Current   Cooperatives   Activist   Women   Global   Food   Resources

WTO myths

By Trond Øverland

The entire world media and people at large seem to be in accord: the WTO summit was a disaster. The reasons for subscribing to this apparent global consensus are however as different as they are numerous. Few provide the sharp needle that is required to explode the main myths of the WTO.

“Free trade is good”

The lowering of trade barriers is the core WTO principle. But no rich country is ready to do away with all of its protective barriers. Consequently a critique has developed against the relative protectionism of rich northern countries, branding as double standards when some of them for example want to sell their fish freely while retaining the right to protect their agriculture.

One of the fairy-tale WTO arguments employed against this hypocrisy is that developing countries must be allowed to export their vegetables and other foodstuff in order to develop their economy. This argument is also hypocritical, as it doesn’t provide any nation with a stable market and dependable prices. Reliable consumption and calculable prices is the sine qua non of any budding economy and the only market that provides it is the domestic market; as far as essential commodities are concerned local people must be able to decide what to produce and what to consume. The WTO however knows no such reliable, stable mechanism of local supply and demand, only the global exploitative market.

“Free trade is bad”

That free trade is bad because it is inimical to local labor is another myth. Free trade is definitely bad for countries that are dependent on other countries for their supply or export of basic necessities. Today, this holds good for all countries. It is the flip side of the WTO trade barrier principle, and it is correct that free trade is bad as long as there is no economic democracy sheltering a wholehearted effort towards the economic liberation of the local people.

Self-reliant communities can conduct free trade in demi-essential and non-essential goods successfully. The reason for it is that local governance and local security will provide constant local availability. These are the factors central to permanent economic and industrial stability and growth in any area: local supply and demand. Demi-essential and non-essential goods may be traded widely, preferably in the form of barter (exchange of goods, not money) once a local socio-economic unit is self-sufficient as far as basics go.

“Welfare”

Another myth of the WTO is that it will provide more of the kind of welfare that rich nations have become accustomed to since WW2 to more people. It is a development on the trickle-down principle of former U.S. president Ronald Reagan. Our response to it is that whether or not the WTO will become more democratic it remains a mystery how someone who is extremely poor and someone who is extremely rich will agree on principles and policies as to their further evolution; it is simply impossible, both in political and economic terms.

Liberalism vs. liberation

In many ways the WTO is the UN of neo-liberalism and neo-colonization. A few nations control its dynamics; not least the U.S. Economic liberalism was, is and will be a tool of opportunists, for opportunists and by opportunists. By default it will never create the economic liberation that people needs to grow a society of world fraternity and all-round stability. Economic liberation on the other hand is the result of local economic governance. Therefore, local people should prepare their local plans and programs with the immediate goal of self-sufficiency in essential spheres. This will be the only efficient muscle against the exploitative spirit of the WTO.

Real bullets

Activists in Seattle were threatened with live ammunition, real bullets. Whether or not there will be another WTO summit it seems ineffectual only to protest against inhuman greed in this way. People should make it their main concern to raise their trade barriers for now and continue to strengthen their local self-sufficiency. This will be the most effective and constructive protest against outside opportunist intervention in the economic affairs of local people. It will do away with ruthless exploitation. Once their minimum necessities are guaranteed at the local level they may proceed to deal in free barter trade across borders. The real challenge to the exploitative powers of the WTO lies in developing a bottom-to-top structure where economic and industrial control lies at the grassroots and not at the top. Economic control and industrial self-reliance at the local level is the only way to provide economic liberation for all.

It is a cardinal human right not to be forced to depend for survival and basic subsistence on any factor outside of one's own area, but it is also necessary to develop trade in other spheres. Free trade can only be fair and productive when local economic democracy and a healthy consumption-oriented local industry is in place first.

Copyright ProutWorld 1999