27 Oct WTO and Human Rights
27.10.06
|
14 Comments
The reason I did not blog in the past few days is that I have been stuck in a most interesting discussion about whether there can be any place for human rights considerations in the WTO (see below Vietnam Wins Invitation to Join the WTO and The WTO… Maybe). I know, it is a very old discussion, but I am always amazed by it. Come down, have a look and join in either side of the debate!
I’ll be joining anon, as promised, but after dinner and the World Series game. I’ll try to to carve out a third side as it were (relying largely on work of Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann)….
Cesare, First, apologies for my belated response to your question(s). As I lack your expertise here, I trust you’ll forgive me if I rely on others for my case in favor of admitting Vietnam into the WTO. My comments are beholden largely to the material found in one book: Thomas Cottier, Joost Pauwelyn and Elisabeth Bürgi, eds., Human Rights and International Trade (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). In particular, I agree with the bulk of Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann’s contribution to that volume. While he is not addressing the specific topic of our debate, my argument for admitting Vietnam to the WTO can call upon the bulk of his treatment for support. Most of the quoted material will be from this book (and in the interest of time, I’ll avoid any citations). I agree that in many respects, Vietnam’s human rights record is appalling, and on that score they are in large company. It is hardly fair to subject Vietnam to strictures with regard to admittance that have not been previously invoked with other countries possessing less than exemplary human rights records, so I would say that it is indeed too late to begin with Vietnam, and they would rightly feel… Read more »
Addendum: Sometimes it may be the case that we need to take what appears to be a step backwards: admitting Vietnam into the WTO despite its comparative human rights record, in order to, eventually, take two steps forward: utilize WTO trade law and mechanisms to push and prod member states to recognize human rights….
How we are going to “utilize WTO trade law and mechanisms to push and prod member states to recognize human rights” it is not clear to me. Once a state is in, human rights considerations have no place, for they are nowhere to be seen in the WTO agreements (unless, you really go out of your way to contrue in this way the allowed exceptions). ‘WTO law does not explicitly refer to human rights, but must be construed in conformity with the obligation of all WTO Members to respect and protect universally recognized human rights”. First, letting international law other than what provided for in the agreement come into play is a hugely debated issue. Second, I still have to see human righst considerations prevail over trade at the WTO. I cannot recall one single case where that was squarely the case. I am glad Petersmann points out how the trick can be done in theory, but first Petersmann is notorously in a minority position on this, and second I haven’t seen that happen in the real world of WTO dispute settlement in ten years (‘In light of the Appellate Body report on Conditions for Granting Tariff Preferences to Developing… Read more »
Thanks for the specifics about what we should tell Vietnam to change in order to gain admittance to the WTO. In your view, what are the chances they would make the changes in order to join?
Good. I think they are close to the tipping point. Remaining a mono-party communist style regime is not easy. It is difficult to sustain politically, economically, and also it creates problem at the regional level. Even China would like to see them “loosen up”.
Something needs to be done to nudge them over, to give the “Doi Moi” a chance to become the Vietnamese glasnost. And the Vietnamese want really badly to be in. They can’t afford to stay out if they want to sustain the 6-8% GDP growth.
WTO negotiations were the place to do that. Again, I say “were” because it seems diplomats at the WTO do not read anything other than the Financial Times and Forbes. It seems to me now Vietnam’s accession is a done deal.
But it is not too late for Russia, and Iran….. Shall I write down the specifics for both?
I’d be curious to see the specifics for Russia and Iran, too. But what I’m really interested in is some assessment of the likely response of these countries to such demands. What are the chances that they will make the changes in order to get in to the WTO?
And here’s another question. Following your view, why not kick the current Members out if they don’t meet certain conditions?
