only NATURE endures
(Promoter of Sustainable Technologies)
501, Rahimtoola House, 7, Homji Street, Fort, (Bombay) Mumbai - 400 001, India.
Tel.: 91-22-2671870 / 34, TeleFax: 91-22-2671797.
E-mail: mail@onenature.com Website: www.onenature.com

WTO Strg 2001-07-05

In an otherwise chaotic global trade scenario the institution of a regulatory body like the World Trade Organization makes complete practical sense. Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” theory has found its applications in explaining several real life situations and is very apt in the context of the dominance of the WTO by its “fittest” members. Fitness, here, would be a function of how powerful a member nation was and whether it could translate its power to clout in the WTO.

The WTO in itself would require being powerful, or rather more powerful than the sum of its members, if it means to achieve its regulatory objectives and overcome the threat of domination of proceedings by a select few members. The counts for measuring power could be broadly classified as economic, technical, public, and political strengths. Close study of the WTO structure on these counts reveals instability and thus vulnerability to erroneous decisions.

Politically the WTO has always been a force to contend with, but on the remaining three fronts, attempts to strengthen have been few and far between and apparently ineffective. From our understanding, to assert economic strength, corporate representation at the dispute settlement body is absolutely essential. Those who are ultimately directly involved govern trade practices, and this makes industry representation imperative.

What is worth notice is how the unrepresented corporate sector works its way into the WTO either through political representation or ensuring partisan (from their own stables) technical representation.

Technically, the WTO remains weak. Internationally recognized scientific and technical institutions should be given revolving memberships in their status as NGOs in WTO, to counter the legally processed scientific confusions, which the panelists in WTO use with impunity. Introduction of independent and neutral scientific assessment of the evidence advanced in any case seems to be the only way to avoid the bias that the figurehead technical representation may create.

Cartel formation is another oft-faced problem, even through “planted” trade disputes, which may be countered through introduction of a system akin to “Friends of the Court”. This allows a submission from parties other than those directly involved in a dispute. The submission, being from a neutral source, could prove valuable in prevention of a cartel taking a case any which way it desired. There is no provision for such a submission being taken into consideration in WTO’s trade disputes making the environment conducive to cartel formation to suit mutual interests of the parties involved.

The non-judicial character of the dispute settlement body of the WTO gets repeatedly drawn into becoming a campaign flagship by vested interests to settle their scores with competitors and eventually ends up promoting anti-competitive practices in the market place.

In terms of public support the WTO has appeared tentative and non-forthcoming. It has in the past allowed marginal representation through Amicus briefs, etc. But these do not become major factors and do not have a bearing on the eventual settlements of disputes.

There is no provision in the WTO regulations that allows any member to challenge a judgement in any legal forum. This makes the WTO a body whose decisions cannot be questioned irrespective of their credibility in terms of scientific accuracy and resultant public good.

The WTO has been a body that has in the recent times become quite infamous among the general public and the NGOs particularly owing to its tendency to become a body that is politicised and a victim of a lot of unnecessary pressures. It is heartening to note this gesture of the WTO to create awareness, even if it is to a miniscule extent, of how the WTO functions as a body and to get mass opinion through the invitation of NGOs to a symposium such as this.

But of more consequence is how the WTO can move towards institutionalising NGO participation in its functional framework. We propose that the WTO should create a working group consisting of NGO representatives from member countries, which would serve to give the WTO a more humane and pro-people face.

It is important to note that such functional problems are unintentional and are not because of defects in the objectives or the constitution of the WTO. If these are not rectified the end result would be negative.

ONE is an NGO that promotes sustainable technologies based on solid technical data and has resources that are firmly grounded in thoroughly researched facts from WHO, US Courts, IARC, ATSDR etc. ONE has encountered WTO up close during our work on promotion of asbestos cement as an eco-friendly, efficient and acceptable technology. Observations of our interactions with the WTO as well as other NGOs on issues concerning WTO have given the impression of their lack of technical backing leading to an incomplete and therefore inappropriate stand.

ONE wishes to, with all due respect, propose consideration of these soft spots of the WTO, which may be the reasons for its growing unpopularity. By sharing these observations, which are as per our understanding, we also hope to initiate a process of interaction with the WTO and other mutually interested NGOs to achieve transparency and effective functioning of all involved for the good of member nations.

Editor

ONE (Only Nature Endures)