Taking Trade to the Streets: The Lost History of Public Efforts to Shape Globalization

Chapter 7: Thinking Locally, Acting Globally

chapter 7 Thinking Locally, Acting Globally On a sunny June afternoon in 1996, some seventy economists , political scientists, reporters, and business and government officials from around the world gathered in a fancy Washington, D.C., hotel. They met to celebrate the work of the new international organization that governs trade, the World Trade Organization (WTO), and to examine trade barriers that might be reduced in future international negotiations among WTO member nations. One of America’s most respected trade scholars, I. M. Destler, took the floor to discuss the politics of trade in the world’s most powerful trading nation, the United States. He stated that protectionist sentiment was waning because the economy was experiencing high employment and low inflationary growth. But he said nothing about how environmental, human rights, or food safety advocates had affected the development of the Uruguay Round or NAFTA. Like other analysts at that time, he did not see such activists as important players in the trade debate. (He later changed his views.)1 As he spoke, the sky exploded with rain, wind, and thunder. The extreme weather distracted his listeners. To lighten the mood, Ellen Frost, former counselor to USTR Mickey Kantor, openly wondered if the weather was God’s punishment for paying short shrift to “new protectionists ” who are concerned about such social and environmental issues. For as she knew, consumer and environmental activists had greatly influenced both the GATT and NAFTA negotiations. This book has illuminated how a broad group of individuals— including environmentalists, civic leaders, health and consumer advocates , human rights advocates, and others—joined traditional protectionists including economic nationalists, some producer interests, and some labor unions to hinder trade liberalization in the United States, in other nations, and at the WTO. These trade agreement critics have reminded citizens around the world that trade policy is not simply about economic policy but also about the achievement of other important policy goals. However, that debate has gotten more complex because trade agreements regulate trade among different nations with different approaches to economic and political governance. Moreover, trade agreements not only place limits on how nations can use traditional border measures, but they also increasingly affect domestic regulations that may, without intent, distort trade.2 What has been the impact of these trade agreement critics? First, they have changed the content and structure of trade agreements. As a result of their protests, NAFTA has side agreements relating to the environment and labor standards. The WTO, which replaced the GATT in 1995, is more explicit about the nexus of trade and environmental issues. Its preamble states that sustainable development policies, which reconcile economic growth and environmental protection, should be an objective of trade.3 Some trade disputes have provided clarification as to how nations can protect the environment without distorting trade (e.g., shrimp turtle). But WTO members have not formalized new rules that explicitly delineate how preserving the global commons and trade can be made complementary. Second, trade agreement critics also have influenced the structure of the WTO. For example, some developing country can’t afford the costs of representation in Geneva at the WTO offices. As a result of pressure from development activists and developing countries officials, WTO staff work to help developing countries better utilize the WTO system. In addition, by 1998, the WTO had a staff devoted to working with NGOs as well as personnel working on outreach. This staff made sure that a wide variety of NGOs were invited to participate in the 1999 Seattle trade talks, but it was up to governments to decide whether representatives of civil society should be included in their official delegations.4 Third, these critics have gotten more people talking about trade policy. Through demonstrations, teach-ins, and forums in the United States and around the world, they have stimulated discussions about NAFTA, GATT, and global economic interdependence. They have also changed how people talk about trade. Although issues of sovereignty and equity are not new to the debate, these issues have taken on greater coherence when trade agreement critics argue that trade agreements are essentially deregulatory. Fourth, trade agreement critics have raised important questions about the relationship between trade regulation and social/environmental regulation. However, many critics have not completely thought through their arguments about trade agreements. While they condemn Thinking Locally, Acting Globally 175 such agreements as deregulatory, few trade agreement critics admit that trade agreements reregulate some national...