The destruction of rural economies by the promotion of "free trade" policies has generated a new type of protest, as in the case of the Korean farmer Lee Kyung Hae. During at demonstration in Cancun, Mexico, Lee took his own life. In contrast to the images of despair and insanity showed by the conservative media, Lee's gesture represents a conscientious sacrifice against the oppression of millions of small farmers. Since the foundation of the WTO, approximately 600 similar deaths have been registered per year in India. Farm workers prefer to die than to see their lands confiscated for not being able to pay the costs of production, especially during drought periods. For this reason, many protesters in Cancun adopted the following slogan: "WTO kills farmers."

The World Trade Organization and Its Impacts

Maria Luisa Mendonça*

Since its creation in 1995, the main role of the World Trade Organization (WTO) has been to expand its regulatory power in 145 countries, which has translated into a great deal of influence in the daily lives of millions of people. Though it preaches "free trade" ideology, the WTO has a complex structure of regulations to protect the interests of large corporations.

Some of these rules are described in an agreement known as TRIPS (Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights), which regulates intellectual property. This agreement has a broader reach than the majority of local patent laws in the member countries, and it mostly benefits the powerful North American pharmaceutical industry. The strong hold over patents by a half a dozen corporations is considered a third phase in the process of colonization, which started in the period of territorial conquests between the 15th and the 19th centuries, and evolved into the control of financial markets in the last decades.

Countries such as Brazil and South Africa challenged TRIPS to be able to manufacture generic medication. This issue has been debated since the United States government sued Brazil for offering generic medication to treat HIV-positive patients. The Brazilian victory in this case represented an important precedent against patent regulations as stated by the WTO. Recently, the US allied itself with India to fight against the availability of generic drugs. The US proposal limits the manufacturing of generic medicine to cases of public health risks, and to the treatment of AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis.

WTO-sponsored agreements also create a monopoly of food production. According to such agreements, large companies have the power to control genetic resources, such as indigenous knowledge of native grains like corn,
rice and beans.

Another controversial topic is the opening of the service industry to multinational corporations through an agreement called GATS (General Agreements on Trade in Services). The result of these policies is the privatization of public services, which resulted in a hike in unemployment and a decrease in investments in strategic sectors of the economy. In Brazil, the failure of this model became evident during last year's severe energy crisis.

"Free trade" policies also resulted in the creation of strict regulations against the control of foreign investments, including prohibiting governments from protecting public health and the environment.

In theory, the WTO should create a balance in trade relations between Northern and Southern countries. But the WTO negotiations are always threatened with failure. The only way to avoid a new stalemate inside the WTO would be:
1. if industrialized countries stopped protecting their own industries and economies; or
2. if "marginalized" countries definitively surrender to the rules imposed by rich nations.

Faced with this dilemma, and with growing protests by grassroots movements, it will be difficult for the WTO to reestablish its credibility.

The WTO meeting in Cancun, Mexico, from September 9-13, 2003, was considered a fiasco by conservative sectors and a success by social movements. The goal of the organizations who led the protests in Cancun was "to derail the WTO" - and it really happened.

This result was not expected by US trade representative Robert Zoellick. One day before the WTO meeting he announced: "We want ambitious results, we are not here to only agree on paper. We want open markets." However, the US government left Cancun without reasons to celebrate.

The social movements recognized the importance of the impasse generated by the proposals for agriculture. The G-21, a group of over 21 countries (including Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, China, India, South Africa and Egypt) resisted the US and the European Union's demands for unconditional opening of their markets. The G-21contains 63% of agricultural producers in the world.

But despite its political relevance, the G-21's agenda is considered "defensive" by many grassroots organizations. It limits itself to advocating market access, and it does not include proposals to strengthen internal markets, rural development, and food sovereignty. In this context, the main concern is to cut subsidies, but the problems caused by agricultural monopolies are not questioned.

"We defend our countries' rights to support and promote their own agricultural sectors, because they are the pillars of the quality of life for large sectors of our populations, for our land and environmental balance, and for our ability to define priorities and trade strategies," explains Paul Nicholson, a representative of Via Campesina.

An increase in exports does not mean better life conditions in rural areas. With the implementation of NAFTA (North America Free Trade Agreement), Mexico tripled its agricultural exports and, at the same time, three million farm workers were ruined. Currently, Mexico's corn production is controlled by large multinational corporations. In Asia, the export of rice is dominated by Cargill, which together with General Foods and Nestle controls over 70% of the international food market.

The destruction of rural economies by the promotion of "free trade" policies has generated a new way of protesting, as in the case of the Korean farmer Lee Kyung Hae. During a demonstration in Cancun, Lee took his own life. In contrast to the images of despair and insanity showed by the conservative media, Lee's gesture represents a conscientious sacrifice against the oppression of millions of small farmers. Since the creation of the WTO, approximately 600 similar deaths have been registered per year in India. Peasants prefer to die than to see their lands confiscated for not being able to pay the costs of production, especially during drought periods. For this reason many protesters in Cancun adopted the following slogan: "WTO kills farmers."

The attempt to benefit large corporations does not happen only in agricultural negotiations. The US and the European Union also seek to privatize and weaken the public sectors through agreements on services, investments, and governmental purchases. More than 70 countries, lead by Malaysia, India, and Thailand, formed an opposition group to these agreements in Cancun.

For the Brazilian campaign against the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), the results of Cancun show that, behind the "free trade" propaganda, these agreements hide a dangerous trap. After more than 10 million voters expressed their opposition to Brazil's participation in FTAA, our campaign is asking the Brazilian government to leave the negotiations. The real intentions of the US government became evident in Cancun, and they serve as an example for those who still believe in the FTAA.

*Maria Luisa Mendonça is a journalist and co-director of the Social Network for Justice and Human Rights.