Wto Is Unfair

The WTO unfairly benefits the developed countries and

contributes to the exploitation of developing countries. Its

structure should therefore be altered radically, or the WTO

should be abolished altogether.

In their argument, Jerry Milligan and Andriy Kabanets argue that, "the WTO is fair towards developing countries and even benefits them". Additionally Mr. Milligan and Mr. Kabanets argue that the WTO, "solves problems that otherwise would exist without the WTO and does not create new problems for developing countries" (Milligan & Kabanets, 2005).

Rebuttal of Conflicting Statements:

First off Mr. Milligan and Mr. Kabanets state that "the WTO does not create new problems for developing countries and then follow that up with the statement, "if the WTO creates a problem, we need to show:

- That it is temporary, unavoidable and will disappear in the future

- What should be done to eliminate the problem?

- The WTO does everything possible to prevent problems in

developing countries" (Milligan & Kabanets, 2005).

The major flaw in the first argument is that the WTO does create problems for developing countries, part of the proof is in their very own statement, "If the WTO creates a problem, we need to show . . . " How can one show that the problem is temporary or unavoidable if there are no problems created? One would be sharing examples that were made up or otherwise fabricated. The fact of the matter is that the WTO has caused problems for developing countries since its inception and only reform of this international trade governing body (formerly known as GATT) will solve the problems that it is creating for developing countries.

Team #2 Argument #1a: (a) "The WTO is fair towards developing countries (b) and even benefits them".

Rebuttal: Here are a few of the "fair rules" of the WTO:

1) WTO rules force developing countries to open up markets while developed countries receive huge subsidies from their governments, and then employ dumping tactics in the developing countries (see Filley-Allen Arguments, 2005).

2) WTO rules force developing countries to export their food even in times of scarcity. WTO regulation of this nature forces 40-80 of developing countries good agricultural land to be dedicated to export crops. Small farmers are forced to "eke out a precarious livelihood on marginal land that is soon turned into dust, forcing still more farmers into the slums" (Goldsmith, 2005)

3) Developing countries are virtually at the mercy of the more powerful, well represented, rich nations of the WTO like the U.S., Japan, Canada and the EU. This results in very little being solved for developing nations where the people of this world's needs are the greatest.

4) The WTO does not regulate the things it should in developing nations, like child labor laws. It is also interesting to note that under WTO law, it is illegal to give preference to a company just because they have good human rights or environmental practice. It is also illegal to discriminate against a company because they have a bad human rights record or cause environmental damage. This irresponsible behavior has caused problems for many developing countries; since these rules are being forced by an international body that otherwise would not be valid if they did not exist.

5) Rights of many developed countries have been trampled by regulations governed by the WTO, as the WTO is often looking after the wishes of corporations rather than host countries.

Team #2 Argument #1b: (a) "The WTO is fair towards developing countries (b) and even benefits them".

Rebuttal:

Although there are many benefits to WTO membership, it seems that the negatives outweigh the positives, if you are a developing country in the WTO. The minimal representation that developing countries can afford coupled with the pressure and forceful hand of the wealthy developed member nations of the WTO, makes for a lopsided international trade governing body. The benefits that could be garnered from such an organization are real but not the way the current organization is structured. Too much cohersion and forceful negotiations make up the meetings leading to the WTO minstrel meetings, and the WTO meetings themselves.

The