The WTO is often portrayed as a dangerous threat to the environment. But this reputation is largely undeserved, because the trade body has in fact developed principles that accommodate both trade and environmental concerns. There are several steps it can take, however, to make sure the green trend continues.
Michael M. Weinstein is Acting Director of the Geoeconomic Center and BP Senior Fellow for International Economics at the Council on Foreign Relations. Steve Charnovitz practices law at Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering and was Director of the Global Environment and Trade Study at Yale University.
SAVE THE TURTLES
Anyone who has followed the negative press coverage of the World Trade Organization over the last few years would be shocked to learn that the WTO has started to develop an environmental conscience. With only a few tweaks, it can turn greener still.
The most memorable assault on the WTO's environmental record came at its 1999 meeting in Seattle, where antiglobalization demonstrators dressed as sea turtles to highlight the alleged damage wrought by the organization's policies. Similar protests have dogged multilateral trade meetings ever since. But a careful look at the WTO's record shows that such attacks are unwarranted. The organization is in fact developing constructive principles for accommodating both trade and environmental concerns. A series of rulings by the WTO's dispute-resolution bodies -- judicial panels that settle conflicts among member states -- has established the principle that trade rules do not stand in the way of legitimate environmental regulation.
The gradual greening of the WTO throughout its seven-year life reflects changes made to international rules when the organization was created in 1994. In particular, the preamble to the WTO agreement noted the importance of protecting the environment and the need for enhanced means of doing so. Environmental sensitivity has also been heightened by the stalwart efforts of environmentalists in and out of government to influence the system of global trade. The environmental movement has, in fact, achieved most of the goals it pursued in the early 1990s -- although the need to keep their supporters energized makes some groups loath to say so.
Moreover, and contrary to what protesters often claim, further progress can take place within the current system. This is reassuring, because modest reform is the only politically realistic way to further the green agenda. The WTO's rules can be changed only by a consensus of its 142 members, and many developing nations want no part of a costly environmental program they regard as an imposition by the wealthy industrialized powers. Radical demands in this area would increase friction between rich and poor countries and sabotage efforts to start a new round of global trade negotiations -- a round that the WTO's director-general proposes be focused on the needs of the poorest countries. Moderate proposals, backed by sound public explanations, have a much better chance of achieving significant results.
This is a premium article
You must be a Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you are already a print subscriber, click here to activate your online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
U.S. trade policy is adrift and under siege. America's traditional commitment to open markets is now buffeted by both left and right, from labor unions and environmentalists to big business and "America First" isolationists. Fortunately, the advent of the World Trade Organization offers Washington a chance to balance the protectionist threat. If the United States cooperates with the WTO to settle trade disputes multilaterally, it can dilute both protectionist pressure at home and anti-American resentment abroad. But robust leadership and commitment will be needed, and neither Congress nor President Clinton seems up to the task.
Washington faces two enormous tasks in forming economic policy: it must preserve U.S. economic supremacy while defusing the bitter resentment that America's clout provokes abroad. A grand bargain with developing countries is badly needed. For starters, America should slash its trade barriers in agriculture and textiles in return for a global accord on intellectual-property rights.
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.
