Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Abstract
There has been ignorance of trade policy and the working conditions of employees until recently when people discovered that trade policy affects peoples work. The other form of ignorance was in the international trade formulation or policy where people did not see the relation of international trade and human rights. There were few reformers and specialists who tried to focus and solve the impacts of international trade and liberalization of markets on the standards of labor, but there was no response from the human rights activists and professionals and also their colleges who advocated for the trade policy. Even though there were these challenges in the past environmental groups and other organizations specifically labor coalitions have stayed put in publicizing violation of human rights in international trade hence precipitating in the formation of the World Trade Organization (W.T.O) which caters for the welfare of the workers and other interest groups1.
The road to the formation of well organized grouping such as the W.T.O was rather bumpy since in 1998 some negotiators who were discussing the MAI, were focused on prioritizing the foreign investors rights over the rights of the public who were the majority hence creating a misunderstanding which led to the stalling of the negotiations.
Some negotiations measures in the liberalization of agricultural trade and also the agreement on agriculture which was done by W.T.O has brought about imbalances and hence leading to unfairness to the third world countries or developing nations. The liberalization of the agricultural trade has interfered to the right to food in some nations across the world. Many developed countries have for many years hampered the fundamental rights of the developing countries mostly the LDCS, this is due to the fact that they protect their products heavily by introducing subsidies and other tariff barriers hence disadvantaging the undeveloped nations.
It is noted that liberalization of trade mostly in the agricultural products and where there is unilateral liberalization can create a situation of food insecurity and increase poverty levels, particularly in the developing countries. This type of trade triggers fear mostly in small farmers since they are in completion with other farmers from developed nations where agricultural products are highly subsidized thus creating unfair trade2. The right to food in this case is held back due to the liberalization of agricultural products and markets, since 80% of the populace in the developing nations is dependent on agriculture. Therefore there is a challenge to the world leaders to focus on formulating laws on international trade which will safeguard human dignity, protect people from being denied the right to food, ensure that international trade does not lead to the discrimination of others and protect the global social order. Agricultural liberalization is not the only aspect which leads to violation of human rights there are other forms of liberalization such as the liberalization of services. With these liberalized services some people are barricaded from having these essential rights such as access to clean water and other social and important services.
Introduction
In 1998 the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) talks were criticized by the public for coming up with policies which would undermine and endanger human rights. These policies which were to be ratified by the MAI caused a scare to the civil society and human rights activists thus leading to demonstrations. The activists unearthed the truth about the policies which were to be implemented and that the policies were for the reach countries in order to undermine the developing nations. With these appraisals in the streets of many countries around the world, the MAI fiasco revealed that the civil society and other activists were very influential in the eye of the public. The pressure on the MAI from the civil society marked the start of a new era of visible ad broad vigilance of anti-free trade associations and movements across the globe3. The civil society established a system where they addressed the public through e-mails and other internet services which had a very big impact until when the MAI talks were tilted in the right direction and led to the establishment of W.T.O. Although W.T.O has done a substantial job in ensuring a well balanced international trade activists seem not to be satisfied and engage the W.T.O to do more. As will be highlighted in the discussion, the W.T.O has always heeded to the call of the rich and developed nations which contribute big chunks of money for the running of the W.T.O offices hence neglecting developing nations which contribute very small amount s of money or none.
In order to understand more about international trade the discussion will be inclined more on the international trade policy maker which is World Trade Organization. Therefore, the paper will deeply look at the activities of W.T.O and whether it advocates for human rights and its inconsistencies in promoting human rights in the international trade. The paper will also focus on the world trade organization rules in the way they affect the implementation of human rights both in positive and negative aspects. In the recent past many activists have questioned the activities of W.T.O on whether it is doing enough inn protecting human rights and dignity. The discussion will describe some of the important and useful and also those approaches which are less important to international trade and human rights4. This discussion has an appeal to advocates of the human rights fraternity to consider their deliberations beyond the W.T.O and focus more on the inclusion of policy making in trade processes and bilateral and inter-country negotiations in trade. The appeal also challenges human rights advocates to enforce rules and other procedures to enable people to engage in a fare and free international trade which respect human rights and dignity. The discussion is concluded by appealing to the policy makers of member states of W.T.O to enthusiastically show how promoting of human rights among nations in the liberalized trade can lead to human dignity and respect of human rights, hence achieving a fair and equal trading system in the international markets.
