Why do people hate the WTO

bloggs

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3092502.stm

What is it about the WTO that causes such fury and angry amoung people? Why do people resort to vandalism and volience when it comes to town?

mike65

Socialist/anarchists turn up for a riot at any event like this
for WTO read G7, OECD, Davos, EU summit, etc....they do it because its now a habit. It started cos a riot is much easier than debate for those who indulge themselves.

Mike.

Wook

Originally posted by mike65
Socialist/anarchists

ahum, you think they are the same ?!

smiles

An awful lot of people think that international trade means globalisation and that globablisation is the worst possible thing that could happen to anyone.

I personally think that world trade if properly controlled and changed like the WTO (abeilt slowly) are doing then it would be a wave that raises everyone's economic and social status.

<< Fio >>

bloggs

I remember there was something like this happening in London (could have been May Day though) and a saw an 'anti-globalisation' guy (wearing a Nike shirt) smashing up a McDonalds, hmmmm

shotamoose

Before trying to answer the question can I just take a moment to counter the same old prejudices that ALWAYS crop up whenever WTO/IMF/globalisation is mentioned.

First of all, not everyone who has a problem with the WTO is 'anti-globalisation', nor is everyone who is 'anti-globalisation' against the WTO.

Secondly, not everyone who has a problem with the WTO is a violent anarchist. I would have thought this was obvious by now, but no, apparently not.

People have lots of problems with the WTO. Some of these are unfair grievances, for example they blame the WTO for mistakes or concessions their own governments have made. A lot of the antagonism faced by the WTO might be removed if member governments were a lot more honest about their actions within it. Of course, if they were a lot more honest there would probably be many more legitimate complaints.

For example, as is well known now, rich countries have been not only spending billions on protecting and subsidising agricultural production, often to the detriment of developing countries, they have been promising to remove these barriers for years now, and extracting concessions from other WTO members in return. Despite completely failing to uphold their side of the bargain, they keep coming back to the negotiating table, dangling this admittedly enticing carrot in front of everyone and extracting yet more concessions, promising that this time they'll actually reform their agriculture in the interests of development, honest. They did this at the last big WTO conference in Doha in 2001, but ever since they've dragged their feet and implemented only pitifully inadequate reforms.

More legitimate complaints? Rich countries have used every trick in the book to bully, bribe and cajole others into complying with their demands, threatening to withdraw aid or trade preferences if they don't. The agreement on intellecual property rights serves only the rich countries and holds back the development of the poor ones. The promised impact asssessment of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) has never been carried out, because rich countries know that it will show that liberalisation in this area is almost entirely in their own interests.

Of course, you could say that these are complaints against WTO member countries rather than the WTO itself. But if the institutions and processes of the WTO were not so incredibly untransparent, vague and open to abuse, there would be far less scope for this kind of naughty behaviour. Organisationally and culturally, the WTO is still really a rich men's club, with most important decisions being made between small groups and then presented to the rest of the membership. The problem is that it now has well over a hundred members, most of them poor countries not very happy with this kind of process, and it is technically an agreement-by-consensus organisation. So maybe this time around (in Cancun) the developing majority will be able to block the developed minority from running the show. There's a real danger, though, that the rich countries will simply pick up their ball and call off the game if this happens.

In a nutshell, people resent the WTO because it embodies all the worst aspects of neoliberal globalisation - secretive, undemocratic, economistic, domintated by the rich, more concerned with the rights of corporations than those of peoples or countries. None of this is written in stone - it's perfectly possible to conceive of a WTO run along fair lines and producing good outcomes for poor countries. It's just that it doesn't seem very likely.

SkepticOne

So what is wanted by the protesters? Shut down the WTO, reform the WTO or replace it with some other body?

PH01

Originally posted by SkepticOne
So what is wanted by the protesters? Shut down the WTO, reform the WTO or replace it with some other body?

They want a year zero solution where we all live in mud huts, grow our own vegatables and be in harmony with nature. Oh, and have the internet.

Turnip

Some of the criticisms of the WTO are warranted, most aren't. For example, the WTO bans countries from treating products made with child labour differently from those made with adult labour. But if countries ban products made with child labour then the children get the sack, they're likely to end up on the street or pushed into prostitution and their country's economy suffers. What's the solution there?

