sign in sign up
<<
Home , World Trade Organization

A Citizen’s Guide to THE A Citizen’s Guide to the Organization Published by the Working Group on the WTO / MAI, July 1999

Printed in the U.S. by Inkworks, a worker- owned union shop

ISBN 1-58231-000-9

EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW TO The contents of this pamphlet may be freely reproduced provided that its source FIGHT FOR is acknowledged. THE WTO AND this system sidelines environmental rules, health and labor CORPORATE standards to provide transnational corporations (TNCs) with a cheap supply of labor and natural resources. The WTO also guarantees corporate access to What do the U.S. Cattlemen’s Associa- foreign markets without requiring that tion, Chiquita Banana and the Venezu- TNCs respect countries’ domestic elan oil industry have in common? These priorities. big business were able to defeat hard-won national ensuring The myth that every nation can grow by safety, strengthening local econo- exporting more than they import is central mies and protecting the environment by to the neoliberal ideology. Its proponents convincing governments to challenge the seem to forget that in order for one laws at the World Trade Organization country to an automobile, some (WTO). other country has to import it.

Established in 1995, the WTO is a The WTO Hurts U.S. Workers - Steel powerful new global commerce agency, More than 10,000 which transformed the General Agree- high-, high-tech ment on Tarriffs and Trade (GATT) into workers in the U.S. an enforceable global commercial code. steel industry lost The WTO is one of the main mecha- their jobs this past nisms of corporate globalization. While year as U.S. factories its proponents say it is based on “free laid off workers in trade,” in fact, the WTO’s 700-plus response to a surge pages of rules set out a comprehensive of imports from system of corporate-managed trade. , , and Indeed, the WTO has little to do with the Brazil. This import 18th Century philosophy surge was caused in developed by or Adam part by the WTO’s Smith, who assumed neither labor nor equally problematic capital crossed national borders. “cousin” organization, the International Under the WTO’s system of corporate- Monetary Fund (IMF), managed trade, economic efficiency, which pushed reflected in short-run corporate profits, countries to increase dominates other values. Decisions their to the U.S. as a way to get affecting the economy are to be confined out of the financial crisis caused in part by to the private sector, while social and past IMF policies. The United Steel Workers environmental costs are borne by the of America joined with steel industry public. leaders to ask the President for emergency relief. The President said he would not help Sometimes called the “neoliberal” model, because WTO rules forbid such action. 1 2 A global system of enforceable rules of its current rules before negotiating is being created where corporations new agreements.This booklet explains what the WTO is, how it is damaging have all the rights, governments have the public , how corporations all the obligations, and democracy is and some governments want to expand left behind in the dust. WTO’s powers, and what you can do. Now the world’s transnational compa- WHAT IS THE WTO nies want more — a new “Millennium Round” of further WTO negotiations AND HOW DOES IT which would accelerate the economic WORK? race to the bottom by expanding the WTO’s powers. “More and more the WTO is under pressure to expand its agenda because more and But this concept’s failure goes beyond more it is seen as the focal point for the this inherent sham: the lose-lose nature many challenges and concerns of of export-led growth was exposed in the globalization.” aftermath of the East Asian financial - crisis of 1998. When the IMF compelled WTO Director General Asian countries to try to export their way out of their crises, the U.S. became The WTO is the international organiza- the importer of last resort. U.S. steel- tion charged with enforcing a set of trade workers lost jobs to a flood of steel rules including the General Agreement on imports, while workers in Asia remained Tariffs and Trade (GATT), Trade Related mired in a terrible depression. Intellectual Property Measures (TRIPS), General Agreement on Trade in Services The neoliberal ideological underpinning (GATS), among others. WTO was estab- of corporate-managed trade is pre- lished in 1995 in the ” Round”of sented as TINA — “There Is No Alter- GATT negotiations. native” — an inevitable outcome rather than the culmination of a long-term Prior to the , GATT effort to write and put into place rules rules focused primarily on tariffs and designed to benefit corporations and quotas. Consensus of GATTmembers investors, rather than communities, was required to enforce the rules. The workers and the environment. Uruguay Round expanded GATT rules to cover what is known in trade jargon The top trade officials of every WTO as “non- barriers to trade.” These member country are meeting in Seattle are food safety laws, product stan- at the end of November. If you haven’t dards, rules on use of tax dollars, bought the public relations campaign on policy and other domestic TINA and want to help change the laws that impact trade. The WTO’s rules, join your fellow citizens on the rules limit what non-tariff policies Road to Seattle and Beyond. To start countries can implement or maintain. with, the WTO must assess the effects 34 Currently there are 134 member countries THE WTO’S RECORD: in the WTO and 33 nations with observer status. Officially, decisions in the WTO THREATS TO are made by voting or consensus. How- DEMOCRACY, HEALTH ever, developed countries, especially the so-called QUAD countries (U.S., , AND THE ENVIRONMENT Japan and the ), repeat- edly have made key decisions in closed meetings, excluding other WTO nations. When the WTO was created, con- cerned citizens and public interest The WTO’s lack of democratic process organizations warned that the combina- or accountable decision-making is epito- tion of the WTO’s pro-industry rules and mized by the WTO Dispute Settlement powerful enforcement would pose a Process. The WTO allows countries to threat to laws designed to protect challenge each others’ laws and regula- consumers, workers, and the environ- tions as violations of WTO rules. Cases ment. Almost five years later, there is a are decided by a panel of three trade bu- clear record: the cases settled under reaucrats. There are no conflict of inter- WTO rules show the WTO’s bias est rules and the panelists often have little against the public interest. appreciation of domestic or of gov- ernment responsibility to protect workers, the environment or human rights. Thus, THE it is not surprising that every single envi- ronmental or public health law challenged CLEAN AIR at WTO has been ruled illegal. CASE

