Earth First

I share WHOLEHEARTEDLY former U.S. President Bill Clinton's view toward embracing the peace and wealth sharing that result from open trade, but he was right in 1999 when he told delegates that trade proponents like himself were doing a poor sales job.  This could be because trade law is so complex.  It isn't even taught in at least two of Canada's biggest law schools!  How on earth do developing nations figure out these procedures and how to use them to their advantage, I wonder?

I very much appreciate the WTO's continued efforts to expand its website and increase info accessibility both online and in print.  Good work indeed.

One suggestion:  Create a new link that includes a one-para. summary of each measure actually changed to comply with a DSB panel ruling, i.e. Canada's extension of the patent protection period.  The U.S. is frequently called to account for poor WTO compliance but it might be enlightening compare the substance of measures it's asked to 'fix'.  Many websites track the percentages but not the actual substance.  Such a link would be a tremendous bonus as WTO decisons are hundreds of pages long. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070126/wl_csm/otrabx

‘globalisation must be managed with greater justice’

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2797405.stm

http://www.greenparty.org.uk/files/reports/2003/fivetests.htm

There must be a movement away from the culture of consumerism.

The WTO is leading us down the path of destruction of the planet, increased conflict, the desruction of democracy, and a new type of facism, combining autoritarian controls ( the WTO rules ) with domination by the MNC's and various ruling elites.

Bilateral agreemens are nearly always better.They are polically and democratically responisble and they aloow for re-negociation shoul problems follow....[Message truncated]

Dear WTO admin1

Thank you for the invitation to address this topic; and for this well-designed forum in general.

Some of my comments here echo the some in pervious posts. I hope my entry is not too long or too inaccurate.

                                                  Reviving Doha

                                           R.Vanclaren

While I am far from an expert, the more I study, the more I am convinced that the WTO places disproportionate weight on the idea that 'Unfettered International trade is, in itself, the best path to global stability and political harmony between nations'.

 At the same time, it (the WTO) seems to hold little appreciation for the context, or 'field of activity' on which this commerce is carried out. If so, I would submit that this is a big mistake; because it is only by virtue of this 'field of activity' that this commerce is at all possible....or meaningful. [All this is posed in a purely philosophic sense; but the philosophy here is 100% applicable to reality.]

It is a little like playing a game of chess and disregarding the fact that the checkered gameboard...('the field of activity')... is, itself, crucial to the game. Actually, it is natural to neglect the importance of the chess 'gameboard' when you are concentrating on checkmating your opponent's king. Though some might argue that "the board is the most important element of the game", since (a) without the board, the game is not possible; (b) since the rules (and movements of the pieces) are fashioned around the dynamics of the board; (c) since the underlying object of the game is not just to topple the opponents king, but to take possession of the board--like conquered territory.

I would argue, however, 'that the game and the board must necessarily co-exist (equally); before either can exist in any meaningful way. Their coexistence, in other words, precedes their meaningful existence. Hence, each should be regarded with equal respect.

In the case of global trade, the natural Earth serves as the 'field of activity'. The vitality of the natural Earth is as essential to global trade as the chessboard is to a game of chess. Yet, within the basic policy of the WTO, [from what I see] the natural Earth is pretty much taken for granted. Any provisions of protection, preservation, or maintenance of the living Planet--and its resources--seem to be 'tacked on'--(bit by-bit)--to basic WTO policy; (as it becomes undeniable that such provisions are needed). When, I would submit that these conservational provisions should be serving as the very foundation for all WTO policy.

Otherwise...how can you gauge if WTO policy is realizing 'solutions'...or, in fact, creating more problems?

As you know well, the first paragraph in the preamble of the WTO agreement reads:

"Recognizing that their relations in the field of trade and economic endeavour should be conducted with a view to raising standards of living, ensuring full employment and a large and steadily growing volume of real income and effective demand, and expanding the production of and trade in goods and services, while allowing for the optimal use of the world’s resources in accordance with the objective of sustainable development, seeking both to protect and preserve the environment and to enhance the means for doing so in a manner consistent with their respective needs and concerns at different levels of economic development...."

Considering this ambitious mission, I think it is reasonable to ask, 'What WTO policies actually support these aspirations?'; particularly in the areas of:

(A)"...raising standards of living";

(B)"seeking both to protect and preserve the environment"; and

(C) "...[being] in accordance with the objective of sustainable development."

While this same 'Charter' [if that's what it is] goes on for another forty or fifty paragraphs, I see no further mention of "sustainable development"; "raising standards of living'; or "preserving and protecting the environment"...beyond this first paragraph. These topics are not even alluded to th...[Message truncated]

I am confident that Doha round would be successful ultimately and there would only be delays.  I had initiated discussion called as CHALLENGES OF DOHA AND BEYOND already wherein you find many views.   US and EU should compromise on agricultural issues.  Hope they had already become flexible for successful Doha Round.