Originally posted by PH01
They want a year zero solution where we all live in mud huts, grow our own vegatables and be in harmony with nature. Oh, and have the internet.

Shotamoose, could you dumb down your post a bit for the benefit of this person? He didn't get it at all.

bonkey

Originally posted by bloggs
What is it about the WTO that causes such fury and angry amoung people?

Well, those who you refer to (i.e. the violent protestors) would generally seem to have such fury and anger provoked at anything they see as being part of "The Problem". This Problem differs from individual to individual, group to group, but by and large it seems to fall under the general categorisation (at least to me) of anger at excessive corporatism/corporate capitalism.

Ultimately, for me, the WTO typifies what I see as the growing lack of distinction between Corporation and State. We've had Church and State, and now the Church has been supplanted by the Almighty Dollar. The WTO appears] more concerned with protecting business then in anything else.

However, looking beyond that, the WTO has a number of other problems with it. For example, membership of the WTO requires that all members accept its decisions as legally binding.

Now, consider that for a moment. Think back about the furore that ensued in the last EUnification referendum in Ireland. A major problem that people had was our losing our national independance by allowing Brussels to dictate to us......and yet most of those who had this problem see nothing wrong with allowing the WTO to dictate to us.

Combine the two together, and you've a potentially very scary combination - an organisation which seems more focussed on protecting business then the citizen/state, coupled with the ultimate power that membership requires complete obedience.

Could we have a workable WTO? Sure we could. Just like we could have a UN without veto, and all of those other idealistic international bodies that are possible. The problem is that those in a position to form such bodies (i.e. the powerful nations) are exactly the ones who want to ensure that such idealistic organisations never occur in practice, because it would cause them to lose out.

jc

SkepticOne

Originally posted by bonkey
Could we have a workable WTO? Sure we could. Just like we could have a UN without veto, and all of those other idealistic international bodies that are possible. The problem is that those in a position to form such bodies (i.e. the powerful nations) are exactly the ones who want to ensure that such idealistic organisations never occur in practice, because it would cause them to lose out.

So which would you advocate? Reform or abolition.

Turnip

Since people like are too lazy to try googling the WTO to find out what the problem with it is, I've gone and done it. This seems like a pretty good example. As any idiot can see there's nothing about anarchists or mud huts mentioned.

http://www.motherjones.com/fotc/fotc12.html

1: The WTO prioritizes trade and commercial considerations over all other values. WTO rules generally require domestic laws, rules and regulations designed to further worker, consumer, environmental, health, safety, human rights, animal protection, or other non-commercial interests to be undertaken in the "least trade-restrictive" fashion possible -- almost never is trade subordinated to these noncommercial concerns.

2: The WTO undermines democracy. Its rules drastically shrink the choices available to democratically controlled governments, with violations potentially punished with harsh penalties. The WTO actually touts this overriding of domestic decisions about how economies should be organized and corporations controlled. "Under WTO rules, once a commitment has been made to liberalize a sector of trade, it is difficult to reverse," the WTO says in a paper on the benefits of the organization which is published on its web site. "Quite often, governments use the WTO as a welcome external constraint on their policies: 'we can't do this because it would violate the WTO agreements.'"

3: The WTO does not just regulate, it actively promotes, global trade. Its rules are biased to facilitate global commerce at the expense of efforts to promote local economic development and policies that move communities, countries and regions in the direction of greater self-reliance.

4: The WTO hurts the Third World. WTO rules force Third World countries to open their markets to rich country multinationals, and abandon efforts to protect infant domestic industries. In agriculture, the opening to foreign imports, soon to be imposed on developing countries, will catalyze a massive social dislocation of many millions of rural people.

5: The WTO eviscerates the Precautionary Principle. WTO rules generally block countries from acting in response to potential risk -- requiring a probability before governments can move to resolve harms to human health or the environment.

6: The WTO squashes diversity. WTO rules establish international health, environmental and other standards as a global ceiling through a process of "harmonization;" countries or even states and cities can only exceed them by overcoming high hurdles.

