|
Home Monthly Topics Index of Issues Articles About Us Links Help Wanted Contact Us |
|
|
| January Race, Class, and Civil Rights |
| February Poverty, Homelessness, and Unemployment |
| March Imperialism and Economic Injustice |
| April Environment |
| May Labor |
| June Population |
| July Violence |
| August Nuclear weapons |
| September Education, Information, and Communication |
| October Democracy and Religion |
| November Hunger and Health Care |
| December Children |
by Ron Forthofer and Robert Cohen
Originally published in the Boulder Daily Camera, Novermber 28, 1999.
Transnational corporations are working to create a world government.Without the advice, consent, or even the awareness of the American public, transnational corporations - through their powerful monetary/political influence on Congress and on the acquiescent Clinton-Gore Administration - are quietly working to make the World Trade Organization (WTO) into a world government.
The WTO, which will hold a ministerial meeting in Seattle from November 30 to December 3, was founded in 1995 to succeed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). It is designed to establish trade rules and to settle trade-related disputes between nations. Dispute resolution in the WTO is conducted in secret by a tribunal of trade experts. An adverse ruling provides two options: 1) agree to change the offending laws/regulations or 2) repay offended countries, either through annual compensation or by paying increased tariffs on certain exports to those countries.
Many of the federal, state, or local laws and regulations that WTO regards as trade barriers were democratically created to protect health, jobs, environment, national security, local autonomy, and domestic business interests. By intruding upon societal values well beyond tariff issues, the WTO is assuming the role of a world government, one that is responsive to corporate interests. Citizens associated with hundreds of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) from all over the world are protesting WTO policies that override democracy and national sovereignty. They are focusing world attention on serious problems being created by the WTO in the name of free trade and economic globalization.
It is disquieting to observe the ramifications of existing WTO trade-related rules, which are likely to be broadened in Seattle. For example, WTO rules ignore - hence will preempt federal, state, or local laws and regulations that address -- the conditions under which consumer products are manufactured. The WTO simply refers any labor issues - such as whether workers are paid a living wage, whether factories are sweatshops, or whether they use prison, forced, or child labor - to the International Labor Organization (ILO). But the ILO, unlike the WTO, lacks enforcement powers.
The first preemption of state and local laws and regulations was the 1992 GATT "Beer II" ruling against state laws on alcoholic beverages. GATT ruled that the United States must not favor its small-scale domestic beer producers by giving them a tax break unavailable to large foreign breweries. The ruling explicitly held that "GATT law is a part of federal law in the United States and as such is superior to GATT-inconsistent state law." Under this principle, the WTO may rule - on behalf of Japan and the European Union (EU) - against Massachusetts if a domestic lawsuit challenging a Massachusetts law banning trade with Burma does not prevail.
WTO's record also displays a disregard for the environment. The WTO ruled that the U.S. is not free to impose standards on imported gasoline under the Clean Air Act. The U.S. capitulated, hence we now experience increased air pollution from gasoline. In the case of tuna, the U.S. adopted regulations to prevent dolphins from being killed in the process of tuna fishing. However, after a 1991 GATT ruling against those protections, the U.S. weakened them, making "Dolphin-safe" tuna a fiction. Furthermore, a 1989 U.S. law requiring that shrimpers marketing their product in this country employ turtle-exclusion devices to avoid catching sea turtles in their nets has been ruled "WTO-illegal."
Similarly, WTO rules disregard the safety of the food people eat. For example, they bar food importers from questioning whether their imported beef or milk came from livestock fed with growth hormones or antibiotics. Thus the Clinton-Gore Administration is attempting to invoke WTO rules to foist hormone-derived foods on the Europeans, while at home showing little or no concern for the safety of the adulterated foods Americans are eating.
Experience with WTO's food safety standards, established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, demonstrates that they will be lower than U.S. food standards. For example, Codex safety standards for pesticide residues in food are already much lower than U.S. standards. A race to the bottom among nations will probably depress global food standards to a uniform, lowest common denominator. Alarmingly, WTO policies on health, safety, and environmental standards for food and other products are diametrically opposed to the internationally recognized "precautionary principle", which requires that products based upon new technology first be proved safe before entering the market. Under WTO, new products are deemed acceptable unless and until they are proved unsafe. Thus the burden of proof is thrust upon those who would question product safety. Meanwhile, such products are permitted to be marketed. For the above reasons, the EPA has been unable to continue its 1988 ban on food products containing residues of Folpet, a carcinogenic fungicide.
Products emerging from biotechnology are controversial among WTO member nations. In particular, genetically engineered (GE) crops and foods are a source of contention. The U.S. supports admitting 'biotech' products into the marketplace and has, with Canada, objected to the WTO regarding EU insistence that GE foods be labeled. Meanwhile, U.S. farmers are caught in a predicament where farm produce will need to be separated into GE and non-GE components and where many domestic and foreign consumers are unwilling to purchase GE crops and foods.
The favorable WTO-related economic trends promised by President Clinton have not materialized. Instead of achieving increased family income in countries adopting GATT/WTO rules, real family income has decreased. Similarly, instead of being reduced, the U.S. trade deficit has soared to record and alarming levels, consistent with the results of an Economic Policy Institute study showing that increased imports between 1982 and 1997 displaced almost twice as many high-paying, high-skilled jobs as increased exports created.
Along with their continued efforts to liberalize trade, transnational corporations are also promoting consumerism, both in the developing countries and domestically. The resulting increases in global and domestic consumption are seriously overtaxing and depleting finite global resources, especially topsoil, fresh water, energy, the environment, and ecosystems. The world is faced with a consumption bomb that would require several planets like Earth to sustain.
For more information see
- Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch
- Preamble Center reports and articles on the WTO, in particular, a good although long article, Globalization for Whom?