The WTO
Report Card:
|
Culture F
Education F
Environment F
Food Safety F
War Industry A+
|
|
The World Trade Organization and War:
Making the Connection
The World Trade Organization has become the most powerful
international institution in the world. Its power over
governments is undermining peace and human rights, and
promoting military spending and the arms trade.
The
World Trade Organization (WTO) is a 134-country organization
that governs international trade by facilitating trade agreements
and then enforcing them when member governments have trade
disputes. The WTO administers the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade (GATT) and many other agreements covering services,
government procurement, intellectual property, investment
measures, and more.
But
the WTO's power goes far beyond trade. It sets limits on how
governments may regulate national economies on behalf of their
citizens and in doing so affects almost every aspect of people's
lives.
The
WTO views many government services and policies -- such as
public education, public health care, environmental regulations and
industrial programs -- as unfair interference in the free market.
When governments challenge other governments' policies before WTO
dispute panels, the WTO rules on whether the policies are unfairly
interfering with trade. If they are, member governments must change
or eliminate the offending laws, or face billions of dollars in
WTO-authorized trade sanctions.
The
WTO undermines social justice, the environment, jobs and food
safety through its power over governments. At the same time, the
WTO bolsters military spending, weapons production and the
international weapons trade.
GATT Article XXI: The Security Exception
The
WTO is based on the premise that the only legitimate role for
governments is to provide for a military to protect the country,
and a police force to ensure order within it, And so while the WTO
attacks social and environmental policies, it protects the war
industry through a "security exception" in the GATT (Article XXI).
The
security exception allows governments free reign for actions
taken in the name of national security. It states that a country
can not be stopped from taking any action it considers necessary
to protect its essential security interests; actions "relating
to the traffic in arms, ammunition and implements of war and
such traffic in other goods and materials as is carried on
directly for the purpose of supplying a military establishment
(or) taken in time of war or other emergency in international
relations." [1]
Article XXI is the most powerful exception in the WTO because
governments define for themselves their "essential security
interests" and protect what they want by couching it in these
terms.
The WTO Spurs Military Spending: The Bombardier Case
In
shielding the war industry from WTO challenges, the security
exception ends up stimulating government military spending and
militarizing the economy. The danger is that governments will
only be able to promote jobs, new emerging industries, or
high-tech manufacturing through military spending.
There
is evidence this is already happening. In 1999, a WTO
dispute panel ruled against Canada and its Technology
Partnerships Canada program -- a program that subsidizes the
aerospace and defence industry. The program was being used by
Bombardier Aerospace to build and export regional passenger
jets. But the WTO ruled the non-military subsidies were
unfair, and struck them down.
Canadian
aerospace and defence corporations, which build both
civilian and military aircraft, were worried that they would lose
their subsidies because of the WTO ruling, but the Canadian
government has redesigned the program to be WTO-friendly. As if
to not risk another WTO challenge, the Department of National
Defence announced in October a $30 million annual subsidy
program for weapons corporations to develop new
weapons. [2]
This new program won't be challenged at the WTO, as it falls
within the GATT's national security exception. It can hence
fund Bombardier's military production.
Through
this security exception, any government can continue to
subsidize military corporations, some of the largest transnational
corporations in the world.
The WTO Protects Human Rights Violators: The Burma Case
The
WTO's objective of a global free market has resulted in trade
rules that don't allow governments to take political, social,
environmental or social justice issues into account when deciding
what or from whom to buy, These trade rules can be used to prevent
governments from using tools such as economic sanctions to promote
peace and human rights. Such was the case when activists used
anti-apartheid style measures to promote peace and democracy in
Burma.
Amnesty
International has consistently criticized Burma's
(Myanmar's) military government for its terrible human rights
record. Peace and human rights activists have worked to have
Western governments impose sanctions on Burma to force
democratic reforms. In 1996, activists succeeded in having
Massachusetts (and twenty municipalities and counties across
the United States) pass a law preventing government contracts
from being issued to companies doing business with Burma.
The
Massachusetts' legislation was similar to its anti-apartheid
legislation in the 1980s. But today such government laws can be
challenged -- and the WTO can be used to protect corporate
interests. Both the European Union and Japan challenged
Massachusetts' law as a violation of the WTO's Agreement on
Government Procurement, stating that Burma and companies that
did business with Burma were being unfairly discriminated
against.
Before
the WTO could convene a dispute panel, a corporate lobby
group -- supported by the E.U. and Japan -- stepped in and sued
Massachusetts in domestic courts, under the pretext the state had
exceeded its authority. Massachusetts lost the case and the court
overturned the law and all similar laws in the U.S.
"If
we had rulings like this in the '70s and '80s, the United
States would not have been able to participate in the
anti-apartheid movement," said Massachusetts State Representative
Byron Rushing, who sponsored the Burma bill. "I am glad these
judges weren't around then or Mandela might still be in
jail." [3]
The WTO Undermines Peace
Proponents
of globalization argue that globalization ends up
improving living standards for everyone. The United Nations,
among other groups, disagrees: "The prevailing view that
international trade liberalization and deregulation provide
the best guarantee for economic and social rights through
growth is belied by the
facts." [4]
Peace
is achieved through a common security of all people and
nations -- a security achieved through adequate housing and food,
basic education, proper health care, and a clean environment. But
WTO dispute panels have consistently struck down clean air, food
safety, economic development, and environmental laws. Clearly,
the WTO's agenda works against peace-building initiatives, and
actually promotes and rewards war preparations.
GATT 1994, Article XXI.
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994
Article XXI: Security Exceptions
Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed
- to require any contracting party to furnish any
information the disclosure of which it considers
contrary to its essential security interests; or
- to prevent any contracting party from taking any
action which it considers necessary for the
protection of its essential security interests
- relating to fissionable materials or
the materials from which they are
derived;
- relating to the traffic in arms,
ammunition and implements of war
and to such traffic in other goods
and materials as is carried on
directly or indirectly for the purpose
of supplying a military
establishment;
- taken in time of war or other
emergency in international
relations; or
- to prevent any contracting party from taking any
action in pursuance of its obligations under the
United Nations Charter for the maintenance of
international peace and security.
Canadian Press, "$30 million for defence contractors," October
18, 1999.
Frank Philips, "US Court Overturns Burma Law," The Boston Globe,
June 23 1999.
United Nations Commission on Human Rights, The Realization
of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, July 19, 1999
|