7: The WTO operates in secrecy. Its tribunals rule on the "legality" of nations' laws, but carry out their work behind closed doors.

8: The WTO limits governments' ability to use their purchasing dollar for human rights, environmental, worker rights and other non-commercial purposes. In general, WTO rules state that governments can make purchases based only on quality and cost considerations.

9: The WTO disallows bans on imports of goods made with child labor. In general, WTO rules do not allow countries to treat products differently based on how they were produced -- irrespective of whether made with brutalized child labor, with workers exposed to toxics or with no regard for species protection.

10: The WTO legitimizes life patents. WTO rules permit and in some cases require patents or similar exclusive protections for life forms.

shotamoose

Originally posted by SkepticOne
So what is wanted by the protesters? Shut down the WTO, reform the WTO or replace it with some other body?

It's a divisive issue among those who have a problem with the WTO as it is. Some say the project is unavoidably flawed, as rich country governments and their corporate sponsors will always be able to steer negotiations by fair means or foul, and anyway the apparent raison d'etre of the WTO - to standardise trading rules across the world so as to smooth the path of free market global capitalism - is unacceptable.

Others say that we need a strong, rules-governed institution which provides both a forum for countries to come together to agree trade treaties for their mutual benefit, and an effective sanction when they flout those treaties.

I'm torn between the two, because the first description fits the reality but the second fits my hopes for the future. I think that with years of sustained, effective political campaigning of the kind we have seen in the run up to Cancun, the WTO could gradually be turned into something approaching the second idea. But I just think the rich countries will bail out when they see that happening, and in the meantime developing countries will continue to get screwed over.

Really what we need is a World Development Organisation: one that sees trade as a means to development rather than everything else as a means to trade; one that recognises that poor or vulnerable countries should not be required to open up their markets against their better judgement; one that adjusts trade, investment and patent laws to the social, economic and geographic peculiarities of each member; one that can support commodity prices to protect livelihoods in developing countries; and one that has fairness, development and democracy as its guiding principles and ultimate goals.

But how likely is that?

monument

Originally posted by bloggs
What is it about the WTO that causes such fury and angry amoung people? Why do people resort to vandalism and volience when it comes to town?

The simple answer is because they are not doing what they were set up to do. Some would even say they are doing the opposite.

bonkey

Originally posted by Turnip
As any idiot can see there's nothing about anarchists or mud huts mentioned.

Any idiot can also see that it doesn't address the question which PH01 was answering with that comment which has now attracted two posts from you where you can't seem to control your vitriol.

You've been warned before. You won't be again.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by SkepticOne
So which would you advocate? Reform or abolition.

Neither makes much difference, to be hnoest. The WTO is merely symptomatic, not causal.

Remove it, replace it, doesn't matter....the reasons why it is the way it is will continue to exist either way, and will find a new way to express themselves.

jc

swiss

Yes, but (using that medical analogy), by treating the symptoms one can alleviate pain and suffering whilst looking for a cure. While I think open trade can bring about tremendous benefits for countries, it is apparant that necessary checks and balances to ensure equity for all countries based on size, geographic position and economic strength simply does not exist.

Without wanting to put words in your mouth, I imagine that part of the 'cause' to which you were referring is the hegemony of 1st world countries, including the US and western European powers over 3rd world or economically marginalised nations. Although this will certainly be difficult to overcome, especially with the power of corporate lobby groups that routinely influence government policy with regard to trade relations, a reform of the WTO could bring about the changes necessary for such equity.

A doctrine or set of obligatory moral standards in relation to business conduct with regards to countries would go a long way to redressing the imbalance in the manner the WTO currently deals with member nations. However, given the attitude many people have towards the WTO as an organisation, perhaps a complete rework may be necessary, with a written constitution to ensure that there is recourse for countries who feel that they are being treated unfairly by such an organisation.

Of course, unless steps are undertaken to lobby for such a change, this is merely empty rhetoric. Many people feel that by protesting against the WTO as an organisation, the conditions under which it sprang up may be subject to greater attention and scrutiny.