WTO tribunals operate in secret. Docu- CASECASE: On behalf of its oil industry, ments, hearings and briefs are confiden- Venezuela challenged a U.S. Clean Air tial. Only national governments are al- Act regulation that required gas lowed to participate, even if a state law is refiners to produce cleaner gas. The being challenged. There are no outside rule used the 1990 actual performance appeals. data of oil refineries required to file with EPA (mostly U.S. refineries) as the Once a final WTO ruling is issued, losing starting point for required improve- countries have a set time to implement ments for refineries without reliable one of only three choices: change their data (mostly foreign). Venezuela law to conform to the WTO requirements, claimed this rule was biased against pay permanent compensation to the win- foreign refiners and took the case to ning country, or face non-negotiated trade the WTO. sanctions. The U.S. official position is that ultimately, laws must be changed to be RESULTRESULT: A WTO panel ruled against consistent with WTO policy. the U.S. law. In 1997, the EPA

56 changed the clean air rules to give should have the right to enact laws that foreign refiners the choice of using an support their choices. Instead, the WTO individual baseline (starting point). The empowers its tribunals to second-guess EPA acknowledged that the change whether health and environmental rules “creates a potential for adverse environ- have a “valid” scientific basis. mental impact.” implication: Refiners from Venezuela The and other countries will use the indi- Shrimp vidual baseline option only if it gives them a weaker starting point, and thus turtle lets them sell dirtier gasoline in the case U.S., which would deteriorate air quality. The WTO gives businesses a CASECASE: Four Asian nations challenged special avenue to challenge policies, provisions of the U.S. Endangered like the Clean Air rules, which have Species Act forbidding the sale in the withstood domestic challenges. U.S. of shrimp caught in ways that kill endangered sea turtles. The Beef RESULT: In 1998, a WTO appellate Hormone panel decided that while the U.S. is Case allowed to protect turtles, the specific way the U.S. tried to do so was not allowed under WTO rules. The U.S. CASE : The U.S. challenged a Euro- government is now considering ways pean Union ban on the sale of beef to change the law to comply with from cattle that have been raised with WTO. certain artificial growth hormones. IMPLICATIONIMPLICATION: It is possible to catch RESULTRESULT: In 1998, a WTO appellate shrimp without harming turtles by panel ruled against the EU law, giving fitting shrimp nets with inexpensive the EU until May 13, 1999 to open its “turtle excluder devices.” U.S. law markets to hormone-treated beef. requires domestic and foreign shrimp fishermen to use turtle-safe methods. IMPLICATIONIMPLICATION: The ban on artificial The goal of turtles could be hormones applies equally to European undercut by the WTO’s second- farmers and foreign producers. If guessing of how U.S. policy should be European consumers and governments implemented, given the most inexpen- are opposed to the use of artificial sive, effective means has been ruled hormones and are concerned about WTO-illegal. potential health risks or want to promote more natural farming methods, they

