|
|
|
Map of Europe |
Email this citationCIAO DATE: 03/03
The WTO and its Institutional Future - Evaluating the Lessons of Seattle
Isabella Falautano
June 2000
Abstract
There has been a lot of talk in the last months about the results of the third ministerial meeting of the WTO, held in Seattle from November 30th to December 3rd, 1999. In Seattle, the WTO was expected to adopt a proposal for the launching of a comprehensive new Round – the so-called Millennium Round – encompassing a broad and ambitious range of topics, from the more traditional challenges to the new trade issues. Instead, the meeting finished in a dramatic failure and the risk now is that the trading system of the twenty-first century will drift into a fog of uncertainty. One should point out that, at the end of the Uruguay Round a renegotiation was foreseen in the two key sectors of agriculture and services, the so-called "built-in" or progressive agenda. While the scenario for a global round, as I will try to clarify, is improbable to say the least in the short term, sectoral negotiations in agriculture and services will be starting in the year 2000. Nevertheless, the general context in which such negotiations are being launched, and in which the pro-Round coalition is trying to built consensus, is undoubtedly difficult.
The last months of the second millennium and the early months of the new one have been characterised by strong slogans, such as the "battle in Seattle", "fix it or nix it", "sink it or shrink it", and "the WTO kills the people, kill the WTO". Before the ministerial, Seattle was exclusively the city of the new economy miracle and a world famous rock group: now, in certain parts of the public opinion, it is synonymous with the debacle of "free traders" and the victory of the opponents of globalisation. What is undeniable is that a wave of neo-protectionism and "globaphobia" is enveloping several countries; a recent poll on the "attitude towards globalisation" held in 17 countries shows emblematic results: in the US an average of 41% of people define themselves in favour of free trade, while 56% are pro-protectionism. Results were similar in the UK, Brazil, France, Australia, Malaysia. There were decidedly more free traders in the Netherlands, Thailand, Singapore, Mexico, Canada, Japan and Hong Kong. The perception of the negative effects of globalisation is equally distributed between developed and developing countries and also within the EU. Fear of the negative effects of globalisation should be carefully taken into account in evaluating the current scenario, but with the premise that the phenomenon (globalisation) should be conceptually distinguished from the institution of governance, in this case the WTO. By contrast, there are signals of new trust in the world trading system (in the mentioned aspect of governance) and of a relaunching of the WTO as an international institution: the EU’s recent China Deal and the positive vote of the Congress on Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with China anticipate the full integration and membership of the giant, a country with one fifth of the world’s population. These two events are a clear sign of a new start-up of transatlantic dialogue and trust in the international trading system.