Lack of Transparency and Human Rights inconsistencies in W.T.O
W.T.O has a history of being un-transparent and imbalanced in its processes of decision making hence making its integrity to be questionable. Being transparent or forthright does not make the institution to have positive or negative human rights results. However they complement in making the system to be just and respect human rights. These fundamental principles of an institution go in contrast to the principles of human rights for example the right to democratically participate in the decision making processes of a country which is embodied in the human rights article 21.
In W.T.O there are two important dimensions which lead to participation and transparency and they are: external dimensions and internal dimensions. External transparency means that the non governmental organizations do not have the right to take part in the activities of W.T.O nor accessing its work. This means that W.T.O has not formal relations with the NGOs and it is the only organization which has this status5. However the W.T.O has a liaison wing which engages in providing information and organizing events with them but they do not have any legal obligations to do so. Therefore this means that the relationship between the NGOs and W.T.O is adhoc and the reversal of the status can be done in any time without informing the NGOs in advance. With recent developments the access of information in the W.T.Os offices has been made less complicated as the availability of the documents is done faster. However not all document are made available to the public or the NGOs until if they are of great importance or relevant. The other issue about external transparency is about the committees of W.T.O whether they should do their sittings in public or not in some occasions and if the civil society should be considered dispute settlement thus making the proceedings and out comes accepted to the public.
There has been a greater increase of pressure from the United States for the W.T.O to increase its openness on its proceedings and the accessibility of information but the W.T.O has not succumbed. The members deny accessibility of information by the NGOs and other organization due to suspicion6. Moreover other members deny the accessibility of the documents due to the present negotiations which they dont like publicized since it might be used to harm other countries of their interest. Many members deem it more important for countries to engage in giving information to NGOs in the domestic level rather opening the organization to public scrutiny at higher levels. W.T.O defines the NGOs together with other groups which represent the interests of business community. This makes the organization to be criticized by many civil societies and human rights groups. For example more than 961 non governmental organizations which were invited in the Fifth Ministerial Conference in 2003 only three quarters of them were NGOs the other were groups which represented businesses and private cooperates.
The representation of private businesses in the international trade organizations shows that the common citizens are not well represented thus making a proper avenue of violating of human rights through the policy formulation and the implementation of international trade rules and regulations. In the past there was a dispute between two photographic giants from the U.S and Japan thus signifying the interest of private firms. More recently there was a representation of the rights of a big and known pharmaceutical industry which was represented on an equal level with those of other countries. This means that W.T.O is ready to compromiser the health of many citizens in order to favor one multinational country hence violating the rights of other people in the world. In this dispute the U.S was alone against the implementation of TRIPS (Trade related Intellectual Property Rights) and health care or public health, which was to increase the access of medicines and other medical facilities7.
This dispute was unblocked by the director general of W.T.O where he pressured other countries to accommodate the views of others hence weakening the TRIPS and the medical care mandate and thereby giving the United States a comfortable accommodation. Countries who have signed this agreement on TRIPS have not been prevented in any way from accessing higher standards, but the agreement limits these countries from going beyond what the agreement states, therefore impeding the fundamental right of accessing proper health care services. Moreover the developed nations have off late been pushing for a higher IP mode of regulation. This higher level of IP standards go beyond the original agreement thus making it more difficult for the developing nations to progress for their push for equality. These policies are being pushed by the WIPO treaties and other agreements such as the bilateral and regional treaties. These IP rules have extended the patent protection by far and beyond the required maximum of twenty years. The developed countries have limited the ability of developing nations to reduce the cost of medicines and restricted the same countries from issuing licenses to other companies. Other countries like Switzerland are trying to impose these higher IP standards and also the members of the European Union.
