Read this article in:
21 November, 1999China's membership will make it even more difficult to include core labour standards in the next round of WTO talks but will force an opening of the world's largest market, giving us some access to the country.
The Clinton administration and the Chinese government have signed a trade agreement after 13 years of hard and difficult negotiations, and the European Union and Canada are now expected to do the same, paving the way for China to become a full member of the WTO.
Unlike other trade unionists, I think it is good that China join the WTO, as soon as possible, for the following three reasons: The first is simply that I still believe in the possibility of influencing the process of democratisation of this huge country if we have access to it. Secondly, there are already many countries with very bad records on human and trade union rights which are already in the WTO, so if one is excluded the others should be excluded as well. The third is the fact that all industrialised countries have made deals with the Chinese government, despite all the talk about respect for human rights and democracy.
I am, of course, aware of the fact that China's membership will make it even more difficult for the trade union movement to include core labour standards in the next round of talks in the WTO. But on the other hand, Chinese membership in the WTO will force an opening of the largest market in the world, and this will give us some access to the country.
This opening of the market, however, will be useless unless there is a change in the political system which will allow all Chinese to enjoy freedom and democracy.
The agreement has been called historical.
I do not know what is historical about it. What I am sure of is that the opposition, within the WTO, to the introduction of language in support of human and trade union rights, defence of the environment and of global control over trade can now count on a new, very powerful support.
This is a great challenge for all democratic organisations which want to see the standard of living of Chinese workers rise.
Trade is an important instrument for development and sustainable growth, but it needs rules. Without rules, we won't get free and fair trade but anarchy, as was stated by Alec Erwin and Leif Pagrotsky in their excellent article in the International Herald Tribune on November 18, 1999.
To obtain such rules, it is necessary that structural changes take place in developing and industrialised countries. How long can the Europeans continue to subsidise agriculture without being accused of protectionism? Likewise, I don't think we can always support obsolete industries, even when this is motivated by social reasons. How can industrialised countries put conditions on Brazil's and Indonesia's exploitation of rain forests, when the USA is not even ready to sign a convention to ban the use of freon gas (CFCs)?
International trade agreements are essential to bringing development to every possible corner of the globe, but this will only happen if the agreements contain rules which guarantee that the minimum standards in the ILO's "Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work" are observed.
The trade ministers meeting next week in Seattle have the great responsibility of paving the way for new negotiations that will create the conditions for really free and fair trade.
Unlike other trade unionists, I think it is good that China join the WTO, as soon as possible, for the following three reasons: The first is simply that I still believe in the possibility of influencing the process of democratisation of this huge country if we have access to it. Secondly, there are already many countries with very bad records on human and trade union rights which are already in the WTO, so if one is excluded the others should be excluded as well. The third is the fact that all industrialised countries have made deals with the Chinese government, despite all the talk about respect for human rights and democracy.
I am, of course, aware of the fact that China's membership will make it even more difficult for the trade union movement to include core labour standards in the next round of talks in the WTO. But on the other hand, Chinese membership in the WTO will force an opening of the largest market in the world, and this will give us some access to the country.
This opening of the market, however, will be useless unless there is a change in the political system which will allow all Chinese to enjoy freedom and democracy.
The agreement has been called historical.
I do not know what is historical about it. What I am sure of is that the opposition, within the WTO, to the introduction of language in support of human and trade union rights, defence of the environment and of global control over trade can now count on a new, very powerful support.
This is a great challenge for all democratic organisations which want to see the standard of living of Chinese workers rise.
Trade is an important instrument for development and sustainable growth, but it needs rules. Without rules, we won't get free and fair trade but anarchy, as was stated by Alec Erwin and Leif Pagrotsky in their excellent article in the International Herald Tribune on November 18, 1999.
To obtain such rules, it is necessary that structural changes take place in developing and industrialised countries. How long can the Europeans continue to subsidise agriculture without being accused of protectionism? Likewise, I don't think we can always support obsolete industries, even when this is motivated by social reasons. How can industrialised countries put conditions on Brazil's and Indonesia's exploitation of rain forests, when the USA is not even ready to sign a convention to ban the use of freon gas (CFCs)?
International trade agreements are essential to bringing development to every possible corner of the globe, but this will only happen if the agreements contain rules which guarantee that the minimum standards in the ILO's "Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work" are observed.
The trade ministers meeting next week in Seattle have the great responsibility of paving the way for new negotiations that will create the conditions for really free and fair trade.