Nicola Bullard*
The World Trade Organisation made a pre-emptive strike to win the hearts and minds of non-government organisations during the Geneva Ministerial meeting, no doubt hoping to avoid the (long overdue) public scrutiny and criticism targeted at its sister organisation - the International Monetary Fund -- following that organisation's disastrous handling of the Asian economic crisis.
The first sign that the WTO was trying to win the affections of the hundreds of non-government organisation representatives attending the three-day meeting was the tasteful bribery of goodies in our welcome pack: a special edition WTO 50th anniversary Swatch, and the equally charming, but symbolically mystifying, CD collection of Mozart. The smart plastic satchel - bearing the special 50th anniversary logo - also included maps and tourist guides of Geneva, a glossy magazine highlighting the WTO's achievements and a copy of Director General Ruggiero’s press release on this auspicious occasion. But, to be frank, there was nothing that could be usefully described as information about the WTO ministerial meeting which was, after all, the reason we had all trooped to the ridiculously expensive city of Geneva. The second folder of papers was only marginally more enlightening, containing a schedule of NGO workshops and the programme for the Ministerial meetings (confirming that everything which might be vaguely interesting was, in fact, closed to NGOs). There was no draft statement, no programme of briefings for NGOs, and no indication at all of what was would be discussed during the days ahead.
The next morning, delegates arrived - at least those agile enough to navigate the cordon sanitaire of razor wire and metal detectors – hoping that WTO Director General Ruggiero’s scheduled NGO briefing would give some insight into the issues, and what could be expected in the next three days of meetings.
But the meeting was postponed, Fortunately, the WTO Information and Media Relations Division had provided some pre-reading - a small photocopied brochure called '10 Common Misunderstandings about the WTO'. For those of us who had reservations about the WTO, this simple brochure swept aside our doubts. Myth1: The WTO dictates government policy. Not true. Myth 2: The WTO is for free trade at any cost, also not true. Myths 3 and 4: The WTO is concerned only about commercial interests, and they take priority over environmental concerns, again - not true. The WTO dictates to governments, the WTO destroys jobs, small countries are powerless in the WTO, the WTO is undemocratic - not true, not true, not true. And so on… Obviously the WTO was feeling a little sensitive to the mean things people say about it, but the defensive tone and patronising language was a communications and public relations disaster.
The briefing - scheduled for 8 am - eventually started almost three hours later. First there were some instructions from the WTO secretariat about what we could and could not do, and where we could and could not go – in short, like good children we should be seen but not heard. The Director General then took the chair and kicked off by telling us that he'd spent the morning assuring ruffled government delegates that NGOs were really nice and reasonable people (not like the rowdy bunch who had spread fear amongst the gentle Genevois the previous day by throwing heavy objects through the windows of MacDonald's and the giant Swiss banking corporation UBS) and that he personally valued enormously our contribution to the work of the WTO. Perhaps we should have walked out of the room at
that stage, but of course we are nice and reasonable people and stayed on listening politely to twenty minutes of non-information and platitudes: Ruggiero gave nothing away, talking vaguely about the need to ensure that 'there are no contradictions between policy objectives,' that we can no longer talk just about trade' in an interdependent world and backing calls for improving the 'global architecture.’ And although he was unable to avoid some questions, he avoided giving any answers, although he did let slip the revealing comment that, unlike NGOs who have many different views and need to reach a consensus, 'I am alone. Of course I have an organisation on the outside who give me some rules, but after that I can do anything.'
Things did not improve.
Although the WTO secretariat was efficient, helpful and eager to please, they had not managed to secure meeting rooms for the NGOs less that several kilometres of corridors away from each other, so for the first day most of the interaction between delegates consisted of asking directions. The logistics became even more farcical at the end of the day when the building was secured for President Clinton who was dropping in for an hour or so en route from the G8 in Birmingham, so for several hours there was no way in or out of the maze-like Palais des Nations. We were trapped in a French absurdist movie.