Oh, and I would appreciate it if people stopped generalising protestors as 'anarchists' who live in mud huts. Calling people names doesn't help either. Discussion about the WTO in general has typically been marred by acrimony. Let's ensure that the same doesn't happen here.

shotamoose

Link: More detail on undemocratic practices in the WTO

Turnip

Originally posted by bonkey
Any idiot can also see that it doesn't address the question which PH01 was answering with that comment which has now attracted two posts from you where you can't seem to control your vitriol.

You've been warned before. You won't be again.

jc

ROFL. The question was, what's wrong with the WTO. A quick search on google produces masses of detailed criticism of the organisation, yet all trolls like PH01 can do is make some unfunny and unbackupable comment about mud huts. What's that about? Why is it, the more technology we have, the lazier people become? Judging from the Newsnight report last night, most of the objections about the WTO come from the world's poor. In Cancun it's mostly peasant farmers protesting, not middle class teenage anarchists.

bloggs

Originally posted by Turnip
not middle class teenage anarchists.

You forgot smelly (smelly middle class teenage anarchists)

BTW did anyone see Ali G last night at the anti-Nuke protest

Turnip

Originally posted by bloggs
You forgot smelly (smelly middle class teenage anarchists)

No. Hippies are the smelly beardy ones. Anarchists wash and are generally neat, short hair, and so on. Important difference.

PH01

Originally posted by Turnip
No. Hippies are the smelly beardy ones. Anarchists wash and are generally neat, short hair, and so on. Important difference.

So who are the ones then who want us all to live in mud huts and all that?
I'm very confused now.

Turnip

Originally posted by PH01
So who are the ones then who want us all to live in mud huts and all that?
I'm very confused now.

I don't know. But as far as I'm aware, anarchist/green types are all for ecologically friendly architecture, which is actually both necessary and desirable. Example.

The Beer Baron

Hippies are the smelly beardy ones.

Excuse me, I'm not a hippie.
Nor do I live in a mud hut.
What's wrong with being beardy and smelly anyways?
Better that than a Lynx-effected, blonde, hairgeled Westlife clone. Jeez- is masculinity a sin these days?

Anyways- I know this has nothing to do with the actual thread.
Basically I can't really contribute much else as everything has already been said.

Although what Shotamoose said, in particular, I rather like.
Mostly this concept:

Really what we need is a World Development Organisation:

That's something this world needs- not to exploit the 3rd world but possibly to invest in it. People don't look at the big picture though. We tend, as a species, to look to the fast buck and cannot even see our consequences a generation hence.
Rather than developing trade we should instead try to develop education, sanitation, utilities. Aid is one thing, but it's like making a great song and dance about patching one hole in a rubber dingy that's riddled with holes and already sinking.
Wouldn't it be better to invest our money this way- from an economic standpoint the dividens may well satisfy fatcats.
And more than that from a humanitarian standpoint which would certainly satisfy mudhut-dwelling luddites, clean-cut Ché Guevara-t-shirt-wearing anarchists and smelly beardy dinosaurs like me.
(Oh and the rest of humanity too of course)

Once again, however, I must echo Shotamoouse's sentiments when I say that such a scheme could fall foul to greed and corruption just as much as the WTO, the UN, EU the USA, USSR and all other idealistic acronyms.

All evident Utopias -in theory.
Doomed by fate on the eve of their conception.

bonkey

Originally posted by The Beer Baron
That's something this world needs- not to exploit the 3rd world but possibly to invest in it.

Heading off an an even alrger tangent...

I was watching an interview with Karzai the other day, where he (and someone else from the Afghan administration) was trlking about money.

Just after the US President asked for $87 billion to continue the war on terror, Karzai was talking about how the $4.5 billion (or was it 5.5?) that Afghanistan was promised was a drop in the ocean - that they needed an estimated $15 billion to "recover" to the level of being classified as a poor nation once more.

$15 billion to beciome poor.....

And so I was thinking....the investment argument doesn't really hold water. I mean...how much would you put in before getting something out. Sure - nations would read rewards from their" nvestment down the line - say, in a couple of generations - but thats not what investment is generally about and thats the problem.

And then something else occurred to me...

Bill Gates could single-handedly pay for the rebuilding of Afghanistan.

