|
Legal brains from several law institutes debated the subject ‘Does the WTO Undermine the Sovereignty of Nations?’ at Campus Law Centre (CLC), Delhi University, on March 3, 2006. The Inter Law School Debate Competition was being held in the aftermath of the Sixth Ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). It was jointly organised by Centad, the Make Trade Fair campaign of Oxfam International, and Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi.
The judges were C Jayaraj, Secretary General, Indian Society of International Law, Professor S K Verma, Campus Law Centre, Delhi University, and development journalist Sukumar Muralidharan.
Interestingly, the winner of the debate argued that the WTO cannot undermine the sovereignty of nations given the fact that every nation has the power of “veto”. This was countered by a speaker who said that nations facing a food crisis could not properly exercise their veto.
Several speakers contended that as sovereign nations, WTO members recognise that open markets are superior to protected markets. Theoretically, the WTO has no authority to force member nations to pay fines or change laws, or do anything.
Some argued that national sovereignty is threatened in the absence of WTO rules, where market barriers or sanctions by one country against another are more likely, and there could be “bilateral bullying” by “big brothers”.
One point of view was that the WTO does nothing for environmental and labour standards. The fact is, though, that the WTO’s charter does allow a member state to discriminate against goods that are produced in ways that violate the state’s policies in these matters.
It is noteworthy that most participants expressed concerns about export subsidies in agriculture by developed nations like the US and the EU, which is creating suicidal conditions for Indian farmers. Both the US and the EU offer huge subsidies to their agriculture sectors, which, it was felt, gives their products an unfair advantage in the world market and depresses global prices, wreaking havoc on farming communities.
Speakers who felt that the sovereignty of nations is being undermined argued that every developed nation has used the tool of tariffs as a key policy in its industrialisation process. These developed countries are demanding that developing countries reduce their tariffs in a manner that is against the rights of their people and undermines the country’s sovereignty. In effect, it meanskicking away the ladder of development after having climbed it. This is “arm-twisting” and deal-making.
Wittingly or unwittingly, some speakers gave the impression that there is no alternative to governing trade other than the WTO. This may not be true given the fact that global trade was taking place even before the WTO, and will continue irrespective of the WTO’s existence.
Click here to view the results of the competition.
March, 2006
|
