Challenging the WTO.

• Author: French, Hilary
• Position: World Trade Organization

Global trade rules threaten to undermine environmental laws of sovereign nations. But with those nations often beholden to their own trade-hungry corporations, it has fallen to nongovernmental organizations to make sure the WTO is accountable.

In late July, the U.S. government decided to get tough with the countries of the European Union - slapping 100 percent tariffs on $116.8 million worth of European imports, including fruit juices, mustard, pork, truffles, and Roquefort cheese. The European "offense" was its refusal to revoke a ban on the import of meat treated with growth hormones - a refusal that defied a World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling that the ban was [middle dot] an unfair barrier to U.S. and Canadian beef exports. The U.S. sanctions were greeted with widespread consternation in Europe, particularly in France, where a number of McDonald's restaurants were targeted for protests. In a symbolic tit-for-tat, the mayor of the French village of St. Pierre-de-Trivisy, which lies in the heart of Roquefort cheese country, decided to retaliate by doubling the price of Coca-Cola sold at the town's campground and recreation center.

This burgeoning transatlantic food fight is emblematic of a new kind of global trade conflict, in which various national health and environmental laws, rather than such traditional trade-war issues as tariffs, quotas, and the "dumping" of commodities like steel or wheat, are now at stake. The European Union (EU) insists the ban isn't an intentional trade barrier at all, but only a prudent response to public concern that eating hormone-treated beef might cause cancer and other health problems. So far, the EU has refused to back down.

The origins of today's brewing environmental trade battles can largely be traced back to December 1993, when negotiators struck a deal in the long-running "Uruguay Round" of global trade talks. The text of the agreement ran to an astounding 26,000 pages, and covered a bewildering array of issues, including agriculture, intellectual property rights, investment, and services. Perhaps most importantly, it stipulated the creation of a new World Trade Organization that would encompass the pre-existing General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) as well as the new provisions resulting from the Uruguay Round. The WTO was charged with overseeing the implementation of the new rules of world trade, as well as with settling any disputes about these rules between nations. Member countries granted the new organization unprecedented powers for an international body, including a binding dispute resolution mechanism and provisions for stiff trade penalties to enforce its rulings.

The WTO quickly became a lightening rod. Although its creation was hailed by many in the business community, government, and academia as a key to global economic growth and prosperity, critics view the new organization as a dangerous supranational entity that elevates corporate rights to a new plane, while devastating local communities and the environment. Critics also decried the secrecy in which WTO activities are shrouded. Many important documents are unavailable to the public, and most WTO committees, as well as all dispute resolution proceedings, are conducted in closed sessions.

In a concession to the concerns of environmentalists, the preamble to the WTO agreement includes environmental protection and sustainable development among the organization's goals. The accord also included a commitment to create a Committee on Trade and Environment charged with analyzing the relationship between trade liberalization and environmental protection, and making recommendations on any changes to WTO rules that might be needed to make the two goals "mutually supportive." But more than five years later, the committee has produced much talk but no concrete action.

In early December 1999, trade ministers from around the world will gather in Seattle, where they will decide whether or not to launch a new "millennium round" of global trade talks. Thousands of nongovernmental activists are expected to also be on hand (see "Action on the Front Lanes," page 12). Five years after the conclusion of the Uruguay Round, the political backdrop for global trade negotiations has evolved. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) were emboldened by their successful campaign in 1998 to bring to a halt negotiations on another controversial international economic agreement, the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment. And in the United States, the failure of Congress to grant the Clinton administration "fast-track" trade negotiating authority has strengthened the hand of trade critics.

Many activists are hoping to use their new-found clout to stop the new round in its tracks - at least until the environmental impact of the rules established five years ago are better understood. Others, while not aiming to scuttle the WTO altogether, argue that the agenda for any new round should include a clear commitment to greening the rules of world trade. Although the outcome of the Seattle meeting is unpredictable, one thing is clear: reform is desperately needed to marry the rules of the global trading system with the imperative of reversing global ecological decline.

Tuna & Dolphins to Shrimp & Turtles

Widespread concern about the environmental impact of the GATT dates to September 1991, when a GATT dispute resolution panel shocked U.S. environmentalists by ruling that an...