What follows is a collection of my own writings from various discussions I've had elsewhere on the net. I hope you will tolerate disjointedness until I get a chance to revise and reform it all into a more cohesive whole.

(not) Maintaining Sovereignty

As a voting citizen of the United States, I'm simply apalled that any organization has the right to overturn democratically enacted laws and regulations. It's more apalling still that the sole purpose of this organization is to promote international trade (read as: promote the interests of multinational corporations).

Surely there should be exemptions for all kinds of concerns - even the WTO publicly agrees to the principle of exemptions for environmental concerns.

In spite of that public premise, WTO overturned democratically enacted rules designed to reduce US air pollution by requiring cleaner gasoline. The WTO also overturned rules designed to protect sea turtles from commercial fishing operations. How much more proof do we need that the WTO cannot be trusted to wield its enormous power responsibly?

(not) Promoting Human Rights

The sole goal of the WTO is strictly to reduce barriers to international trade.

Some countries (the US for example) see value in promoting human rights, such as free speech, around the world. These countries were once able to use trade sanctions to (try to) compel other countries to respect the rights of their people. The WTO does not look kindly upon this idea, since the sanctions by definition restrict international trade.

Thus, the WTO takes away one of the few tools available to compel other countries to respect their people's rights. If the governments do not support those rights when the people ask for them, and if there is no way for outside nations to compel support for these rights, the future of these rights grows dim.

Stable environments make better trading environments. This implies that countries with better human rights records will be better business partners.
- posted at www.commonwealthvoices.org

I disagree with this premise - while I personally feel strongly about the importance of human rights, I think it's optimistic to assume that governmental or economic leaders necessarily value human rights a priori, for the purposes of stability, or for the purposes of creating better trading environments.

Businesses exist to generate profit for their leaders and investors. Any increase in expenditures for worker's wages, compensation, or workplace safety means a decrease in profit.

Workers are less likely to unionize (read as: persuasively demand increased wages, compensation, or workplace safety) if they are prohibited from expressing themselves freely or assembling freely. Third-world sweatshops depend on the abridgement of these basic rights for their continued existence.

Many a multinational corporation is largely dependent upon inexpensive third-world labor to produce goods that are not economically feasible to produce in first-world countries where labor standards (wages, compensation, safety, etc) drive up the cost of production.

Many a government leader (and perhaps the entire WTO) is largely dependent upon the support of domestic business leaders, who in turn depend on revenues generated from the export or import of goods produced in the third world and sold in the first world.

Trade mechanisms have potential, but they will only be implemented effectively if the organizations that wield such power are committed to furthering human rights. I have serious doubts about the WTO's commitment to human rights.

China's Significance

With China's accession to the WTO, it seems more unlikely than ever that trade sanctions will be used to promote human rights.

First, China can not be expected to endorse trade sanctions against any country whose human rights situation is at all similar to China's.

Second, any individual government that attempts to implement 'trade mechanisms' for human rights purposes risks a challenge before the WTO's dispute resolution arm. Such challenges already tend to favor business interests over human and environmental interests, and with China's accession to the WTO, measures taken to promote human rights are even more likely to be found "discriminatory," thus subjecting the implementor to even worse WTO-supported trade sanctions.

So long as a business-driven global organization (e.g. the WTO) has the power to determine the trade practices of previously-sovereign countries, it seems extremely unlikely that trade-related mechanisms will ever be used to promote human rights.

And Before China Signed Up...

Myanmar has been under military rule since a coup in 1962. It joined the WTO in 1995, and appears to be winning the 'race to the bottom.' It's extremely disingenuous to suggest that the WTO will promote a better standard of living worldwide when one of its own members has such a rich history of forced labor and child labor within its own borders.