Meanwhile, President Clinton used his whistle-stop visit to made a pitch for NGO support, sharing his vision of a socially and environmentally sensitive WTO. Trade, he said, offers the possibility of 'lifting billions of people into a worldwide middle class' but, he warned, it must be 'attuned to the pace and scope of the new global economy offer opportunity for all our people and meet the profound environmental challenges we share.' To this end he proposed that the WTO provide a forum 'where business, labour, environmental and consumer groups can speak out and help guide the further evolution of the WTO.' Further, he challenged the WTO to 'take every feasible step to bring openness and accountability to its operations' including the opportunity for stakeholders to convey their views, such as the ability to file amicus briefs, to help inform the (dispute) panels in their deliberations'.
Fine sentiments, but ones which take on a hint of self interest in the context of the heated debate in Congress over the functioning of the IMF, where its openness and accountability are being questioned from both the left and right and at a time when the US' free trade agenda is under attack from the same unlikely coalition. The reference to 'amicus briefs' and stakeholders also seemed like special pleading in the light of the recent WTO ruling against the US in the Shrimp Turtle dispute where Northern environmental NGOs submitted amicus briefs to the panel in support of the US position. However, these were not formally considered by the panel and perhaps the US believes that the decision would have gone the other way had they been More importantly, though, Clinton was effectively pre-empting the still inconclusive debate about whether social and environmental clauses should even be in the realm of the WTO.
Many developing countries, and indeed many South labour and environmental organisations, are deeply concerned about whether such clauses would be used as de facto trade barriers by the North, let alone whether they would achieve desired objectives. By definition, the WTO is devoted to trade liberalisation - it is not a labour or environmental organisation and it is hard to imagine such a radical transformation in the WTO that the overriding goal of free trade would be subordinated to environmental and social considerations.
However, the efforts to assure the NGOs that the WTO could be greenwashed and given a human face did not end there.
US Trade Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky assured us that 'growing trade will not compromise values at the heart of the quality of life - in particular environmental protection, public health, and exploitive child labour.' Openness and transparency were also high on her list of issues for the 21st century - to engender 'public understanding of (the WTO's) role and confidence in its processes.' But, it seems that Barshefsky sees openness and transparency as an end in themselves -- a way of selling the virtues of free trade to the public rather than the starting point for a genuine discussion about the real costs and benefits of free trade.
Back in the real world, Indonesia's political crisis, triggered at least in part by the worsening economic conditions and the IMF directive to lift fuel subsidies, was reaching its climax during the WTO meeting, but no one seemed interested in discussing what could be learned from East Asia's economic crisis.
In the past months, a growing number of analysts and economists have highlighted uncontrolled and rapid liberalisation of these economies, especially in the financial sector, as a major contributing factor to their economic and financial troubles. Yet, amazingly, both Director General Ruggiero and US Trade Ambassador Barshefsky argued that the real lesson from the Asian crisis is that developing countries need to be more open, they must maintain the momentum for liberalisation and above all, resist the temptation of the greatest sin of all -- protectionism.
It seems that the profound social and environmental impacts of the region's economic collapse, in the form of dramatically reduced purchasing power, growing poverty, massive unemployment, mounting public debt, the pressure to keep wages down to maintain competitiveness, and the push for further industrialisation and natural resource exploitation to earn foreign exchange, do not fall within the environmental and social concerns Clinton expressed so touchingly.
The message is clear: labour conditions and the environment are important, but only so long as they don't get in the way of free trade and financial liberalisation.
Director General Ruggiero has promised to devote a 'considerable part of (his) time after this conference to try and improve information and dialogue with civil society' and there is talk of establishing a more formal consultative mechanism for civil society interaction with the WTO. Many NGOs will need a lot more convincing about the merits of the various proposals, let alone the merits of the WTO. The message in Geneva was clear: the WTO may want to win our hearts, but something tells me they are not really interested in our minds.
*Nicola Bullard is a Senior Associate with Focus on the Global South