 Vote policy. Those who have been

left voiceless, especially those in the 3rd world, are more often than not; taken advantage of through

policies that they never agreed to, that negatively affects their national economic health. A statement

in the documentaryv; “WTO: Why is it Bad for You?” goes as far as saying that the plenary session is now

basically a speech-hearing forum and not an actual policy-making body because the real decisions are

the ones drafted in the Green Room. In relation to the absence of a working democracy in the WTO, it

also interferes in individual sovereignty of some nations. This is evident in their “most favored nation”

provision that states that a country must treat all other trading partners as it would treat its favorite

trading partner. Through this policy, countries cannot favor specific countries in the conduct of trade

and business, not even itself. In effect, a country promoting the hiring of their own citizens by local

companies, protectionist measures applied to safeguard local products and measures taken to protect

the environment that do not adhere to their prescriptions are deemed illegal by the WTO.

The United Nations has defined its MDG’s (Millennium Development Goals)vi. They are:

eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, to achieve universal primary education, to promote gender

equality and empower women, to reduce child mortality, to improve maternal health, to combat
HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, to ensure environmental sustainability, and to develop a global

partnership for development. Some would argue that the WTO does not adhere to some of these goals

through their policies that are more profit-centric rather than human-centric. For example, water has

been defined as a basic human right, but WTO policies define it as a commodityvii. Therefore, the WTO

has restricted the distribution of water to those who can afford it. Basically, “anyone” can have access

to water, as long as they pay for it. Because of this policy, companies are able to dictate prices

according to the demand the commodity has. In effect, water, being of some high demand in some

areas of the world, give or take economic conditions, rises to an otherwise unattainable price,

unreachable to many who live hand-to-mouth. A theoretical example of such practices was stated in the

documentary (WTO: Why is it Bad for You?) that says; for example a village/family of farmers produced

a perfect seed, they start to plant it and it bears perfect bounty and they use this method for many

years. Then, by some twist of fate, a corporation manages acquire the formula for the seed and obtains

a patent. It will then be illegal for the farmers to grow the afore-mentioned “perfect plant” because

someone else holds the patent regardless of who invented it. The crop that they have planted for many

generations can never be planted and be benefitted from in their fields again without paying for

royalties.

The WTO is not a perfect system, nor is it a particularly good one. No one is really against the

notion of free trade and a standardized set of rules for international trade. The problem lies in the form

of these policies. Ideally, they should not sacrifice human rights, nor should they interfere with a

country’s national sovereignty. The rules that should exist should be those that promote truly free

trade, eliminate economic barriers, make room for subsidiaries, and are generally receptive to the value

of human life.
Words: 1,125

i
The WTO. (wto.org). Retrieved on February 17, 2013 on
http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/who_we_are_e.htm
ii
The GATT. Retrieved on February 17, 2013 on http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gatt.asp#axzz2LNAvFpAJ
iii
The dark side of the WTO. (2009). Retrieved on February 17, 2013 on
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/dark-side-of-the-wto.asp#axzz2LNAvFpAJ
iv
Top reasons to oppose the WTO. Retrieved on February 17, 2013 on
http://www.globalexchange.org/resources/wto/oppose
v
WTO: why is it bad for you?. Retrieved on February 17, 2013 on
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngUHNFGPABM
vi
The millennium development goals: eight goals for 2015. (2000) Retrieved on February 17, 2013 on
http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/mdgoverview.html
vii
The WTO’s threats to global water security: the general agreement on trade in services and beyond.
http://www.ifg.org/pdf/cancun/issues-WTOwater.pdf