Many powerful countries and large organizations can dictate the way policies are made in W.T.O committees in order to suit them thus undermining the interest of the public which lead in the violation of human rights through trading and other deals which are done in the expense of the public8. The influential organizations lobby governments to adopt certain policies which are short-term and of private interest rather focusing on the general public, this type of imbalance in trade policy participation is worrying since the human rights end up being violated for financial good of some companies.
The other W.T.O dimension which leads to international traders violating human rights is the internal transparency of the member states and also their participation in policy making and other decision making processes. Many member countries of the world trade organization do not actively participate in policy making process just like the general public thus making it easier for other countries to come up with policies which adversely affect the human rights in a negative manner. In theoretical terms W.T.O has enabled members to be equal since every member has a single vote. However in reality the developing nations are cajoled and forced to vote in the favor of the rich nations since they enjoy grants and loans from the same countries. It is important to note that many of the third word countries cannot even maintain a representative in Geneva which makes it even more difficult to be involved in trade policy formulation. As compared to countries such as America and Japan who have more than ten representatives in the same conference.
In addition, poor countries are obligated to trade their rights with these developed nations thus making concessions. The practical part of the W.T.O rules on international trade is more inclined to the developed nations rather than reflecting on the development and interest of the poor nations and their citizens. Since the establishment of this organization the mighty countries have developed cold feet in implementing policies that are in favor of the developing countries in order to maintain the status quo. Developed nations are implementing trade policies which negative impact on the poor nations such as investment rules of 2003 and labor standard of 19999.On the other hand poor countries have been voicing their concerns of lack of transparency and insensitivity of the W.T.O since the ministerial conference of 1999.In this conference the developed countries ignored the concerns of the poor countries hence leading to its collapse this is because the developed countries did not agree on the Ministerial Declaration draft. But since then the situation of the W.T.O has not changed thus continuously undermining the rights of the many who are from poor countries.
The international trade has been revolutionized thus making many citizens get access to medical care and other services; this has happed because many developing countries have stood their ground by not allowing the developed countries to arm twist them. For example they have been able to successfully obtain agreements on proper access of medicines and TRIPS agreement. With such achievements the international trade is becoming more and more balanced and it is also becoming proactive to human rights and up holding human dignity. But the developing countries have continuously pushed their agenda forward by making their policies and concerns which do not benefit other countries or their citizens. To push their agenda forward the developed countries have influenced the organization and there have been mini-ministerial meetings which are unofficial since only few invited and selected countries meet10. These small committees are the key pillar of the Geneva conference since they are copse of only the developed countries where their issues are addressed. There have been activism from the NGOs who raise this concern and many developed nations are shifting their focus from the W.T.O to the bilateral trade and regional agreements for international trade liberalization. The U.S for instance has prioritized this form of trade which was triggered by the failure of Cancun Ministerial. The U.S has launched talks with countries like Kenya, Dominican Republic, Colombia, and Rwanda. This is a worrying trend in the human rights point of view since these countries will be arm twisted to accept the policies of United States. The human rights activists see this kind of trade as more troublesome in undermining human rights compared to the W.T.O which is more accommodating. In achieving proper medical care and transparency the regional and bilateral trade has boosted the image of W.TO.
The human rights laws require countries or other traders in the international trade to listen to the most venerable countries and citizens and empower them through transparency and participation in a democratic manner. But the W.T.O structure is directly opposite from this universal law of humanity. The W.T.O has a history of not heeding to internal and external democracy thus undermining the concerns of the public interest hence going against the full realization of human rights and social justice in the international trade and order. Whilst there is need to push for a better democratic and transparent W.T.O, it is of essence to note that human rights and other social justices are more guaranteed in the W.T.O rather than in regional and bilateral trade or in the clear absence of international trade regulations and rules. The human rights advocates and other activists should continue to push for better trade rules and observance of human rights in bilateral and regional agreements as they deed in the W.T.O in order to achieve their goals fro more equitable trade.
