The World Trade Organization (WTO) is a baby in the era of multinational corporations and international economic agreements. But it's got a big family. The WTO came into being in 1995 as the successor to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). GATT was established in the wake of the Second World War as a limited set of rules regulating the trade of goods and merchandise among its member nations. Since 1986, GATT has become even more aggressive, though, raising corporations to equal standing with nations and overruling federal, state, and local laws when they "interfere with free trade." The overall goal is to eliminate "trade barriers," frequently including labor laws, public health regulations, and environmental protection measures-all of which get in the way of the corporate bottom-line: profit.

Previously, global agreements like GATT have been temporary and suggestive ideas for international trade regulations. As a child of GATT, however, the WTO solidifies suggested policy into permanent enforced standards. And although the WTO includes 134 member countries, developed nations like the US, Canada, Japan, and those of the European Union repeatedly make key decisions in closed meetings. Meanwhile, in its "dispute resolution system," the WTO allows countries to challenge each others' laws as violations of WTO rules. Cases are decided in secret by a panel of three professional trade bureaucrats (often corporate heads) that aren't bound by any "conflict of interest" rules. It is no surprise, then, that every single environmental or public health law ever challenged at the WTO has been ruled illegal.

Once such a final ruling is issued, losing countries have a set time to make one of three choices: (1) change their law to conform to the WTO requirements, (2) pay compensation to the winning country, or (3) face non-negotiated trade sanctions. In short, what the WTO says goes.

The WTO's decision-making power covers more than traditional trade issues, too. WTO negotiations affect not only goods but also the import and export of services. For instance, privatized educational systems like classes on the web, corporate owned and operated universities, and study abroad programs are all considered "services." The WTO creates standards that demand the lowest common denominator which endangers the autonomy and innovation of the public sector.

In addition, the WTO regulates "intellectual property," allowing the patenting of seeds and indigenous knowledge. Officially, the WTO upholds the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) Agreement, which mainly benefits Western drug and biotechnology corporations. What this means is that such corporations, protected (and encouraged) by the TRIPs treaty and the WTO, can gather up traditional knowledge of herbs, seeds, medicinal plants, and so on, exercise complete control over any new extensions of that knowledge, and reap the profits. Most people call this theft; the WTO calls it "intellectual property rights." All the while, without the power and money of multinational corporations, the people who lose out--indigenous peoples as well as many so-called "Third World Countries"--are barely able to fight in ongoing TRIPs disputes or even enter into debates over Intellectual Property Rights agreements.

Moreover, WTO negotiations deeply affect the environment. For example, in the upcoming November Ministerial, the US government has proposed that a zero-tariff forestry and wood products agreement be signed. This agreement would accelerate the importing and exporting of logs, countering current efforts to protect forests as eco-systems and climate controls. In one swoop, then, it would mean the end for many environmental regulations and other controls on timber production and trade.

Altogether, the main goal of the WTO is to create a fully-integrated global capitalist economy "free" of any "discriminatory" barriers. "Non-discrimination" is a catch word indicating policies that reject any and all obstacles to trade. Case studies, however, illustrate who is actually discriminated against.

• THE BEEF HORMONE CASE: After studies in Europe concluded that artificial growth hormones in beef created early menstruation in young girls and health problems, the European Union (EU) banned the sale of beef from cattle that had been raised in this way. In 1998, a WTO panel, called to action by US beef companies, ruled against the law that the EU passed. The EU had until May 13, 1999 to open its markets to hormone-treated beef. Because the EU refuses to open its markets, the WTO forces them to pay upwards of $124 million annually in compensation to the United States.

• THE SEA TURTLE CASE: Four Asian nations challenged provisions of the US Endangered Species Act forbidding the sale of shrimp caught in ways that kill endangered sea turtles. In 1998, the WTO ruled that the US was not acting in compliance of WTO rules. Requiring shrimp nets to be fitted with inexpensive "turtle excluder devices" has been ruled "WTO-illegal."

• THE CLEAN AIR CASE: On behalf of its oil industry, Venezuela challenged the US Clean Air Act regulation that required gas refiners to produce cleaner gas. A WTO panel ruled against the US law. Foreign oil refiners now have an option to sell dirtier gasoline in the US as a result, despite domestic challenges.

The WTO has the absolute authority to supersede local, state, and even national laws if a corporation pressures its government to challenge a particular mandate. Without any avenues of accountability and very few avenues of transparency, anyone who is not a corporate head, trade official, or WTO bureaucrat is effectively shut out of all decisions. Clearly, THE WTO IS NOT OUR INSTITUTION. We do not control its process, and we do not benefit from its decisions.

Seattle, Washington is touted as a major gateway to the markets of Asia and, particularly, Japan. According to the Seattle Host Organization for the WTO (headed up by Bill Gates of Microsoft and Phil Conduit of Boeing) one in four jobs in Washington state are directly related to exports.

The November 29-December 3 WTO Ministerial Meeting is the first trade meeting of its kind to be held on US soil. When similar negotiations take place in Singapore, the Philippines, Geneva, and other places worldwide, the opposition gathers in the hundreds of thousands.

The magnitude of this meeting is far greater than the 6,000 delegates from 135 countries that will attend. Indeed, the WTO meeting will transform Seattle into a militarized zone. Roads will be blocked, the police are prepped for riot response, and SWAT teams are "flexible." Our presence in Seattle demands attention to the growing global economy and its effects on the natural world, working people, Southern nations, and indigenous peoples around the world. Our presence in Seattle demands public space as a non-negotiable right. The affront of the WTO meeting represents a challenge to connect all of us as workers for a more just and livable world.

Sources:
"A Citizen's Guide to the World Trade Organization." APEX Press, 1999.
Shiva, Vandana. Biopiracy. South End, 1997.
The Case Against the Global Economy. Sierra Club, 1996.