As the world once again witnessed the mobilization of anti-globalization protesters, most recently in Quebec City, Quebec (Canada) during the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) talks, it was made even clearer that there is a large sect of the world's citizens that are against the continuing trend of international economic liberalization. The protestors, officially represented by certain non-governmental organizations (NGO's), continue to be concerned about the impact that the new global economy will have on society, specifically the effect on those citizens that are unable to defend themselves against the "all-powerful, multinational corporations." Furthermore, these protests have been well organized and have been exploding on the scene of all international meetings; at the ministerial meetings of the World Trade Organization (WTO), at the United States presidential nominating conventions and inauguration, and at multinational political and diplomatic summits.

These NGO's feel that the everyday citizen needs to have a greater voice inside these meetings and have a greater role in determining the future of globalization. This is a legitimate claim, yet the path that the anti-globalization protestors and NGO's have been taking to solve the problems that beleaguer them is counter-productive to their goals. Furthermore, some of their claims against globalization are simply incorrect. Utilizing the WTO, the major multinational trade forum at the center of the globalization debate, as a primary example, this paper will analyze and critique the concerns and claims of the anti-globalizationists, as well as offer a suggestion as to the role that NGO's should play in the WTO decision-making process.

If the recent coverage of the international media of the FTAA talks is a signal of the future, it is almost guaranteed that the protests will continue to increase in volume and size at future multinational forums. The thousands of activists that have attended the protests of the past meetings will hopefully open a global dialogue about the impact of globalization on the world's societies, but it is imperative that any and all myths about globalization are identified and corrected. This is the only way to have an informed debate about the realities of globalization that will lead to properly addressing the challenges that the world faces in the new global economy.

In order to attack the challenges head-on that globalization faces, it is first necessary to have an understanding of the forces of globalization. Globalization is generally defined as the increased interactions between residents of different countries, through political, cultural, diplomatic, and most prominently, economic means. For the purposes of this research, this paper will utilize and concentrate most specifically on the increased economic interdependence of the world's free markets&emdash;the essence of the criticisms against globalization.

Economic globalization refers to the process by which an increasing share of the economic activity in the world is taking place between people from different countries, rather than within the same country. It encompasses international trade (exports and imports), foreign direct investment (when a firm or individual in one country owns or controls a firm in another country), portfolio investment (the sale of stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments to buyers overseas) and immigration.

It is important to recognize, however, that economic globalization is not a new trend. In fact, it has been an aspect of the human story throughout history, as continentally spread-out people gradually became involved in more extensive and complicated economic interactions. More recently, globalization saw major growth toward the end of the 19th century, mainly among the Western countries that are today developed or rich. That earlier peak of globalization was reversed in the first half of the 20th century, a time of growing protectionism throughout the world, in a context of bitter world wars, revolutions, rising authoritarian ideologies, and enormous economic and political instability.

In the last 50 years, however, the trend toward greater globalization has been steady for numerous reasons. International relations have been more peaceful (at least compared to the previous half century), supported by the creation and consolidation of international organizations, such as the United Nations system, as a means of peacefully resolving political differences between states, and of institutions like the WTO, which provide a framework of rules for countries to manage their trade policies. Furthermore, the end of colonialism brought a plethora of independent new states onto the world scene, while also "removing a shameful stain associated with the earlier 19th century episode of globalization." During the most recent WTO ministerial meetings, the world witnessed developing countries become engaged on a wide range of multilateral international trade issues for the first time.

The pace of international economic interdependence accelerated in the 1980's and 1990's, as governments around the world reduced trade policy barriers that had hampered international trade and investment in the past. Opening up to the outside world has been part of a more general shift towards greater reliance on markets and private enterprise, especially as many developing, formerly (and current) communist countries came to see that high levels of government planning and intervention in domestic economic markets had failed to achieve the desired goals.

China's across-the-board economic reforms since the end of the 1970's, the peaceful dissolution of communism in the Soviet bloc at the end of the 1980's, and the steady growth of market-based reforms in democratic India in the last decade are among the most apparent examples of this trend. Globalization has also been assisted by technological advances, which have been constantly reducing the costs of transportation and communications between nations. Dramatic decreases in the cost of telecommunications make it much easier to track down and seize business opportunities around the world, to coordinate operations in locations on the other side of the planet, and to trade online services that previously were not available.

