The official World Trade Organisation web site, defines the WTO as “the only global international organisation dealing with the rules of trade between nations . . . [through] helping producers of goods and services, exporters, and importers (to) conduct their business”1. It was formed in 1995 after growing out of and extending the institution of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. As of the thirtieth of November 2000, the WTO has 140 member-countries, over three-quarters of which are developing or least-developed countries. As the WTO implies, its current role is to serve as the lubrication for the joints in the engine of globalisation; although just how effective and fair this lubrication may be, is still a point of great contention.The WTO preaches that its purpose and effect are to “improve the welfare of the people of the member countries”2, and it claims that this is achieved by administering trade agreements, and monitoring and handling trade disputes. This essay will test the truth in this statement, of whether or not the actions taken by the WTO have failed to further enhance the welfare of the people of its member countries, and if so, whether the WTO therefore needs to be either reformed or even abolished.The criteria by which I will assess this truth, takes into account the three major arguments that are held against the WTO, with regard to its affect on the welfare of the people of its member countries. One of these arguments is that the international rules the WTO authors, consistently favour multinational corporations at the expense of workers and small farmers. Another argument is that by removing trade barriers as the WTO seeks to achieve, jobs are ‘exported’ to lower labour cost countries where the standards to which the labourers are subjected, are below what is internationally accepted. The final main argument against the WTO’s aims that is raised, is that if ...