I find this somewhat perversely amusing, especially when I hear every so often about how the biggest problem facing the Gates' Foundation charity is that they can't give enough money away (as in the US, there's something about charities have to pay tax on anything they receive as a donation which they don't spend in X amount of time).

Forget funding other people's work Bill. Go build yourself a nation and rescue a people.

jc

shotamoose

Originally posted by bonkey
Just after the US President asked for $87 billion to continue the war on terror, Karzai was talking about how the $4.5 billion (or was it 5.5?) that Afghanistan was promised was a drop in the ocean - that they needed an estimated $15 billion to "recover" to the level of being classified as a poor nation once more.

So far as I know they haven't even received that $5.5 billion that was promised (not just by the US, but by various other countries too).

Firstly, it was promised to be delivered over a period of years. Secondly, This story from December 2002 says they only received 'most' of the promised aid for that year, and I think a lot of it must have come in towards the end because during the summer they were saying they had hardly got any at all.

The Beer Baron

Bill Gates could single-handedly pay for the rebuilding of Afghanistan...
....Bill Gates could single-handedly pay for the rebuilding of Afghanistan.

You mean unleash the developers of Windoze upon the enervated populous of a scorched, war-torn wasteland?

Putting Bill Gates in charge of the nation's sanitation, electricity, health, agriculture...oh dear lord.
After the USSR, after the Taliban, after "Enduring Freedom" (there's that F word again) I think that's just what they need.



Aid.exe has performed an illegal function in...
You are out of financial resources...
etc, etc, etc.

PH01

Bill Gates buys Afghanistan now there's a thought.

Did anyone see that South Korean farmer who killed himself in Cancoon yesterday as a protest to the WTO?

He was campaigning for subsidies to South Korean farmer to be increased. Not reduced.
Reduced subsidies is what is facing the Irish and EU farmers as well. Irish farmers commiting suicide - I can see it happening - happened before.

But at the end of the day don't we all want cheaper food?

The Beer Baron

Another thing I just thought of- instead of fostering trade the WTO in many ways actually forces countries to produce that which they can trade with rather than that which they could/should be producing.

It can stifle a country's economy just as much as it can open it.

shotamoose

Originally posted by PH01
But at the end of the day don't we all want cheaper food?

At any cost? Even if it means mass unemployment as agricultural protection drops around the world and only the most competitive exporters (ie those with enormous, industrialised, labour-light farms) stay in business? Even if it leads to more deforestation, lower soil quality, more food transport and thus more carbon emissions?

Not saying it will lead to all that, of course, just that there's a strong possibility

bonkey

Originally posted by PH01
Did anyone see that South Korean farmer who killed himself in Cancoon yesterday as a protest to the WTO?

He was campaigning for subsidies to South Korean farmer to be increased. Not reduced.

Why would any farmer want his subsidies reduced? Subsidies are paid to the farmer - incerasing them allows him to sell his produce at a lower price without going out of business. For the SK (and many other developers), this would result in increased competitiveness.

But at the end of the day don't we all want cheaper food?

Which we would get by the SK subsidising its farmers.

However, many developing nations can't afford the level of subsidy they would need to compete with the western nations, and so they instead are asknig that the subsidies in the west get reduced/eliminated. The altnerative is that their farmers can't compete. They can't compete nationally because the WTO etc. insist on letting foreign (subsidised) suppliers in who can undercut the locals becuse of the subsidisation, and they obviously can't compete internationally for the same reason.

Its a typical flaw in so-called open markets. The proponents of it won't accept tariffs etc. but will allow subsidisation. Of the two, one can be applied by all (tariffs), where as the other (subsidisation) has almost the same net effect but is only practical for the richer nations, and helps them basically screw the smaller players.

Yes, removal of subsidies would increase our food prices....by the same amount that the various governments stopped paying to the farmers.....which could be offset against a future tax-raise or something, which would mean that the real impact would be that we should be able to end up with more or less with the same cost of living as we do now.

jc

SkepticOne

Originally posted by bonkey
However, many developing nations can't afford the level of subsidy they would need to compete with the western nations, and so they instead are asknig that the subsidies in the west get reduced/eliminated.