78 The Rotten bananas - Corporate interests trample workers

banana According to Caribbean womens groups, “The case assured for bananas has given thousands of families in the sub-region of the Windward Islands a measure of security CASECASE: The U.S. argued that European and has afforded us dignity and self-reliance. trade preferences for bananas from former European colonies in the The loss of this security through a sudden Caribbean unfairly discriminate against change in market opportunities would leave bananas grown by U.S. companies in us without resources to build a future for our Central America. families and our countries.” RESULTRESULT: In 1997, a WTO panel decided Why is the U.S. launching a over a that European preferences for Carib- product it doesn’t even grow? Perhaps huge bean bananas are WTO-illegal. The campaign donations by Chiquita CEO Carl EU proposed a new policy that the U.S. Lindner are a big reason. According to the claims still violates WTO rules. The Washington Times (8/25/97), Lindner gave U.S. was granted authority by the WTO more than half a million dollars in 1998 in to impose $200 million in trade sanc- campaign contributions to both parties. The tions against European imports until the giant Chiquita plantations in Central EU changes the policy to suit WTO America are notorious violators of workers’ demands. health and the right to organize, but this has not prevented the Clinton Administration IMPLICATIONIMPLICATION: The Caribbean’s tiny from pleading their case. share of the EU market for bananas is the major source of revenue and jobs in some Caribbean nations where moun- THE WTO’S BUILT-IN tainous terrain rules out other crops. If AGENDA AND THE Europe abandons its policy to comply with the WTO, some 200,000 small “NEW” ISSUES farmers in very poor countries could lose their livelihoods. Different countries and interests have different agendas for the WTO’s Seattle Officials in small Caribbean nations Ministerial meeting. There are three sets worry that implementation of the WTO of issues: First, many WTO agreements ruling will destabilize their economies (Agriculture, Intellectual Property, Ser- and democracies. The U.S. drug czar vices) have built-in reviews set for noted that the policy change could specific time periods. These reviews do make these countries more vulnerable not necessarily require new deregulation to drug trafficking. talks. The second category includes committments made at past WTO 910 ministerial meetings to conduct future THE SPS AGREEMENT negotiations on agriculture and ser- vices. The key question that will be The WTO’s Agreement on Sanitary and resolved during this year is whether a Phytosanitary Standards (SPS Agree- third category of “new issues” will be ment) sets constraints on government moved into the WTO. Inclusion of policies relating to food safety (bacterial these “new issues,” such as invest- contaminants, pesticides, inspection, ment, policy and govern- labeling) and animal and plant health ment procurement, would expand the (imported pests, diseases). power of the WTO further than ever before. The SPS agreement goes well beyond forbidding discrimination between EXISTING AGREEMENTS domestic and foreign . It also sets limits on the level of safety a country TRIPS AGREEMENT can choose, even it applies it equally to domestic and foreign goods. For instance, the SPS rules undercut The Trade-Related Intellectual Property countries’ use of the “Precautionary Agreement (TRIPS) sets enforceable Principle,” which calls for policies to err global rules on , and on the side of precaution when there is . not yet scientific certainty about poten- tial threats to human health and the The exercised environment. The SPS rules, on the heavy influence onTRIPS negotiations. other hand, err on the side of protecting As a result, the final TRIPS pact trade flows at all costs. requires countries to adopt U.S.-style intellectual property laws, such as Beef Hormone. The Precautionary those granting sales rights to Principle was eviscerated in the WTO’s individual holders for extended Beef Hormone ruling. The SPS Agree- time periods. TRIPS requires nations ment puts the burden of proof on like , and Brazil to countries to scientifically demonstrate abandon many policies that help them that something is dangerous before it to develop local pharmaceutical pro- can be regulated. The WTO dispute duction and make drugs affordable and panel declared that the European Union available to poor consumers. lacked sufficient scientific proof that artificial hormone treated beef can Pharmaceutical companies hope that threaten human health. The EU must new WTO intellectual property negotia- eliminate the ban or face trade sanc- tions will enable them to tighten the tions. rules even further, with developing countries losing the modest options left Exotic Pests. Invasive “exotic spe- to make essential medicines, including cies,” such as the Asian Long-Horn those for prevention and treatment of Beetle, are second only to habitat loss HIV/AIDS, more available. 11 12 as a cause of species extinction and GATS: IN WHOSE ? cost the U.S. economy approximately Services, as in “,” $123 billion annually. Under SPS rules, includes nearly all economic activity not governments must prove that a particu- involving manufactured goods, raw lar pest or exotic species could be materials or farm products. Since harmful before applying safeguards many services, such as patient care or intended to keep it out. Yet scientists teaching, require person-to-person agree that it is impossible to predict all interaction, it used to be almost a forms of damage posed by all insects or truism that services would remain pest plants. Without the precautionary localized. No longer. Today banking, principle, forests have to be infested insurance, and data management have and devastated by beetles before a all become part of the global economy. can be applied. Food Labeling. The WTO declared an “Since 1987, U.S. services exports obscure agency — have more than doubled, reaching (an agency known to have a thick $239 billion last year.” corporate presence) — as the arbiter of - U.S. Dept. of Commerce food safety standards for the world. This move was seen as a significant threat to The General Agreement on Trade in hard-won consumer protections. Even Services (GATS) is one of 15 Uruguay worse, the Clinton Administration now Round agreements enforced under the argues that SPS rules restrict a country’s WTO. GATS calls for continuing right to label products with information negotiations, although major telecom- that consumers care deeply about, such munications and financial services as the production method (e.g. “organic”) deregulation agreements have already or genetic manipulation. This would been completed in the past four years, dramatically limit consumers’ right to further services talks are still on the know. WTO’s built-in agenda. Indeed, the “There would be no to labeling industry and now U.S. Trade Represen- tative are calling where there can be no perceived for new coverage of health and educa- benefit to the public other than that tion under WTO rules. Explicit coverage some sector of the public thinks it is under GATT terms of water and water their right to know.” systems, including municipal drinking - Arnold Foudin, USDA water, may also be included on the GATS agenda. The entire Agriculture Agreement, including SPS, has a built-in review. GATS terms include commitments by Instead of launching further deregulation each country to deregulate each service talks, the SPS agreement should be sector. Further financial service reviewed with a view to changing it to deregulation is one of the “back doors” protect our environmental, health and to slip parts of the MAI into the WTO. safety laws.