The best way to deal with the international integration of markets for goods, services and capital is to have an open and informed debate about the costs and benefits of the trend of economic globalization. As globalization brings opportunities, it also brings risks. International policymakers face the challenge of keeping a tight rein on the risks of the world's poor, protecting the environment, and of increasing equity for all of the world's citizens, while seizing the opportunities for higher economic growth and better living standards that increased trade liberalization can bring to those citizens. As globalization continues, it is necessary to continue the discussion through multilateral forums, such as the WTO, which provides the necessary rules and a proper, democratic forum for all governments to voice their opinions and policies in an open and frank manner.

Before discussing the specific allegations that are made by the anti-globalization protesters, as well as many NGO's, it is first necessary to have an understanding of the function of the World Trade Organization in the midst of economic globalization and the role it needs to play in order to maintain a rules-based global economy that will be beneficial to all participants. Many of the arguments are fuelled by the belief that the WTO is the tool of big business (multinational corporations) and that in its function, the multilateral trade forum is destroying jobs, hurting the environment, and lowering labor standards around the world. As the trend of globalization continues, the WTO will have an increasingly important role to play in regulating and overseeing the practices of members of the global economy. All concerned individuals must have a complete understanding of the current structure, power, and responsibilities of the WTO before having an informed debate about its future role, however.

The WTO is an institution charged with enforcing global trade rules and has greater power than its predecessor, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Whereas member states, under the GATT, had a veto power to block decisions, current members of the WTO have lost that veto power and face the possibility of losing a dispute. The WTO does not have the ability to dictate national government policy. Rather, the current system has been designed to ensure open, fair, and undistorted commerce between nations. Individual, sovereign nations choose to become members of the WTO and play by its rules. If a member government wishes to pursue a commercial policy that is against the WTO rules, it is free to do so, but that nation is subject to higher trade barriers from other member nations.

The creation of the WTO on January 1, 1995, was a very significant change to the global trading system. It provides the basis of a necessary mechanism to monitor global trade that will assist in the destruction of trade barriers between nations. As trade barriers are brought down, so too are those divisions among peoples of different nations. This fact, however, is often overlooked by those protestors that believe that the WTO is simply a giant power, run by the multilateral corporations. In fact, that is not true at all.

The WTO is not a huge bureaucracy. The organization employs just over 500 people at its headquarters in Geneva and has an annual budget of only US$200 million. By comparison, the International Monetary Fund has a staff of over 2,700 people and a budget of over US$48 billion. Furthermore, the staff of the WTO is primarily involved in supplying technical support for the various councils, committees, and ministerial conferences; providing logistical assistance for developing nations; and continuously analyzing global commerce.

These functions of the WTO are only in assistance to the overall rules-based system, which is followed by individual governments, on their own merit. To blame the WTO for many of the problems are sometimes associated with international free trade&emdash;whether rightly or wrongly&emdash;is not a fair assessment. In fact, many of the arguments made by those in protest of the idea of globalization are based on misinformation.

The critics of globalization are becoming more vocal than ever before about their beliefs regarding the trend of global economic liberalization and the international organizations that are providing the structure for that trend&emdash;including the United Nations, the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank. These critics&emdash;referred in this paper as anti-globalizationists&emdash;are genuinely, and appropriately, concerned with global environmental degradation, working conditions in developing nations, and overall human rights around the world, especially in China. These concerns are legitimate and should concern all citizens. Assessing the impact of globalization on poverty, the environment, labor standards, wealth inequality (or any other variable for that matter), however, is a complicated process as every force associated with globalization may be pushing it in a different direction.

Well-informed citizens, around the world, should be concerned about environmental degradation, working conditions in factories of developing nations, and human rights in China. But they are wrong to blame the vast majority of the world's problems on increased interactions between residents of different countries&emdash;the essence of globalization. Poverty, inequality, poor working conditions, and environmental degradation all existed before the recent expansion of the global economy. In fact, many of these problems have been decreased in scale through global integration. For example, the number of people in East Asia living on less than a dollar a day has been cut in half over the past decade as this region has integrated into the global economy and experienced rapid growth. Furthermore, the solution advocated by these protestors&emdash;a complete withdrawal from the global economy and a return to local or national markets&emdash;will not solve the problems that the world is facing. Rather, withdrawal from the globalization process will only further reduce the level of protection for the environment, workers, and the world's poor.

