In my opinion, WTO should be reformed. Oxfam suggested that WTO is quite anachronistic although created just recently, 1995 to be exact. It is, however, patterned from the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade or GATT with a power that surpasses other superpowers: the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. But as Oxfam noted, “…despite its youth, the WTO is dangerously insensitive to the needs of the global trading system in the early twenty-first century.” Like any wide, governing body, WTO has grown incompetent, subject to the whims of its more powerful members, and failed to address important challenges present prior to its creation as well as recent ones.
Oxfam noted the flaws of the WTO as Disparity between poor and rich countries in representing their interests and positions. The most obvious of them is that poor member countries could not afford the luxury of being represented in Geneva, WTO’s base, lacking expert staff to scrutinize WTO issues by the strand which more affluent member countries have by the hoards.
While WTO follows a “one country one vote” principle, the consensus is usually negotiated in a less formal setting called the “Green Room” process dominated by the USA, EU, Japan, and Canada. Mass demonstrations during WTO meets shroud the influential figures behind WTO: the multinational companies.
Member governments’ interruption would help reform WTO, such as during the Seattle and DOHA ministerial conference when they refused to accept the agenda dictated by the rich, powerful countries. Other countries create a “bigger” voice in the international trade scene through membership in independent groups, one of the more popular maybe the European Union (EU), as well as NATO or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Theirs may be the Economic Community of the West African States or ECOWAS or even the Association of Southeast Asian Nations or ASEAN.
Powers are balanced in order to avoid previous mistakes as was originally aimed by WTO. The creation of organizations became the trend but it cannot be avoided that one member country emerges more economically powerful within a given time frame leading to insurrection and wars. Economic power has always been translated to dictatorship which makes the less powerful as the subject.
Fair trade may be an alternative way for a globally contentious trade body. While aims and proposed as well as already-in-place practices by fair trade proponents and their supporting bodies (i.e. Amnesty International or OXFAM) seem viable at the moment, sooner or later, challenges would pop up. One questionable practice as noted in Wikipedia is the minimum floor prices for commodities. Price as proven since economic theories were formed is volatile, dependent not only on supply and demand but on quality, target market, packaging, and market positioning. Fair trade essentially derived its characteristics from “free trade” closely linked with the free-market system the US is known for. There is an open market competition between producers and traders so that consumers may freely spend on products and services. But as business organizations grew more economically stable, they maintain loyalty through various ways and means that undermine basic competition practices. The use of marketing strategies, monopoly, and other unfair practices are seen in many multinationals.
In the end, as felt with the crashing US and global economy, unfair trade practices affect investors or capitalists down to workers due to the closing of businesses. Corporate social responsibility has been adopted to address these imbalances, but it would take time before real positive effects will be felt. In the meantime, international bodies keep learning. The only option is to learn well and to apply the lesson.