13 14 THE AGREEMENT ON NEW ISSUES AGRICULTURE MAI IN THE WTO The Uruguay Round set rules on international food trade and on domestic ag policy. The Multilateral Agreement on Invest- These rules have accelerated the rapid ment (MAI) aimed to set strict global concentration of agribusinesses and rules limiting governments’ right and undercut poor countries’ ability to ability to regulate speculation, maintain food self-sufficiency through investment in land, factories, services, subsistence agriculture. stocks, and more. It was negotiated in secret for two years at the Organization The agreement assumes that rather for Economic Cooperation and Devel- than being self-sufficient in food, opment (OECD), a club of 29 of the countries will buy their food in interna- world’s richest countries. Negotiations tional markets using earned were pushed by TNCs and major from exports. However, many “less business lobbies worldwide. developed” countries face low commod- ity for their limited range of In 1997, the deal started to unravel exports. During the WTO’s first four when activists exposed the potential years, the prices of agricultural com- corporate power grab. By December modities fell to record lows, while food 1998, the OECD threw in the towel and prices remained high. This system can ceased negotiations. Now many OECD hurt both farmers and consumers and countries, led by the EU, want to revive paves the way for TNCs to dominate the MAI by putting it in the WTO. markets, especially in poor countries. The MAI would have: Rules are needed to address the rapid √ forbidden consideration of concentration in agribusiness. A small company or country human handful of companies trade virtually all rights, labor or environmental the world’s corn, wheat, and soybeans. records as investment criteria For example, were Cargill to succeed in √ prevented governments from its current bid to buy Continental’s grain promoting local economic operations, it would control more than development by granting big 40% of all U.S. corn exports, a third of foreign corporations new abso- all soybean exports and at least 20% of lute rights to enter markets wheat exports. This increased consoli- and get preferential treatment. dation has led to near monopoly √ banned certain investment ‘condi- conditions in both the farm supply tions’ altogether, such as requir- industry and in the food processing and ing recycled or domestic content systems. in manufacturing or hiring local workers 15 16 √ forbid regulating hot money ecosystems or biodiversity. Eliminating speculation - the very cause of tariffs on forest products will result in the devastating Asian financial an increase in consumption and logging crises. at a time when the world’s native forests are facing extinction. According The MAI even included provisions to the World Resources Institute, nearly empowering foreign corporations to sue one-half of the world’s original forest national governments in MAI tribunals cover is gone. Of the remaining original for monetary compensation if they forests, most is severely degraded, believed government policies undercut while only 22% remains as large tracts their future profits. of relatively undisturbed frontier forests.

