| Pursuing free trade through WTO has
many attractions. Countries bind themselves and their trading partners to
transparent and non-discriminatory trade rules, which the WTO then enforces even
handedly. Since most governments operate on the premise that opening domestic
markets is a concession to be traded for access to foreign markets, multilateral
liberalization is often the most effective route to free trade. A successful WTO round requires two big bargains to be struck: a transatlantic deal between America and the EU and a north-south deal between the rich and the poor. Yet at Seattle this year there is a long way to go before such broad bargains can be considered, let alone struck. America wants a few priority issues to be settled. Its list includes an extension of the duty-free status of e-commerce, a broader IT pact, reform of the WTO dispute settlements system, increased WTO transparency and the phase out of tariffs in eight sectors including chemicals, energy products and environmental products. The EU on the other hand professes to want a more comprehensive approach that focuses on removing tariff peaks for such imports as textiles, glass and footwear, but would preserve tariff preferences for developing countries. The biggest obstacle may be the insistence of many developing countries that they will block further liberalization until their gripes over the Uruguay round are addressed They want their obligations in areas such as intellectual property, investor protection, subsidies and anti-dumping to be eased. They argue that the Uruguay round has failed to deliver expected benefits in such areas as agriculture and textiles. Though by no means a monolithic block, the developing countries share a feeling that whatever the promise of liberalization at the WTO, rich countries will Conspire to keep their markets closed. Indeed, the EU insists that freeing trade should be "controlled, steered and managed according to the concerns of EU citizens". That is in keeping with a view, widespread on the continent, that "a protectionist trade policy is a price readily paid for political objectives". However great these obstacles are, they could be overcome if America were still leading the drive for freer world trade. With its economy doing well, greater access to foreign markets seems a less pressing priority. The Clinton administration is unwilling to make politically painful concessions required to achieve that aim. So there is a possibility that the Seattle round will turn out to be a fiasco. If that happens, it will encourage the anti-WTO groups to go on the offensive. America, the EU and Japan would increasingly be tempted by {{U}}managed trade{{/U}}. |