Limiting Policies to Governments
Tirade policies and rules do not impede human rights directly but the rules are crafted in a way that if they are implemented they will raise eye brows on the human rights platform. The most particular way in which these rules are in consistent with the human rights regulations is that they regulate governments from taking actions which will promote or enforce human rights rules. While the international organization of trade is trying to promote trade, it is also advocating the free movement of products from different countries hence putting some limitation on government regulation of the same. This procedure makes the governments unable to protect its citizens and other vulnerable groups11. By allowing free flow of products in countries many activists are concerned with products such as food and other essential services like healthcare, education and water. Many people around the globe specifically those from the developing countries have bee barricaded from accessing these essential services due to international trade and its regulations. It is only that these injustices are not highlighted in the public eye for scrutiny but if they were the list could be endless.
In order for a country to implement fully human rights regulations it is required to have effective and efficient national policies which will not be shaken by the international regulations. These policies must be different from other countries since the idea of harmonizing these policies will not offer very good results and solutions. Countries must be given free and flexible space in order to develop proper policies which will be of benefit to the citizens and also protect their human rights. As discussed earlier in this paper the international trade regulations and practices will impede policy development in individual countries hence making it easier for these countries top develop the policies alone without the consultation of W.T.O. Engaging the W.T.O and its cronies will curtail the policy development space and its flexibility.
Liberalization of markets gives other countries an opportunity to trade in foreign and domestic markets. The range of services provide by the W.T.O range is very wide. Such services which are allowed to trade in these, markets are: accounting, nursing, tourism, telecommunication and transport. Due to this influx of services and the W.T.O policies governments are unable to control theses services thus compromising on service delivery of its citizens, which eventually hinders the public from enjoying their freedoms and human rights. People who advocate for liberalization of markets point out that, W.T.O has no regard for privatization or deregulation. Therefore, W.T.O does not require any member country to open up its market for international traders and businesses.
Liberalization and Privatization of Service Sectors
To start with privatization, liberalization is not explicitly dependent on privatization of different service sectors in a country. However, in allowing many firms to compete for a particular market is good in eliminating monopoly and this does not exclude public monopoly. This procedure is directly linked to privatization. It was in the early 1990s when there was introduction of services in the international trading systems hence resulting to GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services). The introduction of the service sector in the international trade was the beginning of interference of individual governs activities in providing services, by the W.T.O12. This process has since then been undermining the enjoyment of rights to some people since not all services reach them at the intended prices and quality as the government would have provide.
In some countries privatization of sectors has had a greater impact to the peoples for example in Asia the telecommunication sector has greatly improved. There has been good quality products and of better prices which are affordable by the majority of the people in that region. In other places across the world the system has been in two ways since there is emergence of service supply which has led to the increase of costs thus separating the poor from the rich who can afford these services. This means there is a sense of inequality thus making the poor to be robbed off their rights, since some of these services are important. In some countries privatization has denied the poor the right to access these fundamental services altogether. For instance in a country like Ghana water services which are basic requirement for the citizens are too expensive for some people to afford, even though the government in collaboration world bank has put the prices far below the market rates. Therefore, the private sector is not the best in providing such important amenities which are important and not lucrative as water since they are driven by profits and commercial benefits not the public interest.
Governments of individual countries are not obliged by the human rights rules to be the only providers of essential services such as water. On the other hand the government has the obligation to ensure that essential services are available and affordable to every one, especially the marginalized, poor and vulnerable. The current system of privatizing services has discriminated the poor more so the marginalized and venerable areas of a population which is against the human rights laws. The human rights cardinal law has a principle which states that there should be no discrimination of services whatsoever. This shows that some governments have failed in being the custodians of human rights on behalf of the public. To add too that, in making the accessibly of essential services to the people more difficult, privatization and market liberalization makes it harder for individual governments to even regulate. Some international organizations such the World Bank which are involved in this debate of provision of essential services to the people view it appropriate to regulate services as important so as to curb cartels that benefit at the risk of peoples lives. Regulating services such as water is a duty to the government not only a need. Governments are required by the human rights laws to come up with appropriate registration, budget and other measure to ensure that human rights of all citizens are fulfilled.