Protestors of globalization continue to paint a picture of multilateral organizations, especially the WTO, as a vehicle for corporate-managed globalization. Many of the themes that the anti-globalizationists present are caught in an array of fiery rhetoric, over-the-top generalizations, and unsubstantiated claims. One of the best examples of this rhetoric can be found in a petition currently being circulated on the Web, entitled "WTO&emdash;Shrink or Sink!," and can be found at the Global Trade Watch website.

As can be seen in the following excerpt, the petitioners are demanding action on their claims. One section of the petition reads:

The GATT Uruguay Round Agreements and the establishment of the WTO were proclaimed as a means of enhancing the creation of global wealth and prosperity and promoting the well-being of all people in all member states. In reality, however, the WTO has contributed to the concentration of wealth in the hands of the rich few; increasing poverty for the majority of the world's peoples, especially in third world countries; and unsustainable patterns of production and consumption.

The WTO and GATT Uruguay Round Agreements have functioned principally to pry open markets for the benefit of transnational corporations at the expense of national and local economies; workers, farmers, indigenous peoples, women and other social groups; health and safety; the environment; and animal welfare. In addition, the WTO system, rules and procedures are undemocratic, un-transparent and non-accountable and have operated to marginalize the majority of the world's people.

There are three major arguments found in the petition that can be disputed. The first claim is that the WTO has contributed to the concentration of wealth in the hands of the rich, while increasing poverty for the majority of the world's peoples, especially in third world countries. The overall global figures do show that poverty has risen, but by looking deeper into the facts, one can see that globalization is not the problem. First of all, according to figures from the World Bank, the absolute number of people in poverty fell by one-third in East Asia and the Pacific (from 425 million to 278 million) over the last decade, while it increase in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and many areas of the former Soviet Union. The fact that poverty fell in the area that has been rapidly integrating into the global economy (East Asia) is primarily related to the increase in foreign investment and trade with the developed world (and amongst themselves). Furthermore, the primary causes of poverty in Africa, South Asia, and the former Soviet Union has more to do with lack of basic infrastructure, social and political unrest, high incidences of ethnic conflict and civil war, and a collapse of social safety nets formerly provided by the Communist system. Also, the increase in inequality of incomes can be explained by many different trends in a society, and in fact, these trends are increased inequality are often occurring in the same areas of the world that were just mentioned, with little development in trade and highly decreased infrastructure. Thus, denouncing world trade in order to solve these problems is the exact opposite of what needs to happen. Rather, increased investment in labor-intensive goods from these nations will assist in increasing the wealth of the poor, while not adversely affecting the growth of the wealthiest section of the economies.

The second major argument is that the WTO has functioned principally to pry open markets for the benefit of multinational corporations at the expense of national economies; workers, farmers, and other social groups; and the environment. First of all, millions of workers around the world have jobs that are dependent on exports. On average, those jobs have higher wages and are most often jobs at a small business, not multinational corporations. Furthermore, increased trade liberalization actually increases competition, which lowers prices for consumers. These lower prices are most felt by those at the lower end of the wage scale around the world.

Now, the effects of globalization on the environment is probably the most difficult to analyze. The truth of the matter, however, is that multinational corporations have overall environmental policies for every nation in which the corporation is present that are most often at a higher standard than are practiced by national corporations within developing nations. In fact, the founding charter of the WTO formally addresses the intersection of trade and the environment. The opening paragraph states that parties to the WTO should "allow for the optimal use of the world s resources in accordance with the objective of sustainable development, seeking to both protect and preserve the environment." The rules enshrined in the WTO also allow exceptions, specifically to achieve environmental objectives. National governments may impose trade measures "necessary to protect human, animal, or plant life or health" or "relating to the conservation of natural resources." The WTO also established a Committee on Trade and the Environment (CTE) to look more closely at areas of policy overlap. This is, however, one of the most important factors that need to be considered by multinational corporations and should play a more significant role within the WTO; not, however, at the expense of international trade.

The third claim of the anti-globalizationists is that the WTO is undemocratic, un-transparent, and non-accountable. This is simply not true. All WTO rules and decisions have been decided by the governments of the nation-state members, with each state, no matter the size or wealth, getting one vote. Any amendments to WTO rules require at least a two-thirds vote, which makes it difficult for only the large nations to rule. Of course, the main argument here is that the WTO lacks transparency and is unaccountable to the general public, or civil society. Now, this claim is somewhat true. The WTO, however, has been taking steps to increase its dissemination of documents through the Web and public access. Furthermore, participation of the civil society in WTO meetings needs to be enhanced through NGO participation. This is not to say, however, that the NGO request for voting rights or participation in every meeting should actually occur, but an increased role for international NGO's should be at the top of the next WTO ministerial meeting agenda. This issue is paramount to solving all of the issues that the anti-globalizationists claim are being affected by economic liberalization.