I'm getting a bit tired of this term "The West". Japan subsidising its rice farmers has precicely the same effect on developing nations yet it is not in "The West". The term is out-dated imo.

colinsky

Subsidies INCREASE unfairness and inequity. For every farmer or producer who benefits from a subsidy, there is one in another country who suffers. Subsiding your own producers is the EXACTLY the same as putting a tariff on everyone else.

This IS what the WTO supports. Free trade is the absence of nationalized intervention. Nationalized intervention favours the citizens of one country over another. Again, that's not fair. Only free trade is fair.

Opposition to the WTO and free trade boils down to selfish opportunism or nationalist xenophobia.

edit: missing word

SkepticOne

Originally posted by bonkey
They can't compete nationally because the WTO etc. insist on letting foreign (subsidised) suppliers in who can undercut the locals becuse of the subsidisation, and they obviously can't compete internationally for the same reason.

What do you mean by foreign? Foreign to whom? Was the SK farmer who killed himself one of these foreigners?

Turnip

I'd like to see Tony Blair break the farmers the same way Mrs.Thatcher broke the miners. Send in 10,000 riot cops to sort out the countryside alliance swine. It's not very likely though. It's even less likely to happen here.

Turnip

America set to torpedo trade talks

Nick Mathiason and John Madeley in Cancun
Sunday September 14, 2003
The Observer

Fears are growing that the United States could effectively walk away from crucial trade talks in the Mexican resort of Cancun aimed at solving the deepening economic and social crisis afflicting billions of the world's poorest people.

As the World Trade Organisation negotiations entered their final hours, business leaders feared that efforts to strike a ground-breaking deal on trade distortions harming the developing world were in the balance.

The Observer

What happens if the US walks off? Bye bye WTO? is this what protesters want? I don't see that the collapse of the WTO helps anyone. Least of all the poor.

shotamoose

World trade talks collapse, says BBC

The world trade talks in Mexico have collapsed without agreement on the final day of discussions, delegates have said.

Kenyan delegate George Odour Ongwen said the talks were over and that the chairman, Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez, was calling delegates to announce the collapse.

After four days of talks rich and poor nations remained deeply divided on agricultural subsidies and rules on how countries should treat foreign investors.

A failure would probably postpone the implementation, planned for the end of next year, of a trade liberalisation pact the WTO adopted in 2001.

That last sentence is untrue. The collapse of the talks mean that there's nothing to implement. In fact, one of the major items on the agenda was implementation of what was agreed ten years ago in the 'Uruguay Round'. The failure of rich countries to live up to their responsibilities in this area and in agriculture, while simultaneously trying to exapand the agenda of the WTO into areas of their own advantage, seems to be behind the failure of this year's talks. That and the fact that developing countries have actually started standing up to them.

Where does the WTO go from here? I honestly don't know. This could be the beginning of its end.

bonkey

Originally posted by SkepticOne
What do you mean by foreign? Foreign to whom? Was the SK farmer who killed himself one of these foreigners?

Developing nations cannot afford to pay the same subsidies that developed nations do. As a result, they - the developing nations - are forced to allow food imported into their nation (from the subsidised, developed nations).

The "foreign" therefore would be "foreign to the developing nation". The SK farmer killed himself over subsidies being paid to farmers in foreign (to him) developed nations, which was putting him in an impossible position. He wanted more subsidies for SK farmers, so that they would be able to compete in the SK market against the foreign (to the SK) sales, although I'm sure that he would haev settled for subsidies ebing removed from the other nations.

Personally, I'm delighted to see the disarray this stand has left the WTO in. Its about time the developed nations realised that they can't just ride rough-shod over the rest of the world in the name of profit. All they're being asked to do is to play fair.

jc

SkepticOne

Originally posted by bonkey
The "foreign" therefore would be "foreign to the developing nation". The SK farmer killed himself over subsidies being paid to farmers in foreign (to him) developed nations, which was putting him in an impossible position. He wanted more subsidies for SK farmers, so that they would be able to compete in the SK market against the foreign (to the SK) sales, although I'm sure that he would haev settled for subsidies ebing removed from the other nations.

