Nightmare scenarios have been painted of what a failure of the latest of the so-called Doha Round of World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations, taking place in Geneva this week, would mean. But the question must be asked: a nightmare for whom? 
 

It is also worth asking why the Doha Round has continued to stall year after year—first in the 2001 negotiations in Doha, Qatar, from which the negotiations took its name, then in Cancun in 2003 and again in Hong Kong in 2005. And given that the Doha Round has failed to launch since 2001, why the sudden urgency to make progress this week? 
 

There are two converging factors. Firstly, on Jul 1, 2007, the US “fast track” negotiating authority (also known as Trade Promotion Authority) expired. Secondly, there is growing momentum moving the US towards turning the free trade model on its head. 
 

There has been much discussion in the media about Barack Obama’s commitment to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) if elected president. Less attention has been paid to the recently introduced TRADE Act (the Trade Reform, Accountability, Development and Employment Act), which has already gained the support of over 50 members of Congress in the US. The TRADE Act calls for renegotiation of the WTO, NAFTA and a slew of other unfair trade agreements in order to put people and the planet before profits. Among other effects, the TRADE Act would effectively put the Doha Round out of its misery for once and for all. And so, WTO head Pascal Lamy and his friends in high places see themselves as being in a race against time.
 

One of the most widely promoted myths about “free trade” is that it is actually about freedom or trade. In reality, it has always been about eroding the ability of the public and governments to have oversight over irresponsible corporate behaviour. The model of corporate globalization which pretends to want to bring down barriers to trade is therefore preoccupied with erasing public policies which impede such “progress.” And so, this week’s last-gasp mini-ministerial to resurrect the Doha Round of negotiations is really an attempt to maximize power and profits by erecting barriers to democracy.

 

Why is the WTO model of free trade and economic globalization failing most people? There are several reasons. It favours corporate rights over community rights. Free trade agreements like those pushed forward through the WTO and NAFTA give special rights to big corporations through “investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms.” Through these mechanisms, corporations are able to sue governments if public interest laws hamper their ability to make a profit. 
 

Free trade widens the gap between rich and poor. Several United Nations and World Bank reports demonstrate that the gap between rich and poor is growing both between countries and within countries. We see it in the US as well as in Canada, where thousands of people are being laid off from their jobs on a regular basis and 16 per cent of children live below the poverty line. Canadians’ standard of living is falling, our social programs are being reduced or privatized and more and more people are working part-time, insecure jobs with few benefits.
 

Free trade is also a barrier to democracy. Most free trade agreements have some sort of “necessity” language which mandates that national, provincial or municipal government regulation can’t be “more burdensome than necessary” to commercial interests. Who decides whether public interest laws are “burdensome” for business? Elected officials don’t! Trade experts in Geneva or Washington make these kinds of decisions behind closed doors.
 

The final text of the Hong Kong ministerial declaration in 2005 called for “plurilaterals” as a new method of negotiating further liberalization. Out of the 158 member countries in the WTO, only 40 have been summoned to Geneva for this week’s meeting, as a clear progression of this “plurilateral” approach, which is designed to speed up the negotiations and to encourage countries to privatize and liberalize as quickly as possible. The bad news about plurilaterals is that the rules will be written by the most aggressive nations, who can then “gang up” on a targeted country. Via Campesina, an international movement of small agricultural producers, has rightly argued that “40 hand-selected trade ministers invited to Geneva do not have any mandate to decide on the future of millions of people.”
 

Free trade agreements give too much power to corporations, and not enough power to citizens. Some things—like water, education, culture and public services—should be considered part of the “global commons,” and excluded from a trade system based on profit. That idea may be a nightmare for Pascal Lamy, George Bush and Stephen Harper, but for the rest of the world it would be a dream come true. V