-Caveat Lector- SEATTLE TIMES Editorial & Opinion Posted at 02:44 a.m. PST; Friday, November 12, 1999 Guest columnist WTO is dismantling democracy by Sally Soriano Special to The Times THE World Trade Organization (WTO) ministers are meeting in Seattle at the end of November to decide how to further extend their organization's power. In the media, the WTO's five-year record is usually portrayed as benign. The record, in fact, is alarming, showing that the U.S. Congress and other national governments have turned over many of the decisions that affect people's daily lives to unelected trade bureaucrats. The WTO's panels of "judges," who have presided over 100 cases to date, have always decided in favor of profit over national protective law. Some examples: The U.S. government, representing the U.S. beef industry (70 percent owned by Cargill), challenged a European Union (EU) ban on the sale of hormone-treated beef. The ban applies to European beef farmers and foreign beef producers alike. The European Parliament cited scientific studies showing the possibility of these hormones causing increased cancer rates. In 1998, a WTO panel ruled against the EU law, saying there was no scientific evidence that hormone-treated beef was detrimental to health. The U.S. has now placed retaliatory tariffs on imported European goods due to the EU's refusal to overturn their law. This WTO ruling directly challenges a pillar of contemporary public-health policy, the precautionary principle. Under this principle, potentially dangerous substances must be proven safe before they are put on the market. The principle, widely recognized in international and environmental law, is based on the fact that science does not always provide the information necessary for authorities to avert environmental or public health threats in a timely manner. Many areas of U.S. law, such as our system for approving new pharmaceuticals, are based on the precautionary principle. The WTO stood the precautionary principle on its head and shifted the burden of proof from the manufacturer of the product to the government seeking to regulate the product, in essence making guinea pigs out of the Europeans. By rejecting a popular consumer safeguard, the WTO sent a powerful message about its priorities. The WTO is now on record as placing the ultimate authority of overruling national food-safety laws in the hands of international bankers and trade economists. On behalf of its oil industry, Venezuela challenged a U.S. Clean Air Act regulation that required gas refiners to reduce the level of pollutants in gasoline they intend to sell in the United States. This regulation defines the starting point from which refineries will lower the amount of pollutants in their gasoline by using data collected by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from U.S. oil refineries in 1990. Venezuela claimed this rule was biased against foreign refiners, and took this case to the WTO. The result was a WTO panel ruling against the U.S. law. In 1997, the EPA changed the Clean Air rules allowing foreign refiners to use their own starting point for measuring reductions of pollutants, thus allowing them to sell dirtier gasoline in the United States, which deteriorates air quality. These Clean Air rules have withstood all the challenges by domestic refineries. With this ruling, the WTO has given foreign refineries the right to operate under looser standards than we require of domestic refineries. For 20 years, the European Union has had an agreement to buy bananas from their former Caribbean colonies to redress its past history of exploitation. Recently, a WTO panel decided that the European Union should not be allowed to pay higher prices for Caribbean bananas because Central American bananas (produced by Chiquita, Dole and Del Monte) could be sold in Europe at a cheaper price. The WTO's decision will result in massive unemployment of over 200,000 workers in a region already suffering 40 percent unemployment and wipe out a small independent farm economy. The Caribbean nations only control 3 percent of the worldwide banana production, the remaining 97 percent being under the direct corporate control of Chiquita, Dole and Del Monte. Why would the U.S. take this case to the WTO when it does not even produce any bananas? Chiquita CEO Carl Linder has poured over $500,000 into both the Republican and Democratic parties. Greased by campaign money, the Clinton administration chose to make Linder and Chiquita synonymous with the national interest. This illustrates the flaws in the WTO-governed global trading system and in U.S. campaign-finance rules. WTO authority stems from the dispute resolution panel process and its powerful enforcement tools. The dispute resolution panels meet in secret. They rely on documents never made public and on anonymous "experts" to make decisions and issue reports that cannot be accessed by the public until the hearing is over and a binding judgment is handed down. It is disturbing that these decision-makers are trade advocates, not unbiased judges. Panelists have been known to file briefs on behalf of the parties they are supposed to be neutrally judging. Once a final WTO ruling is issued, losing countries must implement one of only three choices: change their law, pay permanent ongoing compensation, or face non-negotiated retaliatory tariffs. For example, when the U.S. Clean Air Act regulations were found to violate WTO rules, the U.S. was given three options: remove the offending provisions from its environmental statute, pay a yearly compensation to Venezuela of $150 million of taxpayer's money, or have retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods going into Venezuela totaling $150 million a year. We are told the WTO is about trade. It really is not. It is about power and the ability of corporations to use that power to dismantle any law that might decrease their profits. The record is clear. The WTO is a system that has the legal authority to overturn national law and prevent a nation from ever re-enacting that law. This influence is now being felt by government at all levels. Decisions to label genetically modified foods or license generic drugs are often abandoned long before they come to the point of an international trade dispute. This public-policy self-censorship is arguably free trade's most pernicious legacy. Fourteen hundred organizations around the world are asking their governments to review the five-year record of the WTO and repair the damage done. It is time to demand that our elected officials prioritize the public interests first, and reverse the giveaway of democratic power to international corporate rule. Write your representatives and make "review and repair" of the WTO the litmus test of every public official. Sally Soriano represents Seattle-based People for Fair Trade. Copyright © 1999 The Seattle Times Company DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