South Korea is a rich industrial nation in the midst of poor rice producing nations. It is not the richest country in the world, but its GDP per capita is comparable to the poorer (current) EU countries. Its GDP per capita is 10 time that of neighbouring rice producing countries.

It maintains heavy subsidies and tarifs on rice because if it did not, it's farmers would be wiped out by imports from neighbouring countries.

Government farm handouts continue to account for 40 percent of OECD farm income just as in the mid1980s. In such heavily protected agricultures as South Korea, Switzerland and Norway, government payments make up two-thirds of farm income.

[source]

Yes if rich countries reduced subsidies then this would help, unfortunately for South Korea, this would also mean them reducing subsidies and tarifs.

Luis Fernando Furlan, minister of industry and development of Brazil, said his country has 20 million farmers — more than the EU and the United States combined — but they cannot compete internationally because of the massive subsidies paid to farmers in rich nations.

"It's incredible to us," he said. "How can a small number of people be so powerful as to get almost 50 percent of the budget of the European Union and to get the amount of subsidies they get in Switzerland, the United States, Japan and (South) Korea?

"What's happening is that the developing world is getting poorer and poorer because of overproduction and depressed international prices. Developed countries need to sell their products at the world prices without subsidies."

[source]. Luckily, the rich countries (including South Korea) are forming a united front to oppose reductions in subsidies.

To strengthen their position, importers Japan, the European Union (EU), South Korea and Switzerland agreed to reinforce their joint front and press for revisions to the proposed farm targets.

The accord was reached as Japanese Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Minister Tadamori Oshima met bilaterally with the EU team of Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy and farm commissioner Franz Fischler, South Korean farm minister Kim Dong Tae and Swiss economic department head Joseph Paul Marie Deiss.

The four parties all reiterated they cannot accept the targets proposed by agriculture negotiations chairman Stuart Harbinson, Japanese officials said.

http://www.worldtradereview.com/webpage.asp?wID=314][source][/url]

Personaly, I'm against rich nations subsidising agriculture and maintianing tarifs against poorer countries. However, this view would be opposed by many of the protesters.

Outside the venue, more than 2,000 demonstrators from Japanese, North American, European and Asian farm groups chanted slogans against sharp tariff cuts. Japanese farm lobbyists also upped the pressure on Tokyo not to budge.

What then is to be concluded from the SK farmers suicide. I believe it is that the reforms wanted by the poorer countries will not be without massive social consequences among farmers in rich countries and this will have to be dealt with.

Éomer of Rohan

Did anyone notice the third world countries walk out of the WTO talks in Mexico with the words "We are not being listened to" ? I think this, without entering into the socialism vs capitalism debate but rather from a liberal capitalist point of view, answers the question that this thread asked.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Did anyone notice the third world countries walk out of the WTO talks in Mexico with the words "We are not being listened to" ? I think this, without entering into the socialism vs capitalism debate but rather from a liberal capitalist point of view, answers the question that this thread asked.

No it doesn't. Who was not listening?

As far as I can tell, rich countries within the WTO successfully stood firm on the issue of agricultural protectionism within their own countries while wanting the poor countries to open up their own markets. Poor countries were unwilling to open up their own markets without the removal of protectionism in rich countries. I know I'm simplifying but it does appear that there was two groups diametrically opposed to each other.

Without entering into the socialism vs capitalism debate, what is your solution?

Éomer of Rohan

There isn't an answer; people say that there is no loser in laissez faire economics, that everyone can get rich; I think that this is wrong and what has given rise to this notion is the transferring of poverty from large parts of Western working classes to the lower classes of the developing (or not) world.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
There isn't an answer; people say that there is no loser in laissez faire economics, that everyone can get rich; I think that this is wrong and what has given rise to this notion is the transferring of poverty from large parts of Western working classes to the lower classes of the developing (or not) world.

What are the alternatives to laissez faire economics and can there be agreement between rich and poor countries on how it should be administered?

shotamoose

Originally posted by SkepticOne
Without entering into the socialism vs capitalism debate, what is your solution?

The best path to a solution would be for rich countries to match their actions to their rhetoric and actually put development (and thus an enlightened rather than a narrow self-interest) at the heart of trade.

