"Since the WTO was born, have things gone as smoothly as planned? The quick answer is NO. Because WTO has not been spared the challenges that lie at the heart of the problem of co-existence in a world where nation-states largely pursue self-interest.Problematic issues related to tariff and non-tariff barriers, agricultural subsidies, and dumping of goods have continued to breed uncertainty and bad feelings in the international marketplace. " ________________ It's a dog-eat-dog world out there, where the rich want to get richer Confidence in the global free trade regime has been severely shaken by America's slapping of tariffs of up to 30 percent on steel. Bad blood developed when the European Union (EU) contemplated slapping counter tariffs on US products. Several other countries also lined up behind the EU to condemn the United States move to protect inefficient American steel mills. The World Trade Organisation (WTO), which is mandated to handle trade disputes threatening world trade, has appointed a panel of judges to determine the legality of the US tariffs. It is at times like this that the notion of free trade comes in for scrutiny. Since the WTO was born on Jan. 1, 1995 to regulate global free trade and provide a forum for discussion, have things gone as smoothly as planned? The quick answer is NO. Because WTO has not been spared the challenges that lie at the heart of the problem of co-existence in a world where nation-states largely pursue self-interest. Problematic issues related to tariff and non-tariff barriers, agricultural subsidies, and dumping of goods have continued to breed uncertainty and bad feelings in the international marketplace. Today it is glaringly clear that many countries continue to protect their economies. The major offenders are the rich countries of Europe and North America, which, ironically, are most vocal about free trade. These countries have continued to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on protectionism, meaning that the creation of the WTO did precious little - or nothing - to fundamentally alter the global imbalances that have been in place since time immemorial. Poor countries have long complained that global free trade has not been free for them at all. They have grumbled, correctly, that the huge agricultural subsidies in Europe and North America contradict the spirit of multilateral free trade. Even in exceptional cases like the much-touted Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which gives 35 sub-Saharan African countries duty-free and quota-free access to the vast US market, the benchmarks for practical implementation were laid out such that most African nations could not immediately realise sales. Take textiles. Only a few countries such as Kenya and Mauritius, which already had export capability (thanks to outwardly-oriented economic policies encouraging export compensation schemes, manufacturing under bond, export-processing zones) have actually realised sales through AGOA. By the time debutantes such as Uganda develop capacity, chances are that the powerful US textile lobbies will have influenced the raising of non-tariff barriers to undercut exports from these countries. The American textile industry is in very bad shape. Textile mills are padlocking doors or downsizing. In the past few years close to 200,000 workers have lost their jobs. And the remaining 400,000 or so are troubled by uncertainty as the industry continues to suffer a relentless decline. Textiles have become a major political campaign issue in America, with politicians saying that no more mills should be let to go to the wall. It would, therefore, be remiss of us to ignore the reality that many Americans need those very jobs AGOA is supposed to be creating for us. (Never mind the fact that African workers get penny wages compared with their American counterparts.) With AGOA, caution is recommended. There are some 1,800 items under this arrangement. The challenge for us is to identify those items in which we do have some core competence and/or comparative advantage to benefit most from fair competition. It's a dog-eat-dog world out there, where the rich want to get richer and the poor are getting poorer. Already, desperate actions by poor countries to open up their economies in the expectation that global trade would be the engine of their economic growth, have mostly ended up enriching the already rich. "In the past few years the international economic environment has seen a surge of activity and new initiatives, especially in trade, capital flows and financial liberalisation," says the United Nations Development Programme report of 1998. "Many changes are positive - but they are driven overwhelmingly by the economic interests of the rich and powerful countries. Global inequalities have grown more extreme. Nothing short of major reconsideration of mechanisms to offset these tendencies to global inequality is needed.":
