The World Trade Organisation Essay Example

several occasions, which requires thorough examination to understand why developing countries feel this way.

Focusing primarily on the UK and US, these two countries are seen as the main culprits of unfair treatment. A key issue leading to dissatisfaction is the overwhelming demands and extensive hours required at conferences, averaging 12 meetings per day with similar start times. While this may seem like a trivial complaint, it is critical to have a representative attend every meeting to express their opinions and discuss their nation's trading problems and ideas. The pressure on governments to be present at these meetings is immense, as falling behind is not an option. However, larger governments have the necessary resources to meet these demands and are able to bring in expert advisors from relevant ministries when needed.

It's clear that smaller countries, which receive limited financial support from their governments, are finding it difficult to keep up. This was made evident during an interview with an African negotiator, available on the CAFOD website (www.CAFOD.org). The negotiator stated, "It's not feasible."

It is evident that the WTO or dominating countries purposely schedule compact meetings that prevent less developed countries from attending and contributing to discussions. After attending for four years, it has become difficult for me to write about how my country has benefitted. This could be a deliberate effort to oppress less developed countries, or at the very least, negligent behavior on their part for not considering restricted resources. Regardless, this is a blatant form of oppression.

If all member governments are responsible for making decisions, it's essential that they all attend meetings. However, it may be argued that the WTO simply

expects governments to send representatives and that any government not present is at fault. This argument falls apart when considering the "Green Room" meetings hosted by the WTO and major developed countries, which are exclusive and non-transparent and involve only a few pre-selected countries. With such exclusionary practices, it's unrealistic to expect all members to be able to make decisions. This is just one example of the various sneaky tactics used by the WTO to favor powerful countries. Another example is the declaration issued at the 2001 Geneva conference in Qatar, which was constructed by the chairman and director general without consideration for the views of developing countries and solely favored leading countries. These instances demonstrate a clear pattern of undermining smaller countries during meetings.

It is not just a country's status that determines how oppressively the WTO treats them, but also the nature of their trade. The US and UK, rather than the WTO itself, can benefit from manipulating the organization by adapting regulations. Many developing countries' opposing views were not included in the text or annex, adding insult to injury. Australia, a wealthy country, faces difficulties with the WTO's stance on subsidies into agriculture. Even though they don't offer subsidies to farmers, in line with the idea of free trade which WTO promotes and regulates, they have been significantly undermined by wealthier trading partners who continue to offer subsidies - with no guesses required as to who this might be. This is allowed because of US and Europe's power to write rules that suit them.

(www.caa.org.au) To be undermined is equivalent to being undercut in the global market.

Australia is facing repercussions for following the

regulations of the World Trade Organization (WTO), while the United States (US) and European Union (EU) are gaining an unjust competitive advantage. The oppressive behavior towards less developed countries and those with unpopular products cannot be solely attributed to the WTO. The US and EU are also to blame for trying to manipulate the WTO to align with their own trading ideals that lack ethical principles. The WTO must accept some responsibility, as indicated by their official website literature.

The claim is made that the dysfunctional world trade economy can be saved. While some may consider the current state a success, it ultimately favors the expectations of the US and EU. If this trend continues, there will never be equal opportunities for all; countries such as those in Africa will always face an uphill battle.