Joining the World Trade Organization should reflect the desire of member states to abide by whatever they agree to. The reality, however, indicates something different. The rosy picture painted by the proponents of free trade is no more than rhetoric circulated by politicians. Until now, and even among WTO members, trade in its different forms whether goods, services, financial or recreational, continues to reflect a regional rather than a universal trend.
While WTO’s main objective is the removal of all trade barriers, we find that even the rich countries of the North continue to impose restrictions and exercise pressure on the poor countries of the South. Outside WTO, debate has taken a different course. Instead of focusing on removing trade barriers and introducing reforms to enable the products of developing countries to reach Western markets, discussion is focused on how to provide financial support to these countries. Wide differences have emerged among the proponents and opponents of globalization on how things should be done.
There are those who call for the application of what has been agreed upon within WTO to increase the flow of world trade in both directions while, at the same time, injecting cash into the economies of developing countries to enable them to finance imports. This has led the US to see the World Bank and the United Nations Development Agency as the best tools for implementing the policy. The other group of global industrialists prefer economic integration. They argue that freedom of action would ensure prosperity for developing nations while guaranteeing mutual trade among all members. Any concessions should be proportionate and involve all members.
A professor at the London School of Economics, who wrote extensively on the economies of developing countries, did not see population growth or multi-ethnicity as a reason for economic backwardness. Economic backwardness, he argued, should not be tackled by giving loans and grants because this would lead to the emergence of alien influences and manners which in turn would further complicate the problem by limiting these economies to poverty.
Calls for providing financial assistance to developing countries have met with some enthusiasm from the industrial West, led by the US and the UN, despite opposition from many in the West as well as third world countries. Strongly defended by President Bush, this policy is not meant to teach poor countries how to catch fish but to consume the surplus fish in the international markets.
It is no wonder that opposition to the policy of grants and loans is gaining momentum among those calling for more trade between industrial and developing countries. So far less than $20 billion has been provided for projects out of $100 billion pledged by rich countries.
With two approaches to globalization and differences between the US and Europe over who should dominate, one should ask the simple question of where the Arab bloc fits in. Whether a WTO member or still seeking to be, there are Arab countries who continue to consider themselves in urgent need of financial assistance.
Having adopted this course, these countries must follow the path set for them by world powers. Others are not really in need of money but looking to acquiring much-needed technology to improve their economies. These should learn from the experience of others and try to benefit from WTO.