Local officials realized how the MAI “It is critical that the international would jeopardize their ability to serve forest products industry set aside their communities. Many city councils, parochial interests and join together such as San Francisco, Seattle, to support a WTO trade liberal- and others rallied against the ization agreement in [forest MAI by passing local resolutions products] this year.” declaring their communities “MAI Free Zones.” It will take the continued - W. Henson Moore, President alliance of activists, local governments and CEO of the American and unions to prevent the MAI from Forest & Paper Association being reborn at the WTO. The negotiations could also threaten important environmental rules that the WTO considers to be non-tariff GLOBAL FREE barriers to trade: for example, the LOGGING federal ban on the export of raw logs from most public lands which was AGREEMENT created to protect endangered forests. Popular eco-labeling or certification The Clinton Administration has made it policies (such as those in Arizona, New a priority to have a “forest products” York and Tennessee) which require agreement signed in Seattle. The tropical rainforest wood purchased by proposed “Global Free Logging Agree- government to be sustainably har- ment” would expand global consump- vested, could also be considered non- tion of paper, pulp and other wood tariff barriers. products by 3-4% says industry. It also could restrict certain pro-environmental The Clinton Administration should be government policies. It could pose a living up to its “pro-environment” major threat to endangered forests, rhetoric by writing trade agreements that protect forests and ecosystems

18 17 rather than pursuing a Global Free Logging Agreement. Now some countries want these rules to become compulsory for all WTO mem- COMPETITION POLICY bers (and for the states, provinces, and regions within each country) in the TNCs view efforts by governments to proposed “Millennium Round” of negotia- foster local economic development by tions. dwarfs restricting TNCs’ access to local markets current trade flows in dollar value. as being an anti-competitive practice. Burma Human Rights With support from the European Union, In 1996, Massachusetts passed a law to TNCs want new absolute rights to enter discourage state government purchases and operate in any country to be agreed (procurement) from companies doing in the proposed WTO Millennium Round. business in Burma to the Myanmar Proponents cynically argue that local military dictatorship’s egregious human firms, especially in developing countries, rights abuses. The law was identical to state will “benefit” by becoming more efficient legislation passed in the 1980s to support when facing competition from abroad. In the anti-apartheid movement in South reality, removing governments’ ability to Africa. avoid monopolization of markets by huge TNCs will only lead to more of the However, this time the affected corporations takeovers, mergers and other consolida- used the WTO to protect their interests. With tion of industry that is undermining real TNC encouragement, the E.U. and Japan competition. challenged the law at the WTO as a violation of the WTO government procurement pact. GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT

The Uruguay Round even included Local, state and federal governments use rules on how governments can spend government procurement to achieve our tax dollars. Under these rules, domestic policy goals from increasing governments cannot take political, local employment to awarding public social, environmental, or justice issues contracts to firms owned by women or into account when deciding what or minorities to spur economic development from whom to buy. Basically, the rules in these groups. In the U.S., thanks to forbid all non-economic considerations, federal government set-aside programs, such as preferences for recycled paper 23% of firms owned by women of color or bans on products from certain have some sales to the government. nations. However, unlike all of the other TNCs are attacking these programs and rules enforced by WTO, not every policies as interfering with the “free” country was required to sign on to the market. If TNCs get their way, govern- procurement rules which cover 26 ment purchasers will join the race to the countries and some U.S. states. bottom.