Anti-globalizationists have many legitimate concerns, yet many of their arguments are misguided and false. It is also imperative that rather than calling for the end of a globalization, the protestors should stand behind those respectable and orderly organizations that can represent the concerns of the civil society to the members of the WTO through well-informed discussions. Thus, protestors don't do a service to the causes by violently protesting, an act which only takes away from those who have legitimate concerns and want to voice them in an orderly and intelligent manner. The best way to actually get something done is to utilize the formal channels of the WTO in order to increase the role that NGO's, representing civil society, play inside the framework of the WTO.

In fact, increased global activism by NGO's is itself a result of the trend of globalization&emdash;the tearing down of barriers, the empowerment of individuals, and the increased volume of international trade and investment impacting on everyday lives. Thus, the "civil society movement" must be seen as part of a longer-term change in the landscape of global politics: Civil society activism, represented by NGO's on the global stage, is here for the long haul.

Non-governmental organizations, claiming to represent the civil society, are a growing force in international politics. While the importance of these organizations in global politics is acknowledged and should be promoted as a continuous check to the power of multinational organizations and as a source of grassroots information, these groups are not democratically-elected governments. Thus, their participation in global politics and multinational institutions should be clearly defined and different from that of national governments. Basically, they should be given a voice in the discussions and debate but not a formal vote. Fundamental questions remain, however, as to the proper role that these NGO's should play in the WTO and what these organizations will be expected to provide to the official members.

Although against what the anti-globalizationists would have the world believe, the founding charter of the World Trade Organization includes a mandate to "make appropriate arrangements for consultation and cooperation with non-governmental organizations concerned with matters related to those of the WTO." In October 1996, the General Council of the WTO adopted a set of guidelines to further clarify the relationship between civil society groups and the global trade body, which included pledges to publish a larger number of WTO documents, to establish informal arrangements to receive input from NGO's, and to hold ad hoc symposia on issues of interest to civil society.

Despite these steps, many NGO's feel that the WTO remains closed to the civil society in many respects. For example, panel dispute hearings are closed to the public, and they do not have to accept "friend of the court" briefs from interested outside parties, such as NGO's. Similarly, NGO's still have no institutionalized input into deliberations at the international level. In response to these arguments, several governments, including the United States government under former President Clinton, have called for increased civil society participation at the WTO. Outlined below are specifics as to the actual role that NGO's should play in the WTO.

Since most NGO's are in the West, along with the bases of most of the large, multinational corporations and some of the most powerful nations, it makes more sense for NGO's to set up WTO advisory committees in association with the national governments. There should also be a more formal advisory committee at the international level, but most likely, more would be accomplished by NGO's gaining the confidence and audience of the national governments even before official ministerial talks begin.

Eventually, NGO's could have a more formal role in policy debates. One model for that could be utilized is that used by the United Nations. Under U.N. rules for relations with civil society, NGO's apply formally for "status." There are three categories of status reflecting the different types of civil society groups: general consultative status (for large NGO's whose work covers most areas of UN activity); special consultative status (for NGO's with specific competence in a given field); and roster status (for NGO's that may be able to make occasional but useful contributions to the U.N.'s work). Once they have been approved for one of these categories, civil society groups then have certain rights within the U.N. framework. The rights vary depending on the category of status, but they include things such as timely access to documents (such as agendas), observer status at the General Council, the right to submit brief written statements on subjects of interest to them (which are then circulated by the U.N.), the right to place items on the agenda, and the right to request informal discussions on areas of interest. All of these areas could quite easily be applied to the WTO.

In order to be eligible to apply for special status at the United Nations, NGO's must meet certain criteria. For example, their work must relate to the activities of the U.N., they must have a "democratically adopted" constitution (with a copy deposited at the U.N. headquarters), they must have a representative structure (formal voting or a similar transparent decision-making process), they must be more than two years old, they must have an established headquarters and executive officer, they must derive most of their resources from national affiliates or members and they must provide documentation regarding all financial donations from voluntary contributions. Perhaps more importantly, NGO's must submit a report on their activities to the U.N. every 4 years. Thus, civil society groups are asked to provide continual evidence of their accountability (institutional structure, fundraising, and relevance to the U.N.) in order to maintain their formal participation.

