"This,"cried the Mayor, "is your town's darkest hour!

The time for all Whos who have blood that is red

To come to the aid of their country!" he said.

"We've GOT to make noises in greater amounts!"

So, open your mouth, lad! For every voice counts!"

Thus he spoke as he climbed. When they got to the top,

The lad cleared his throat and he shouted out, "YOPP!"

And that Yopp . . .

That one small, extra Yopp put it over!

Finally, at last! From that speck on that clover

Their voices were heard! They rang out clear and clean.

And the elephant smiled. "Do you see what I mean? . . .

The World Trade Organization's roots go back to the end of World War II, when the United States and Britain invited nations to Bretton Woods, New Hampshire to reach agreement on an institutional frame work for a global economy. Three specialized agencies of the United Nations (often called "the Bretton Woods Institutions") were created there: The International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the International Trade Organization (ITO). Pending ratification of the ITO by member nations, the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT) was created as a small provisional institution to pave the way for the ITO. But in 1950, the United States Congress refused to ratify the ITO because of concerns that ITO would infringe on US sovereignty. GATT remained to govern international trade .

GATT is not only the provisional institution described above. It is also an international agreement dealing with the trade of goods. Trade ministers from member countries have periodically gathered for rounds of GATT negotiations. During the Uruguay round of GATT, which ended in 1994, the World Trade Organization (WTO) was created to replace GATT the institution. The U.S. Congress ratified membership to the WTO in 1994. The WTO has much stronger enforcement power, broader legislative and judicial powers than GATT and covers every field of economic endeavor. The WTO enforces GATT the agreement but it also has power to negotiate and enforce agreements concerning agriculture, banking, investment, telecommunications, food sanitation, and intellectual property.

The originally proposed ITO took an integrated approach to trade related matters such as protecting workers' rights, preventing undue domination and manipulation by big companies and assisting weaker economies in gaining access to capital and technology. The WTO is unfettered by such integration. It's only goal is to eliminate trade barriers and press forward the free movement of goods and capital.

Approximately every other year, the highest ranking ministers from each member nation attend a meeting called "a ministerial" with a large agenda for reaching new agreements. The first ministerial took place in Singapore in 1996. The second in Geneva in 1998. The third ministerial will be in Seattle this year from November 29 thru December 3. Though the WTO has a broad agenda for negotiations, several nations and Non Governmental Organizations (NGO's) have advocated for an assessment round -- evaluating the WTO's performance and identifying its problems and proposing solutions because the negative effects of the WTO are even worse than critics had originally feared.

Here are highlights of some of the WTO panel and appellate rulings:

In its first ever panel ruling, in 1996, the WTO ordered the United States to eliminate its Clean Air Act regulation on gasoline cleanliness or face $150 million in annual trade sanctions. The Venezuelan government claimed the regulation unfairly disadvantaged Venezuelan oil refiners which did not maintain the EPA data-keeping requirements. The Clinton administration agreed to comply. It is important to note that the Venezuelan oil refiners had participated in EPA's original rule-making procedures and had challenged unsuccessfully the rule in a U.S. court. What they were unable to accomplish through our democratic process, they succeeded through the WTO: eviscerating a regulation that would have required them to clean up the gas they sold in U.S. domestic markets.

In 1998, a WTO appellate panel ruled that a provision of the United States' Endangered Species Act which required the use of Turtle Excluder Devices on all shrimp boats selling shrimp to the US unjustly discriminated against free trade. The US must change its law or face sanctions. The provision at issue is in accord with multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) such as the Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species, yet the WTO appellate panel deftly avoided addressing conflicts between GATT and these MEA's, and ignored international precedent that favors species protection. Despite pressure from some environmental groups, the United States Trade Representative refused to argue that these environmental agreements should supercede GATT. Patti Goldman, a staff attorney with Earth Justice Legal Defense Fund in Seattle, explains that the United States didn't want to set a precedent that would diminish the powers of the WTO. "While the US is a defender today of sea turtle protections, it will be a challenger tomorrow," she says. "For example, the US has its eye on the European Union ban on fur caught with leghold traps. It doesn't want to have a rule in place that could stand in the way of its next challenge."⁽¹⁾

The WTO ruled in 1997 that the treaty the European Union (EU) had with its former Caribbean colonies to save 7% of its banana market for Carribean bananas violated GATT and must be eliminated. These Carribean banana producers are generally small scale farmers who own and work their own land and must compete with multinational corporations like Chaquita which has 80% of the EU banana market. Chaquita CEO Carl Lindner, who in 1998 gave over half a million dollars to US politicians, convinced the United States to request a dispute panel despite the fact that the US has no material interest (no jobs or communities at stake) in these "banana wars."

In an extremely egregious attack on national sovereignty, the WTO ruled in 1998 that the EU must discontinue its ban of beef from cattle treated with artificial growth hormones or face trade sanctions. The EU had unanimously voted for a zero risk standard for its beef based on the "precautionary principle," a basic tenet of regulatory policy that seeks protective action until science can provide more insight. The WTO panel declared that health regulations taken in advance of scientific certainty are not allowed under WTO provisions. This chilling notion could profoundly affect the many US laws based upon the precautionary principle.

These dispute and appellate panels are made up of unelected trade representatives who have spent their careers working for the corporate interest. NGO's are not allowed to participate and alternative perspectives such as amicus briefs are not allowed. The WTO is rewriting the laws that we have chosen to live under. It's judicial powers do not protect individual freedoms - They protect multinational corporations ability to make money. These Global decision makers are a threat to our democracy and yet the only candidate for president even discussing the negative effects of global capitalism is Pat Buchanan.

The ministerial in Seattle provides us with a unique opportunity to be heard; to say we oppose the WTO and it's threat to our sovereignty. Please join the broad coalition of environmental, food safety, family farm, labor, and religious groups planning to converge on Seattle during the ministerial. We must YOPP to stop the destruction of our world and our democracy. Every voice counts.