I am definitively in favor of kicking out human rights abusers currently in the WTO. I do not want the WTO to become like the UN, an organization that has only the entry door and no exit, no matter what you do. We already have a UN. No need to duplicate that. Again, I’d rather see the WTO as an EC but not tied to a specific region. A community of free trade, but also one that has some minimal values at its core (democracy and human rights). As to the specifics for Russia, Iran and any other coutry you pick (this game is getting stale), I’ll let you do the home work. Just log on to the website of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and dig out the latest reports of those countries, or the thematic rapporteurs, etc. For easier access go here: http://www.bayefsky.com/ You still haven’t come up with a convincing reason why we should not discriminate human rights abusers other that a) if we discriminate one we have to discriminate all; b) we lose money. Again, to (a) I say, keep human rights abusers outside the WTO. Non-discrimiation for those inside. We can lawfully discriminate… Read more »
Cesare,
If participation in the WTO increases the welfare and well-being, the quality of life, of the populations of member states, are you prepared to settle for a decline even possibly a precipitous drop in such welfare in states that are excluded? If Vietnam is excluded from the WTO and its economy stagnates, are you prepared to accpet the suffering among the masses that will result? After all, economies play some role I would think in meeeting the basic needs of their peoples, and there would seem to be a very real dimunition in human rights when people are poor and destitute (think of what happened with sanctions in pre-war Iraq: the elites did not suffer, but the bulk of the population surely did).
Economies do play a role in meeeting the basic needs of peoples, and there would be a very real dimunition in human rights when people are poor and destitute. But human rights abuse is never a matter of economics, only of political decisions by governments. People in Iraq weren’t suffering becase the sanctions tightened the Iraqi economy. They were suffering because of Saddam. Again, first get your HR straight, then you’ll get rich. We do not have any guarantees that if we give them benefits first, they will mend their ways later. Countries can get richer and still have appalling HR records. If Vietnam stays out of the WTO I bet no one will die directly because of that. But it wont be able to grow as fast as it would by staying in. My bet is that the Vietnamese government will act rationally and do the right thing by letting go the grip (gradually, yes, but let go nonetheless). But let’s take an extreme situation: North Korea. We are not the ones diverting WFP aid away from the poor and to the North Korean army. It is Kim Il Jong. If that continues to happen, then we should stop… Read more »
For the record, so that you can understand better where I stand, I am for non-violence but I am no pacifist. I am a follower of Ghandi and MLK but not of Chamberlain. W. Churchill (policies towards India aside) is my hero. And no, this is not a contradiction.
In response to your earlier posting, let me sum up my reasons for not using the WTO as a tool to promote human rights: 1) It won’t work. The benefits of joining are not as great as peopel think, as the outstanding growth of China and Vietnam prior to joining show. Thus, they will not change their ways in order to join. 2) If anyone will be affected by discriminatory polcies, it will be the poor in those countries, not the elite. 3) Those with serious human rights violations make up a huge part of the world economy and population. They can do just fine without “us,” and may some day re-pay us with their own exclusionary policies. 4) The whole idea seems very condescending, in the sense of civilized Western countries trying to force “backwards” people to adopt “our” ways. The notion of “human rights” seems to be ever changing, so who’s to say that what we believe today will be something we consider desirable tomorrow? 5) I do think democracy is probably inevitable, so I agree it would be great if everyone would adopt it. But it will be more likely stick if they develop it themselves rather… Read more »
‘Gandhi’
Incidentally, as regards Gandhi (and not as part of any debate, etc.), have you read Raghavan Iyer’s The Moral and Political Thought of Mahatma Gandhi (1st ed., 1973, 2nd ed., 1983)? It is the definitive study in this regard. One of Bhikhu Parekh’s works come in a close second. Iyer also edited a nice three volume collection of Gandhi’s works, which come to over 90 vols. as published (including correspondence, etc.)!
As far as the debate goes, I’m largely with ‘wto lawyer,’ although I would not quite agree with no. 1 above, and would not endorse no. 4 (although I do believe there’s some truth to the ‘condescension’ part but think the understanding of human rights is muddled).