The WTO has adopted a limited version of this approach for the ministerial meetings through its process of registering civil society groups for formal observer status. The WTO, however, needs to go further in two respects. First, it needs to extend the certification process beyond periodic ministerial meetings to cover its day-to-day affairs. Second, the WTO application process requires little mutual responsibility or transparency on the part of the NGO's. That means, once an NGO has applied, it will in all likelihood be approved for "status." If civil society groups are to be given a permanent voice in the WTO, they should be required to provide their share of transparency and information. The role for civil society is thus to influence, advise, and help shape those decisions&emdash;just as civil society groups do within national politics. This needs to be done in a formal manner (through participation in meetings, submitting papers, etc.) and not through voting power. It is in the interests of the WTO to ensure that it is receiving input from all aspects of civil society and not just groups from developed countries.

In the end, political activism by NGO's is going to become a permanent feature of the global economy. While it is to be welcomed and encouraged as a means of increasing the legitimacy of, and support for, global rules and institutions, NGO's and the civil society need to be integrated into the debate in a formal and clearly defined manner. NGO's have a separate and different role to play from that of national governments. They must be able to carry their share of mutual responsibility, accountability, and legitimacy if they are to be constructive critics of globalization and participants in the shaping of global, economic policy.

The on-going trend of economic globalization&emdash;increased trade, increased direct investment into developing nations, the increased spread of information--benefits ordinary citizens. Expanded international commerce creates economic growth, raising living standards and generating resources to protect the environment. Trade involves imports as well as exports&emdash;which benefit working people through greater choice and lower prices.

The world needs a rules-based international economy&emdash;with institutions in place to set, monitor, and enforce those rules. It is difficult to see how poor developing nations would be better off without a World Trade Organization to hear their complaints and enforce global trade rules, often against the wishes of powerful trading partners. Yet, globalization will continue to face many hardships. Global environmental problems need new and tougher Multilateral Environmental Agreements. The International Labor Organization needs to be strengthened and integrated more fully into the economic globalization debate. The World Trade Organization needs to become more transparent and to accept input from all interested parties, especially NGO's that are representing the civil society. Furthermore, all of these international institutions need to work together to achieve their differing, but equally important, objectives.

Over the last century the forces of globalization have been among those that have contributed to a huge improvement in human welfare, including raising millions out of poverty. International organizations, such as the WTO, help ensure that environmental protection, international labor standards, and human rights protection are on an international agenda in the realm of a global economy. NGO's and the WTO come from the same nest of democratic ideals: free markets, free speech, and political activism. In order to arrive at fair and workable approaches to the many problems that the world faces as the trend of globalization continues, international organizations, especially the WTO, must listen to the voices of all of the world's citizens.

Adamantopoulos, Konstantinos, ed., "An Anatomy of the World Trade Organization," Klumer Law International, Boston, pgs. 32-42.

Bates, Jenny, "Civil Society and the World Trade Organization&emdash;A Voice, Not a Vote," Progressive Policy Institute website, http://www.dlcppi.org.

Bates, Jenny, "Get The Globalization Message&emdash;and Agenda&emdash;Right," Journal of Commerce, April 1, 2000.

Bates, Jenny, "Preparing for the Battle in Seattle: Identifying and Challenging Anti-Globalization Myths," Progressive Policy Institute Briefing Paper, November 1, 1999, http://www.ppionline.org.

Bates, Jenny, "The World Trade Organization: What It Is, What It Is Not, and Why This Matters," Progressive Policy Institute Fact Sheet, November 1, 1999, http://www.ppionline.org.

Bellmann, Christine and Gerster, Richard, "Accountability in the World Trade Organization," Journal of World Trade, December 1996.

Global Trade Watch website, http://www.citizen.org/pctrade/gattwto/ShrinkSink/shrinksinkhome.html.

Lampton, David M., PhD, at a speech at the University of Hong Kong, Center of East Asian Studies, May 2, 2001.

Willetts, Peter, "From 'Consultative Arrangements' to 'Partnership': The Changing Status of NGO's in Diplomacy at the UN," from Global Governance, June 2000.

The World Bank Group Website, Briefing Papers, "Assessing Globalization," http://www.worldbank.org/.

World Trade Organization website, http://www.wto.org.