Though a leap to global free trade is a nice idea, the political support is just not there. Nor is any such earthshaking step necessary. The World Trade Organization has an extensive built-in agenda that should not be derailed. Fears of regionalism are greatly exaggerated, since regional trade has not increased much since the early 1970s and current plans for free trade in the Americas and the Pacific are unlikely to succeed. Few countries share the free-trade faith of the United States and Great Britain, and even in those places, economic anxiety threatens to push trade in the other direction.
Charles R. Carlisle is a Partner in the consulting firm of Carlisle and Handal International. He was Deputy Director General of the GATT from 1987 through 1993.
CHARTING A COURSE
How to move forward on liberalizing global trade? By incremental steps of an already agreed-upon agenda or by one great leap to free trade in a grand new negotiation? This question arises as trade ministers from the World Trade Organization's 120 member countries prepare to meet in Singapore in December to chart the course of further trade liberalization. This will be their first gathering since they met in Marrakesh in April 1994 to bring GATT's Uruguay Round of negotiations to a successful conclusion.
A long series of preparatory meetings at the WTO's headquarters in Geneva, which began in the spring and may continue until the eve of the Singapore conference, has foreshadowed what will probably happen in December. They suggest that the world is not ready for a leap to global free trade by a set date early in the next century.
Unless an important issue disappears during the preparatory work, the ministers will be asked to decide four major questions. Three of these, although potentially important to the long-term development of the trading system, raise collateral issues not directly related to trade liberalization. There is perhaps a 50-50 chance that the WTO will decide to address, although not through negotiations, the question of international rules for investment and the new question of "competition policy," covering government and industry practices that restrict competition. The third and most hotly contested question will be whether the WTO should take up internationally recognized labor rights. The United States, France, and other European countries have pushed the issue, but it has met with considerable resistance from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Japan, Australia, and others. Its opponents' expressed concern is that the proposal could lead to veiled protectionism, but some governments may hold other, unspoken objections. Either way, the odds that the ministers in Singapore will decide to address the matter in any significant way are slender to nonexistent.
This is a premium article
You must be a logged in Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you wish to continue reading this article please subscribe , or activate your online account to get full online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
A new memoir from Mike Moore, the former director-general of the World Trade Organization, sheds light on the institution and ponders globalization's challenges.
The World Trade Organization represents a dramatic innovation in international law: binding dispute resolution between sovereign countries. But have the WTO's judges gone too far and exceeded their unprecedented authority? Although the truth turns out to be more complex than the organization's many critics insist, the fact remains that the WTO's courts still leave plenty of room for improvement.
Washington's unwise return to economic "regionalism," evidenced by the many U.S. efforts to build new bilateral or regional free trade agreements, threatens to damage both U.S. foreign and U.S. trade policy. The United States should work instead to strengthen the WTO and the single world trade system it represents.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.