19 20 round of WTO negotiations in WHAT’S UP FOR THE Seattle and to endorse an assess- WTO IN SEATTLE? ment of the WTO’s record to date. Urge members of Congress to sign Rep. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT), “Dear When the WTO countries meet in Seattle, Colleague” letter demanding WTO they will finalize a “Ministerial Declaration” review and repair. that will announce the future WTO agenda. At the end of the previous Round, WTO ( Contact the U.S. negotiators members agreed to form committees to and tell them why you think we consider agriculture, services and intellectual should conduct an assessment of property rights (now called the “built-in the WTO rather than expand it. agenda”). Now some countries want to add Make sure to mention that you investment (the MAI), procurement and oppose any investment negotia- competition policy, calling for the launch of a tions in the WTO. “Millennium Round” of negotiations. What- U.S. Trade Representative (the ever future negotiations might be agreed, agency in charge of WTO talks) is further deregulation favoring private interests Charlene Barshefsky, phone: 202- can be anticipated. 395-6890, fax: 202-395-4549 White House: John Podesta The European Union wants to launch a 202-456-1414 Millennium Round at Seattle. The U.S. Vice President Gore: favors the more limited built-in agenda. 202-456-1111 Some developing countries are strongly opposed to further negotiations since * Write a letter-to-the-editor deregulation and have hurt about why we need to assess them. They oppose a new Round and call for WTO’s current record, not expand a turn-around of the WTO, a theme which is its reach further. Find sample being echoed by a growing consensus of letters on the web-pages listed on activists worldwide, see www.xs4all.nl/~ceo/ page 23. TAKE ACTION! TAKE ACTION! ! Sign and circulate the interna- tional organizational sign-on letter ÜEducate yourself and others about the opposing a new round of negotia- WTO! Check out the contact list of web- tions and demanding a WTO pages listed on pages 23-25 for additional assessment (www.xs4all.nl/~ceo/). information. Ü Participate in days-of-action * Write your Member of Congress, both against a “Millennium Round.” your Senators and local elected officials. More information will be posted on Urge them to oppose the launch of a new the web-sites on page 23.

21 22 ÜOrganize a Teach-In, town hall ♦National Family Farm Coalition. meeting, debate etc. on the WTO and Washington, DC (202) 543-5675 globalization. Focus on local conse- quences. Invite proponents and oppo- Perspective nents of so-called “free-trade.” Network. www.twnside.org.sg, Penang, Malaysia, Ü Come to Seattle for the ministerial + 60-4-2266728. meeting! The meeting will take place ♦ 50 Years Is Enough Network, from November 29 through December www.50years.org, (202)-463-2265 3, and will include a major international Teach-In organized by the International Economic/Political Forum on Globalization (IFG) the ♦Alliance for Democracy. www.afd- weekend before, street festivities, online.org, Washington, DC (202) 244- education, cultural activities, 0561 and much more. Contact People for a ♦The Preamble Center. Fair Trade Policy (Seattle based toll- www.preamble.org, Washington, DC free at 1-877-STOP-WTO or 786-7986) (202) 265-3263 or www.tradewatch.org ♦United for a Fair Economy. www.stw.org, Boston, MA (617) 423- CONTACTS 2148 Environment ♦American Lands Alliance. The World Trade Organization www.americanlands.org, Washington, www.wto.org, Geneva, , DC (202) 547-9230. (+ 41 22) 739 51 11 ♦Center for International Environmental Law. www.econet.apc.org/ciel., General ♦ Washington, DC (202) 785-8700 Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch. ♦Friends of the Earth. www.foe.org, www.tradewatch.org, Washington, DC Washington, DC (202) 783-7400 (202) 546-4996 ♦Pacific Environment and Resources ♦International Forum on Globalization Center (PERC). www.pacenv.org, (IFG). www.ifg.org, San Francisco, Oakland, CA (510) 251- 8800 CA, (415) 771-3394 ♦Sierra Club. www.sierraclub.org, Agriculture and Food Policy Washington, DC (202) 547-1141 (202) 778-9721 ♦Institute for Agriculture and Trade ♦ Defenders of Wildlife. Policy. www.iatp.org, Minneapolis, www.defenders.org, 202-682-9400 MN (612) 870-3405