Sreeram

jcg6

If you are in fact with the WTO, what is it that you would like to hear in response to your initial posting? This would be interesting to know and I am sure your response will be also useful to smushty in understanding the scope of the reply being sought from him.

Syd Martin

I was somewhat encouraged by Mr. Lamy's recent address to UNEP Global Ministerial Environment Forum (Nairobi on 5 February 2007). And I liked how he introduced the Lovelock principals of Gaia into his speech. http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/sppl_e/sppl54_e.htm

I thought, it was particularly appropriate how Mr. Lamy connects Lovelock's ideas with his own push for sustainable development. The Gaia hypothesis -- that our planet is, in itself, alive; "...that the Earth responds to provocation...air, oceans and land surfaces react in the face of threats to their very existence,"--fits right into the context of 'sustainable development'.

In doing a little research, I was surprised to learn that Gaia and Terra were one and the same. Terra, I had known all along, was the Earth...or Roman goddess there-of. But this 'on-line' article from 'Encyclopedia Mythica' .... tells the broader story. http://www.pantheon.org/articles/g/gaia.html It ends:

Gaia being the primordial element from which all the gods originated was worshiped throughout Greece, but later she went into decline and was supplanted by other gods. In Roman mythology she was known as Tellus or Terra.

An interesting parallel, I thought, that She should first give birth to the gods; then stand beside them as an equal.

We humans, become irritating nits on the surface of the Earth when we increasingly combine instant-profit-oriented economy with our powerful technological tools. Lost in this occupation, we forget that Gaia would as soon sweep us away as continue to nourish us; for She, apparently, has little use 'economic growth'.

Translating from mythology to the simplest physics: 'the greater the action-force in one direction, the greater the reaction-force in the opposite direction'; So to flow with the direction of nature--as on a river down stream--poses the least provocation to Gaia. And it is no coincidence that principals of 'sustainable development' sets us on that down-stream path...aligning our actions with those of Gaia.

The question is...How to make 'Sustainable Development' so appealing, that every WTO member-nation will rush to it as if it were a bucket brimming-over with gold and diamonds...fresh for the plucking.

Keeping in mind the Brundtland definition: 'Sustainable Development is the development that meets the needs of the present [generation] without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, we need, I think, to put forward a convincing case, illustrating that every WTO member-nation (regardless of their stage of economy) will prosper more...right now...by assuring the prosperity of future generations.

For starters, in that vein, I think we might drape sustainable development in new attire--a princely robe...that out-sparkles every incentive that drives WTO policy today. And that, that attire might come in the form of a new name: Synergetic Development.

Because, let's note: When we analyze the Brundtland definition of sustainable development (above), we see that it can only be accomplished by applying principles of synergy to it. That is, when we take into account...

a) the Earth is a finite system, retaining finite resources; and

b) that future generations, by most trends, will have considerably larger populations,

it becomes obvious that these future generations will need to 'do more with less'--which, of course, is the exact definition of "synergy". In other words, sustainable development necessitates synergetic development.

The above observation is significantly strengthened by the well-founded assumption that we (our generation) endeavor to raise the standards of living for the generations that follow. (I say, "well-founded" because that 'objective' is clearly stated in the WTO preamble...in its very onset.) http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/04-wto_e.htm

[If, on the other hand, we (our generation) wanted lower standards of living for our posterity, then neither sustainable or synergetic development would be an issue.]

The point is, that changing "sustainable" to "synergetic", gives clarity to the type of development that we are looking to undertake....(and, in fact, must undertake to reach the defined objectives of 'sustainable development'.) It is a more accurate description of the mission at hand. And now--by this change of wording--we have added a new dynamic; and hence, require a new definition for the challenge ahead:

"Synergetic development is the development that meets the needs of the present generation while enhancing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

This is the pot of gold; because, where sustainable development demands, at he very least, 'restraint' or conservation, "synergetic development" demands, at the very least, 'a high degree of creativity'--creative thinking and creative doing. The new approach presents a formidable challenge to every WTO member nation, to innovate and develop techniques and technologies with higher and higher standards of efficiency. Prosperity, here, is fueled by vigorous cooperation towards a meaningful challenge--a receipt for prosperity that we have seen work, many times throughout history.

This means that no longer is 'trade for trade sake' an applicable approach to national or global enrichment...in fact, it becomes petty. Trading apples for kumquats simply does not, in any way, contribute to the development of a nation...or global community. A nation (or anyone) does not develop by doing what is "easy" but by doing what is "hard". So, I would think that synergetic development offers a clearer vision for WTO policy....[Message truncated]