The World Trade Organization meetings in Seattle encountered great controversy. Protesters marched the streets in forces not seen since the Vietnam War. Riots were commonplace throughout the week, disrupting this once peaceful city. The WTO protests may have been a sign of things to come, i.e. a new global social movement. A new generation of activists concerned about social justice may be appearing in contemporary politics and may not be armed with love beads and flower power but with a computer and a clinched fist.

Parts of this new generation are angry with the policymakers and view them as sell-outs. These new activists are not concerned about national affairs but with international businesses. Chants about human rights and the environment could be heard all over Seattle. In fact, this was just another day of social and economic globalization which was supposed to be one of the greatest achievements of mankind.

Policy-makers have decided that trade between nations is the best way to create world wealth and prosperity. The GATT and now the WTO have had the mandate to lower trade barrier between member states. Free trade was brought to the attention of policy-makers after the Second World War. The main idea was to create interdependence between nations and therefore eliminate major conflicts. In other words, countries would not choose war if they depended on each other for economic prosperity. The reforms needed to create this perfect world put pressure on the sovereign nation to operate in its best interest. In effect, national governments gave some of its powers to an international body. By doing so, national government would no longer be able to use measures such as tariffs and taxes to protect its national interest. No matter the situation of the economy, national interest would be overcome by international interest.

The G-7 countries, which are pushing this philosophy whole-heartedly, would probably find themselves in better positions due to expanding markets and export growth. In contrast, developing countries would be at a disadvantage due to cheap imports that would displace national production and, consequently, would fall even further behind. Moreover, multinational corporations that have no governing body (except for the ultimate buck) would be given even more domination on national affairs. Without tariffs, Multinational Corporation would have the opportunity to shift its production in search of an area where cost would be at a minimum and would still have access to its original market. This is where issues of human rights and the environment come in. Countries that have nothing to lose will try to attract this multinational corporation at any cost to its own population and to its own environment. Low wages, destruction of labor unions, contaminated water, and smog are situations that developing countries can look forward to.

The social movement that appeared in Seattle may have just been a fad but the social implication that the WTO represents will have a direct impact on the international scene. More trade will probably bring more prosperity to certain nations. However, developing countries that don't have any resources will fall even further behind. In other words, the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer and social justice be dammed.

Copyright © 2000 Philippe E Duford All Rights Reserved

Philippe E Duford is a Law School student at Ottawa University. He has also had the pleasure of studying in Economics and Political Science. He's a proud Canadian who loathes people who spit in the eyes of unity.