23 24 Labor ♦AFL-CIO (American Federation of GLOSSARY Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations). www.aflcio.org/ Millennium Round- name given by front.htm. Washington, DC, (202) 637- European Union officials to their call for 5000 broad new trade negotiations they hope ♦International Brotherhood of Team- will be agreed at the 1999 WTO Minis- sters. www.teamster.org, Washington, terial and launched thereafter. DC (202) 624-6800 ♦United Autoworkers of America OECD- Organization for Economic (UAW). www.uaw.org, Washington, DC Cooperation and Development de- (202) 828-8500 scribes itself as “an intergovernmental organization comprising 29 advanced ♦United Steelworkers of America. economies from Europe, North www.uswa.org, Washington, DC, (202) America, and the Pacific Region.” Until 778-4384 the MAI talks, OECD has served as a think tank for rich countries. Women’s Organizations ♦ Women’s Edge, Washington, DC, IMF- The International Monetary Fund www.womensedge.org, (202) 884-8394 is one of the three Bretton Woods ♦ Women’s International League for organizations set up after World War II and Freedom, Washington, DC along with GATT and the . (202) 546-6727 The IMF’s original role was to help with short-term cash crunches relating to Religious Organizations trade finanacing. In recent decades the Women’s Division, GBGM United IMF has morphed into providing long- Methodist Church, Washington, DC, term loans to developing countries on [email protected], (202) 488-5660 the condition that these countries reorganize their laws and economies to Seattle prioritize servicing debt, for instance by WTO Host Committee of People for Fair cutting government spending and Trade, Seattle, WA, liberalizing trade and investment rules. www.tradewatch.org, 1-877-STOP-WTO (786-7986) IPRs- “Intellectual property rights” are ownership rights on designs, formulas, Small Business information, or processes. IPRs include Business and Industry patents (exclusive rights to sell a Council (USBIC) Educational Founda- product or use a process for manufac- tion. www.usbusiness.org, Washington, turing a product); copyrights to creative DC, (202) 728-1985 material such as books or films; and trademarks to brand names. The WTO TRIPs agreement requires countries to grant strong protection of IPRs. 25 26 GMOs- “Genetically modified organ- principle has been attacked under WTO isms” are animals, plants or microor- rules requiring governments to have ganisms scientists create by manipulat- scientific evidence to regulate imports ing genetic material. GMOs often are of potentially dangerous products. developed by inserting genes from one species into another. Uruguay Round- The most recent past multi-sectoral GATT trade negotiations Single undertaking- A round of trade started in 1986. It established the WTO talks including multiple sectors in which and included a major expansion of various issues are bargained off for GATT into new issues such as ser- each other. At the end of negotiations, vices, IPRs and some investment countries either accept or reject the issues. entire package; they cannot select parts of the deal a la carte. TRIPS- “Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights.” See page 11. Early Harvest- Unlike a single under- taking, this negotiating strategy calls for GATS- “General Agreement on Trade specific issues or pieces of a broad in Services.” See page 14. negotiation to be “harvested” early by signing an agreement on one of the SPS- “Sanitary and Phytosanitary issues under negotiation before the Standards.” See page 12. entire negotiation is complete. MAI- “Multilateral Agreement on Director General- Title given to the Investment.” See page 16. head of the World Trade Organization. TRIMS- “Trade Related Investment Tariffs- Taxes on imported products set Measures.” See MAI page 16. as a percentage of the product’s value. They are collected at the importing TNCs- Transnational Corporations. country’s border. GATT negotiations over the past 50 years have lowered tariffs on most products.

NTMs or NTBs - “Non tariff measure” or “Non-tariff barrier” is trade terminol- ogy for any government policy that is not a tariff but may affect trade.

Precautionary Principle- Well-ac- cepted principle that in cases of scien- tific , governments should take action erring on the side of protect- ing health and the environment. This

27 28 ORDER FORM FOR BOOKLET WTO BOOKLETS COSPONSORS

Alliance for Democracy To order additional copies of this booklet: Americans for Democratic Action Send mail orders to : The Apex Press American Lands Alliance Suite 3C, 777 UN Plaza New York, NY 10017 Association of State Green Parties ORDERS FROM THE U.S., CANADA, : Defenders of Wildlife

For a single copy, send $2.00, plus a 50 Years Is Enough Network self-addressed, stamped #10 envelope with 55 cents postage. Friends of the Earth

Organizational discounts on bulk orders International Brotherhood of are as follows: Teamsters Quantity /copy Postage 2 -10 1.50 $3.00 Priority Institute for Agriculture and Trade 11 - 24 1.50 $5.00 UPS Policy 25 - 99 1.00 Call Apex Press 100 + .75 Call Apex Press Pacific Environment and Resources Center ORDERS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES: The Preamble Center Single booklet is U.S. $3.50 including postage. Public Citizen Orders must be pre-paid using a credit card or $U.S. money order. United Steelworkers of America, For multiple copies or to use credit card, District 11 please phone/fax Apex Press at 914- 271-6500 or email [email protected]. Women’s Division, GBGM United Methodist Church

Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom