Established in January 1995, after the Uruguay Round negotiations, the WTO was designed to facilitate and liberalise trade in the world. Its functions include settling trade disputes, monitoring national trade policies and making sure that countries respect the agreements.

But the WTO has its roots in the Bretton Woods conference in 1944, where the future victors of World War Two designed the new world economic order. Such organisations like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB) were set up to help countries in financial trouble. The General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) was later formulated to wrest countries away from protectionist economies.

Like the IMF and the WB, the WTO has turned out to be the scourge of the poor. The protests in Seattle in 1999, considered as the birth of organised resistance against globalisation, have thrown that international trade body into the limelight. While previously it could conduct its activities behind closed doors, critics have called for a more democratic approach to the deals taking place at its forums.

Since Seattle, when protesters prevented delegates from entering the summit, there have been several high profile disagreements within the WTO itself. Last year in Cancun, Mexico, the representatives from the developing world walked out of the talks, in disgust at the intransigence of the rich countries. The issue rested on the unfair subsidies provided to farmers by their governments. Such cash handouts make their products competitive on the world market even though they use costly agricultural methods to cultivate on sometimes unproductive lands. All the while poor farmers around the world, though blessed with superior land and climate, cannot live off their farms as their products become too expensive in their depleted economies. This practice should come to an end soon as the different countries reached an agreement to end subsidies.

Cancun also saw the creation of the G20 group, headed by Brazil, China and India. It is their lobbying and pressure that forced the European Union and the USA to stop subsidising their farmers. This deal was made possible during the tenure of Supachai Panitchpakdi, Thailand?s former deputy prime minister, who many saw as more sympathetic to the concerns of the poor. Jayen Cuttaree, if he is crowned the new chief, will surely be seen in the same light by other countries. But is the WTO simply hated by protesters for its policies of trade liberalisation or is there more to their concerns?

Suing the poor

Apart from unfair trade rules, which prevent developing countries from protecting their local economy, in the same way the rich did in the past, and bullying tactics inside the meetings, the WTO is also responsible for some despicable actions. TRIPs (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights), the patent laws of the organisation, allows multinational companies to sue sovereign states if the latter do not comply. Brazil, India and South Africa have all faced the wrath of corporations. The WTO also allows patents to be taken on virtually anything, from rice, pharmaceuticals to herbs and genetic codes. These are then enforced in a very rigid way under TRIPs. South Africa, which faces an AIDS epidemic, was taken to court over generic drugs. In the end, the companies agreed to lower their prices, but medication is still financially inaccessible to the poor.

Another subject of contention is the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). This new gem from the WTO forces countries to open their whole economy to private international competition. This includes even vital sectors like health, which would have to be made more open to privatisation. According to the World Development Movement (WDM), a non-governmental organisation that campaigns for fair trade, GATS will force governments to progressively privatise all their services, including broadcasting, water, electricity, roads. The list covers up to 160 services. The NGO is concerned ?about the profound impact this will have on some of the worlds poorest communities who cannot afford to pay for these services.?

Privatisation will also mean less regulation of the labour market. Trade unions will come under pressure to curb their demands. Workers will be forced to take what they are offered with reduced chances to negotiate. In Mauritius, we saw the utter helplessness of workers made redundant in the textile industry. There will be fewer guarantees against job losses. As we embrace a technology sector, which is yet to be regulated, and which allows companies to switch operations from country to country in search of the cheapest labour market, GATS could signal even more pain for the workers.

However, consumers could also suffer in a profit-motivated environment. Private companies do not always offer the cheapest price deals, as some would like us to believe. The experience of Bolivia is a proof. When the water supplies of Cochabamba were sold off, the prices rocketed to such a level that people were unable to afford the bills. Protests eventually led to a revision of the deal. It shows that some parts of the economy, which are fundamental to the survival of the population, cannot be privatised at any cost. But GATS could lead to such disasters on a mass scale. Although governments can choose the services to include in the agreement, it does not mean that they are safe, when we know the bullying habits of rich countries. AGOA is here to remind us of such practices.

If Jayen Cuttaree manages to fend off competition from Pascal Lamy, the former EU trade commissioner, and two candidates from South America, he could be heading one of the organisations responsible for global inequality. It would be ironic then if Mauritius transgresses trade rules and is sued by the WTO, or if we are forced to sell some of our prized assets to an international consortium.

Diren VALAYDEN Outlook Correspondent in Dublin