“The WTO’s membership isn’t only a matter of goods and regulations but it is the future of the world including ours, because the entire process and effects will in the end directly touch the political status of every country and way of living. This is why lots of concerns are being raised by some in reaching a final decision on joining the WTO.” These were the words of Al-Sharq Al-Awsat’s editor-in-chief.
Another reader wrote in the same newspaper: “The creation of the WTO is mainly to serve richer countries for the long term and to weaken underdeveloped ones by turning them into consumers of premium products. Underdeveloped countries, however, will take a long time to thoroughly comprehend the ultimate goals of the WTO.”
On the other hand, there is a fierce battle raging among industrial nations, namely the US and the European Union (EU), as to dominance. A good example is the recent verdict that required the US to pay a fine of $4 billion to the EU.
In addition, the US president warned a month ago that EU steel exports to the US would be halted in order to protect the ailing US steel industry. The Bush administration has also taken a tough stance against the Honeywell and General Electric merger.
The Washington Post said “it is imperative that members of the WTO will, in their meeting next November in Qatar, tackle the issues that were not finalized in Seattle in order to achieve better results,” referring to the misunderstanding that occurred between major players at the Seattle meeting.
A study conducted by Michigan University indicated that lifting subsidies of agricultural products and slashing one third of tariffs on products and services would save richer countries more than $600 billion, i.e. the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. However, since poor and underdeveloped countries have agreed to join the WTO, it is better for them to struggle for survival and not to surrender to certain death.
Just because oil, petrochemicals and textiles were excluded from the WTO agreements, doesn’t mean that developing countries should keep quiet. We have to stand firm for just treatment, as these products benefit all of humanity, not only the producing nations.
Despite the average international price of a barrel of oil being around $20, it is resold after refining for not less than $150.
This provokes howls of protest from non-producing poor countries, believing that the high gasoline prices are the fault of oil-producing nations, when in fact it is due to the taxes imposed by their own governments. Ironically, the WTO’s discussions during its next meeting will include international petroleum policy. Western experts will steer the debate, while producing nations will only be allowed to watch and listen.
Members who control the WTO also control 85 percent of world trade, so they are striving collectively and individually to get the largest piece of the cake, leaving behind other members who are in real need.
Freedom of international trade in the absence of technical, intellectual and financial equivalence will only lead to a one-way trading process.
