WTO Primer

Protestors at the Third Ministerial of the World Trade Organization in Seattle, 1999

During the last month of 1999, young people were in Seattle to protest the Third Ministerial of the World Trade Organization (WTO). They were lying down in front of delegate busses, withstanding gallons of pepper spray and trashing corporate chain stores such as Starbucks or Nike, which were beneficiaries of WTO policies. They were clearly angry and their anger was directed at an obvious target: the WTO.

The media, controlled by the same corporations that influence US policy within the WTO, did not report the reason for this anger at the time, or even now when the event has become a landmark in the global economy. So before we talk about the Fifth Ministerial in Cancun, let's first examine the WTO and why it is pissing off not just some young people in the US, but also the many of the farmers and working people of the world.

History

The WTO was formed in 1995 to be the most powerful organization in the world to govern international trade. It was established as the institutionalization of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The WTO was formed as both a legislative and judicial body, both making the rules and then acting as a court where various governments can bring contentious issues to the table.

So far it doesn't seem so bad, but that is because we haven't dealt with the ideological stance of the WTO yet. The WTO is not just a meeting place and does not have neutrality when it comes to trade policies. Its stance as stated on their web site is that "liberal trade policies -- policies that allow the unrestricted flow of goods and services -- sharpen competition, motivate innovation and breed success. They multiply the rewards that result from producing the best products, with the best design, at the best price."

So what does that mean? What does all the technical jargon of neo-liberalism and free trade translate into, and what impact does it have on those who are actually affected by these policies?

Agriculture

The 1994 Zapatista uprising is one of the starkest examples of revolt both because of its armed nature and because of the effects neo-liberal policies have had on Mexico. Corn is the staple of the Mexican diet and has been consumed for hundreds of years, finding its place in ancient Mayan civilizations and dinner tables in contemporary Mexico City. Until recently, the great majority of corn consumed in Mexico was produced by Mexican farmers, or campesinos.

The emergence of free trade, however, has had a devastating effect on the Mexican farmers. The WTO started to let US corn corporations sell corn in Mexico and because these corporations can sell corn at a lower price, Mexican farmers were put out of business.

Why is it that US corn corporations can sell corn at such a low price? Oddly enough, because of our tax dollars. Agricultural corporations receive billions of dollars in government subsidies, which pulls the price of corn below production costs. According to the British non-governmental organization (NGO) Oxfam, the corn industry in the US receives more government assistance than any other industry. In 2000 alone the US government provided 10.1 billion dollars in subsidies to transnational corporations in the corn business. As a result, the price of corn in Mexico has been brought down by 70%.

Since being put out of business, Mexican farmers such as those in the southern state of Chiapas have three options. They can either starve to death or:

1. Try to find work in the one of many US run sweatshops made possible by zero tariff policies of the WTO.

2. Try to make the dangerous and deadly journey (625 deaths in the past five years) across the Mexican-US Border to find some form of work in the US.