Selling the WTO
Acting in the name of fiscal prudence, the Clinton administration has increasingly relied on the private sector to sponsor world events, such as NATO’s recent 50th-anniversary bash in Washington and the Group of Eight meeting in Denver. But it overstepped the boundary of seemliness when it let Seattle literally sell next November’s ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organization to corporate interests.
The WTO meeting will set the agenda for the next round of global trade liberalization agreements; it must be seen as untainted. Privatizing the meeting might have saved American taxpayers money, but it does not serve the interests of either the WTO or the United States.
Created in 1995, the WTO is a young organization still trying to establish a reputation as authoritative regulator of global trade and impartial arbiter of disputes among its member countries. Previously, it protected its independence from private interests either by paying its own way or having a member country pay the bills.
The Clinton administration, willing to host the November meeting but unwilling to pay for it, picked a city that agreed to finance the meeting from private donations. White House officials say they see nothing wrong in letting companies with a huge stake in the WTO deliberations buy access to the trade ministers at the gathering. The events up for sale include the opening and closing receptions and the ministerial dinner.
Under its plan, the WTO Seattle Host Organization, which includes Boeing, Microsoft and other prominent Washington state businesses, will raise the $9-million estimated cost by charging hefty fees for an opportunity to be seen and heard. Less than $10,000 will permit a company to display its logo in the meeting’s literature, but it will cost $250,000 to open the door to an array of WTO social events. Foreign competitors’ access is strictly limited.
Cities clamor for events like the WTO meeting. Some 30 of them, including San Diego, submitted bids to host the meeting. The 3,000 or so visitors from 130 countries are expected to pump $10 million into the local economy. Hundreds of reporters from around the globe will file stories that serve to publicize the host city. So it’s not as if Seattle will be throwing money away by picking up the WTO’s tab, but ultimately it should have been the responsibility of the host country, as when Singapore held the last meeting, or of the WTO itself, as in the meeting before that.
Administration officials are adamant that the contributions will have no effect on the decisions to be made in Seattle and insist they will “reevaluate” the presence of the U.S. delegation at the WTO social events if admission is restricted to contributors. We hope they do, although that alone will not remove the stigma of buying and selling access.
