Washington Post | November 15, 2001 | Editorial
THE WORLD Trade Organization summit that concluded yesterday was a double triumph of symbolism. By avoiding a repeat of the Seattle debacle of two years ago, the meeting proved that an ambitious attempt to advance international integration can succeed even in this era of globoprotest. And by launching a new round of trade talks that will focus on the needs of developing countries, the summit showed that the international system need not be the slave of corporate interests. With luck, this double victory could transform globalization's prospects. Protest leaders may be persuaded to work within the system. And the new emphasis on the link between trade and development may imbue globalization with the moral purpose that it needs to overcome its many enemies.
The summit only laid out an agenda for trade talks, though, and the fact that even this was difficult suggests the scale of the challenge ahead. This is all the more true since the toughest issues were resolved less by substantive compromise than by linguistic finesse. During the last night of haggling, the French objected to a mention in the summit declaration of "phasing out" subsidies for farm exports. They were eventually placated when a wordsmith inserted a preceding phrase saying "without prejudging the outcome of the negotiations."
To move from fudge to real bargaining, the WTO's member states are going to need pressure from nongovernmental activists. In their successful fight for debt relief, NGOs proved they could form international coalitions that move official policy, particularly on the moral question of world poverty. Advancing the new trade round is just as morally compelling. Its completion would clarify poor countries' rights to circumvent drug patents when battling public health crises. It would give them aid to help set up customs procedures and other trade-supporting institutions. And it would open markets for farm goods and low-tech manufacturers, which together constitute poor countries' best chance of exporting their way out of misery.
Along with NGO pressure, the trade talks will need American leadership. Since the Second World War, U.S. commitment to open trade has driven successive rounds of tariff cuts, boosting the international prosperity that underpins our national security. In the past half-decade, when sole-superpower status led some to take national security for granted, the consensus in favor of trade evaporated, and ambitious multilateral negotiation became impossible. But since Sept. 11 Americans have seen that national security is not ensured, and that abject poverty in developing countries does threaten their interests. That realization must now be translated into a new pro-trade politics.
The site of this translation must be Congress, which has yet to grant the Bush administration trade promotion authority. The House Republicans have written a bill that attempts to win Democratic support with concessions on labor and the environment, but Democrats are hard to get on this issue. The leadership on both sides needs to meet and hammer out a compromise, and President Bush needs to invest some of his ample political capital in getting them to do so. After this week's summit, it will be tempting to say, phew, trade is now off the agenda. But trade negotiations are just beginning. The administration needs trade promotion authority so that it can drive them forward, and so that this chance to link globalization with development is not allowed to slip away.
c 2001 The Washington Post CompanyWashington Post:
