WTO Agrees to Accept Private Contributions
The World Trade Organization, blasted by some as a symbol of corporate greed, has a special request for the New Year: Send cash.
The WTO says it desperately needs funds so that it can instruct have-not nations in the complex rules of international commerce. So in a novel, little-noticed move earlier this month, its 140 member nations agreed to accept private donations.
The Geneva-based group, which referees international trade disputes, pledges to screen donations for potential conflicts of interest. Corporate contributions, it says, are a no-no.
“The question is how do you deal with it,” said Keith Rockwell, chief spokesman at the WTO, which in less than six years has become one of the most controversial of the world’s international organizations. “The answer is very carefully.”
WTO rulings and policies can have a big-bucks impact on private enterprises throughout the world. U.S. airline makers, steel manufacturers, beef producers and Chiquita Bananas--to name just a few--have recently been involved in tiffs in which the WTO has played a key role. Many of its poorer member nations, meanwhile, complain that they lack the expertise to keep track of all the rules.
Under the new plan, potential gifts will be considered by an internal WTO panel that reserves veto power over proposed donations. The organization isn’t saying how much it wants or how much it hopes to get.
Still, the new policy has angered critics, who argue that the WTO already is biased in favor of large corporate interests at the expense of the environment and workers. Moreover, they said, it is not realistic to believe that all potential conflicts can be filtered out by an in-house panel.
“If individuals can give money, there still can be a taint of special-interest conflict of interest--and in many cases a stink,” said Patrick Woodall, research director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, a consumer watchdog group and frequent WTO critic. “There’s huge amounts of money at stake for these corporate interests. . . . It [the new policy] certainly creates the perception of a conflict.”
To be sure, some other official global bodies also welcome contributions. Just last week, Ted Turner, the media billionaire, gave $34 million to the United Nations, helping pay off an overdue contribution from the United States. Three years ago, Turner committed $1 billion to U.N. humanitarian projects. The United Nations Children’s Fund seeks donations on its Web site. The World Health Organization takes private money, and has touted its donations from singer Elton John and others.
Yet the WTO may be in a unique position, because its decisions can rock the fortunes of private financial interests. Conflicts over intellectual property protections, government subsidies and various trade barriers all fall under its purview.
On top of that, a rich-poor gap divides the WTO membership, with the United States and Europe able to further their own objectives with the aid of lawyers, other specialists and full-time presence in Geneva. The poorest countries often struggle to follow WTO developments from a distance, and may have limited knowledge of trade rules or even the software programs needed to stay in touch by computer.
Rockwell, the group’s spokesman, said donations could be used to help bridge the gap.
“Essentially, the money would be used to help very poor countries understand what their rights and obligations are under the WTO system,” he said.
The organization’s $100-million budget which is paid for by the United States and other member countries, covers only a small portion of the need, Rockwell said. But WTO officials concluded that it was not likely that the United States, which pays about 15% of the WTO’s budget, and other countries were prepared to substantially hike their annual contributions.
“The U.S. supports the approach the WTO has taken--but we share concerns of other members that no entity with a potential conflict be permitted to give money to the WTO,” said Brendan Daly, spokesman for the U.S. trade representative.
Unlike national governments and wary taxpayers, some well-heeled philanthropists already have expressed interest in helping the WTO.
“We’ve had people from the Gates foundation [visit]. We’ve had the Rockefeller and Ford foundations come,” Rockwell said. “People have said how can we help? But we haven’t had rules in place” that would govern acceptance of large donations.
“We know it’s something that needs to be approached with great care and great sensitivity,” he added. “We are Caesar’s wife. It’s not enough to be virtuous. You have to appear virtuous.”
In fact, private financing has been a source of controversy before. Last year’s ill-fated WTO summit in Seattle was partly funded by a business-dominated host committee that drummed up contributions and then invited donors to a reception attended by WTO officials. That practice prompted charges similar to the furor over White House invitations to the Lincoln bedroom--that cash donations paid for special access.
Recalling the Seattle funding flap, Public Citizen’s Woodall maintained, “The only difference is that they’re institutionalizing it in the WTO itself, which is certainly troubling.”
At the same time, poor nations with little experience in Western-style free enterprise or knowledge of legalistic trade rules continue to sign up for WTO membership.
Currently, China, Lithuania, Armenia and Moldova are close to membership. Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan have expressed a desire to join. In addition, many poor countries outside the Communist orbit also belong.
Speaking in Vienna last month, WTO Director-General Mike Moore vowed: “We at the WTO will do everything to speed up applicants’ accession, notably by providing technical assistance for acceding countries. I am personally committed to enlarging the WTO’s membership so that we get ever closer to being a truly ‘World’ Trade Organization.”
Indeed, many agree that the goal of improving the ability of poor countries to navigate through the global trading system is of long-term importance to the world economy.
“The suspicion is understandable,” said Stephen Porter, an attorney with the Center for International Environmental Law, a group that keeps close tabs on the WTO. “But if the purpose is really to bring less-developed countries into the system in a real way, that they really can participate in, that’s got to be a good thing.”