This would basically involve them recognising the need for pro-poor reforms across the spectrum of policies - debt, aid, finance, etc - and not just trade. And where trade is involved, giving developing countries the assistence and policy space they need.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Skeptic One
What are the alternatives to laissez faire economics and can there be agreement between rich and poor countries on how it should be administered?

The WTO is about lowering trade barriers to create a vast free market - yes, excellent goal, except for one thing; the USA and the EU (and soon China if the economic decentralisation continues) function as black holes into which all profit is drawn and more to the point, Europe and the US still use protectionism and they cannot have sanctions laid against them as there is no coalition of resource rich, industry poor nations who could economically survive such a measure - or more accurately the counter sanctions which would follow - though Europe and the USA do occasionally lay sanctions against each other and can get away with it since neither, in the grand scheme of things, supplies each other with resources they could not get from elsewhere.

Therefore, since all nations are not equal trading partners and since we have vast trading blocs which can control trade, free trade as we know it is a misnomer and impracticable - and the free trade which is happening at the minute is an excuse for erosion of social democracy and the cessation of government subsidisation of public services and industry, which, eventually would lead to a self contained elite running the country with a vast amount of money to spend and little on which to spend it except weapons or space or some such idea.

Of course, we have seen that protectionism does not work either - in the 50's and 60's and 70's we saw the failures of protectionism with large amounts of unemployment and growth a fraction of what it is today.

So to answer the questions, there is no alternative within capitalist principles and no, poor and rich nations will never agree since the poor nations are going to be the losers and the rich nations are so rich they don't have to agree to be the losers, they can bully the poor nations.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Of course, we have seen that protectionism does not work either - in the 50's and 60's and 70's we saw the failures of protectionism with large amounts of unemployment and growth a fraction of what it is today.

Didn't developing countries experience higher growth in the 50s-70s than in 1980-2000?

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from shotamoose
didn't developing countries experience higher growth in the 50s-70s than in 1980-2000?

I am not sure that they did but IF they did then I'd be happy to acknowledge that since it further exposes the US/eurocentrisms of world economics.

Capt'n Midnight

not having read all the other posts but the bottom third of the people in Ireland have 6% of the wealth...
(ie. they have less than a fifth the Average wealth)
The world's richest 500 people have as much wealth as the
poorest 2,000,000,000

Now there is a saying about a high tide lifting all boats - but unless the WTO's activities result in poorer people getting richer at a faster rate than the rich - the poverty gap will widen and this is not good.

Living in Dublin one of the threats to me and mine is being mugged/burgled by someone who has no prospect of legally acquiring a decent wage or owning any property. The links between crime and poverty have been proven time and time again.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
So to answer the questions, there is no alternative within capitalist principles and no, poor and rich nations will never agree since the poor nations are going to be the losers and the rich nations are so rich they don't have to agree to be the losers, they can bully the poor nations.

However, it seems to me that the only other solution is some sort of world socialist government which would oversee trade between nations. If so, would the US and EU, for example, sign up to it?

Victor

Originally posted by bloggs
Why do people hate the WTO

Because it pretends to be about fairness when in fact it is a rich man's (inlcuding rich men in the third world) club.

shotamoose

Originally posted by SkepticOne
However, it seems to me that the only other solution is some sort of world socialist government which would oversee trade between nations. If so, would the US and EU, for example, sign up to it?

They wouldn't let their trade policies be dictated by it, if that's what you mean. The US and EU, have, however, signed up (along with just about everyone else) to the Millennium Development Goals, at set of targets to halve poverty, fight AIDS, achieve universal primary school enrolment, etc, and if these goals are to be achieved they will have to involve some sort of 'more socialist' international arrangements, as business as usual just won't cut it. So pressuring them to uphold their end of the MDGs bargain could be one way of doing things without quite going so far as a world socialist government, which doesn't exactly seem imminent.

Suddenly nobody really seems sure what the WTO is for. Rich countries only signed up for it because they thought it would be a handy tool to open up the world's market without having to face too many consequences themselves, while poor countries signed up because they thought WTO rules could be used to push rich countries into adopting more reasonable policies. Only now neither camp is getting what they want out of it ...