In practice governments finds it difficult to impose regulation s on foreign companies which are providing services to the country. This makes the government to fore go its duty to fulfill the rights of its citizens in order for the companies to continue working in that country. For instance private companies in the health quarter usually subvert the regulation to favor them through imposing political pressure to the government of the day. The private sector also poses some difficulties which make the government unable to regulate a particular sector thus ending up undermining the public interest. Service trade rules are aimed at removing obstacles which come up in the way of doing business just like in other trade regulations and rules. Whilst regulation of goods is done at the national borders, it is different imposing barriers for the services since they are far diverse. The difficulties of imposing barriers on trade in services are encountered because they affect the important areas of domestic regulations. Therefore, the requirement of World Health Organization (W.H.O) in regulating such sectors becomes very difficult.
Human rights activists have been advocating for the assessment of service policies and their impact on the well being of the people. By so doing NGOs are able to monitor these policies on whether they are bin tandem with the human rights regulations and rules. The commission on human rights is putting pressure on individual nations to be more proactive in regulating services and ensure that they adhere to human rights policies. The commission has identified that t in order to implement the human rights regulations it is important to constantly examine the trade policy and law as it directly affects the human rights. This constant examination of the trade policies ensures that the fundamental human rights are not violated. Therefore, the human rights activists have the responsibility to ensure that trade rules and regulations adhere to human rights laws.
International Labor Rights
In the international law there are flexibilities of commercial agreements which allow countries to discharge their duties and responsibilities in terms of promoting and enforcing laws which protect human rights. These international laws are specifically designed to meet the core labor freedoms and rights. However these laws have not been enforced very well by W.T.O for countries to be able to define their interaction between nations. For instance these laws give powers to individual countries to protect their interest and those of their citizens other than playing ball for the commercial interest. Many countries have used this article of the law to protect the public morals, environment and public health which would have been undermined if these laws were not there13. Another thing deemed important is the Vienna Convention which defines the law of Treaties. This interpretation helps countries to choose the type of treaties to engage in after authorization by member states. If the member states feel that the deal is unjust they have the right to engage in dispute settlement process. This action helps marginalized member sates who are not able to defend their rights in front of the developed nations.
The international labor Organization (ILO) has had an outstanding performance since its establishment.ILO monitors the implementation of labor standards. This organization independently publishes the list of nations or organizations that violate the international labor standards and internationally accredited labor rights. These reports are used by the U.S government for the market entry of organizations and countries which have improved and enforced international labor rights fully. These reports have proven important to many countries since they are able to monitor other countries before they engage in any international trade or any other business as may be perceived, some countries are also able to advice their companies before investing in other countries.
International governance has been hit by many difficulties which have been solved by democrats who engage tools of participation and transparent augmentation, but some difficulties still remain unresolved14. The main problem which has not yet been resolved is the great diversity and division between the rich and poor nations15. There is also the need to create better labor standards and create a good and friendly environment. Many solutions have been tried to be resolved both locally and internationally but some have ended in walk outs and disputes in such conferences. Some of the challenges have been to invoke good and credible leadership in these forums and to have people who do not shy away from these difficulties and by doing so this problem of trade regulations and labor rights enforcement will be resolved amicably. Many technocrats and business people say that they do not see the democracy and deliberations made by the democrats in other arenas but these enthusiastic deliberations seem not to be there in the international context. If these deliberations were there, change could be seen in three levels of governance and mostly in the workers level, which will improve their labor standards. The area of labor rights and standards will improve and people will have a greater understanding of the international law of trade and labor. This means that many countries and organizations which are in the international markets and trade will be more credible hence winning accolades from all quarters of the world. By educating the citizens through monitoring and implementing international policies for labor standards will increase and improve legitimacy of nations in the world. To be able to enforce international policies on labor standards countries should fast begin in their own countries before extending to the international markets, this makes the countries to have a base line for their argument.
Roles of NGOs in Globalization and Human Rights protection
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.