Along with the defeat of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), the so-called "Battle in Seattle" during the recent World Trade Organization (WTO) Ministerial meetings confirmed that we have passed an important turning point in the development of globalization. Before these pivotal events, the proponents of global trade deals like the MAI had successfully and disingenuously portrayed their critics as quaint throwbacks unable to come to terms with the inevitable forces of globalization. However, the debate surrounding the WTO meetings in Seattle showed that, in the post-MAI world, the debate about globalization involves two competing models of globalization: the prevailing model which is often aptly described as corporate globalization, and another emerging model that strives for a more appropriate balance between social and economic values.
To avoid debacles like the collapse of the Seattle WTO meetings, proponents of the former model must now take their critics’ arguments seriously. And if the critics are to continue being taken seriously, they must focus as much on articulating alternative approaches as they have on exposing the shortcomings of the current approach. In short, there is now an authentic debate about the future path of globalization, and the fundamental premise of that debate is that the future path of globalization is not predetermined by inevitable forces completely beyond our control. Rather, it will depend on the political choices we make as nations in the global community.
In this short article, I want to lay out some preliminary thoughts on how the emerging, alternative approach to globalization should develop. The first step, I submit, is acknowledging what is redeemable about the current model of corporate globalization. In that regard, I believe it is necessary to accept that model’s fundamental insight that, in a world which technology has made possible unprecedented levels of international social and commercial exchange, there is a need for global rules and frameworks to promote the greater good of the global community. However, it is now time to develop rules that actually live up to that promise. Whereas the existing system of global trade rules has served primarily to restrict the power of governments to stand in the way of the profit strategies of global corporations, a truly progressive globalization must instead be concerned with regulating economic power to promote social, economic, and ecological justice across the globe.
As US President Clinton recently acknowledged, the most obvious priority in constructing this more progressive approach to globalization is the development of binding and enforceable rules to protect core labour standards. Without such rules, globalization will only continue to encourage exploitation and injustice in the workplace, particularly in the developing world. While it will be important to address the concern among some developing country elites that such rules could be used as disguised trade barriers, there is no justification for seeking comparative advantage in trade by denying fundamental worker freedoms. It must be emphasized that core labour standards would not impose the Canada Labour Code on the developing world; they would simply guarantee the right to organize unions and prohibit the worst forms of exploitation such as child and slave labour.
Because WTO rules have tended to promote trade at the expense of the environment and the powerless, similar binding and enforceable rules must also be developed to protect fundamental human rights, cultural diversity and the integrity of our natural environment. Ultimately, it does not matter whether these rules are negotiated at the WTO or at other global institutions that have focused on these issues in the past. What matters is that the rules be binding and enforceable. After all, the current focus on the WTO stems in large part from the fact that, despite the existence of international agreements and institutions that address so-called non-trade issues, it is only trade rules have the distinction of being enforceable and enforced.
While I believe there would be some appetite among Canadians for giving up a degree of sovereignty to organizations like the WTO if these organizations were genuinely concerned with the greater good of global justice, this appetite is not without limits, and nor should it be. Global trade rules must also recognize that, despite globalization, nation states remain the focal point of our democratic systems. Global rules must leave significant room for democratically elected governments to act in the public interest. Trade negotiators must show some creativity in finding rules that allow for a healthy level of ideological and political diversity. To this point, they have not even tried. After Seattle, they may have no choice but to try.
