Few of these people are supportive of the WTO agenda. Most are critics of a liberalized trade regime, and some -- like the delegations of Korean and Japanese rice farmers -- are desperate to protect their way of life from the encroaching effects of globalization.

Despite the epithets of "free and fair" routinely affixed to WTO statements on world trade, many of the world's working poor see the organization as a rich nations' club, with rules devised to benefit huge multinational corporations at the expense of small-scale local businessmen, farmers and laborers.

Theories that posit free trade as a cure-all to the world's economic woes are, quite simply, incorrect, representatives of some NGOs say.

It's rather like a game of soccer in which one team is equipped with top-of-the-line Nike sports shoes, and the other is wearing straw sandals. The rules may be fair, but the conditions are not.

"There's a big difference between NGOs and governments on free trade," Martin Khor, director of the Third World Network, said at an NGO briefing Tuesday. "Governments tend to think of exports, and the income they generate. NGOs tend to think of imports."

While cheap imports theoretically benefit consumers, they hurt workers, Khor pointed out, saying there was considerable data on the collapse of local industries following market liberalization. Free-trade theorists fail to take into account the fact workers are also consumers, he said, and that unemployment means a decrease in income and an inability to take advantage of cheaper prices.

At the Hong Kong WTO conference -- as at the previous ministerial meeting in Cancun, Mexico, in 2003 -- the most contentious issue is agricultural subsidies, paid by developed entities, including the United States and the European Union, to their farmers, allowing them to sell their produce cheaply on the world market, forcing prices down and threatening the livelihoods of poor, independent farmers who cannot compete with subsidized prices.

The international charity Oxfam accuses the United States of destroying the livelihoods of local farmers by dumping corn in South America and cotton in China, for example.

And the Korean Peasants League, which sent hundreds of farmers and fishermen to join the Hong Kong protests, blames the United States and President George W. Bush for undermining both their incomes and their traditional way of life by forcing Seoul to open up its agricultural market.

Developed countries have indicated a willingness to cut farm subsidies -- with Washington offering to eliminate them altogether by 2010 -- but in return they want developing countries to reduce tariffs on industrialized goods and services such as banking and telecommunications.

American economist Joseph Stieglitz, talking to reporters Monday ahead of the ministerial meeting, said the agenda was unfair, that developed countries were pushing for tariff reductions on items such as financial services, rather than shipping services, for instance, that would be more important to developing countries.

Stieglitz said the current round of talks, referred to as the Doha Development Round, "do not deserve that epithet" as they are not focused on promoting development. He recommended lifting barriers on the import of labor as one effective means of promoting development.

Some countries would strongly agree -- such as India, with an excess of skilled engineers it would like to export to developed countries.

Migrant workers from Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines, protesting against the WTO Tuesday, had a different view, however. They claim globalization has made them second-class citizens in their host countries and subjected them to poor working conditions and inadequate labor protections.

Pro-trade delegates to the WTO conference point to Hong Kong, the host city, as a vibrant example of the success of free trade. But even in this affluent city, people are suffering the effects of globalization as jobs move across the border to mainland China and the government seeks to privatize public services.

"People are tired of out-sourcing, of the loss of jobs, degraded working conditions, and the privatization of hospitals," said Elizabeth Tang of the Hong Kong People's Alliance on the WTO. "Working people in Hong Kong are worried about the government making public services a trade commodity. The government says it is just following world trends."

The waves of discontent are likely to surge around the Convention Center for the duration of the six-day conference, while delegates inside battle over highly contentious and complex issues. Thousands of police in riot gear are ready to handle any contingencies outdoors. Indoors, the negotiators have only a handful of official mediators to help reconcile conflicting positions.

"Nobody is looking from the perspective of what would be good for the global system," Stieglitz complains. "Everyone is asking, 'What can I get?'"

Stieglitz says the advance of democracy around the world means the bargaining process in international forums such as the WTO has changed fundamentally. Like the United States, an increasing number of countries' bargaining positions are affected by parliaments and special interest groups. Governments cannot afford to negotiate unfair agreements that might fuel the opposition. "Negotiators have to take into account this new reality," he says.

With democratic governments increasingly accountable to their citizenry, and civil society groups growing more vocal, the globalization debate is sure to remain heated for a long time to come. This may bode ill for the Hong Kong ministerial meeting -- but could yield a more equitable global trading system in the long run.

Related Links
SpaceDaily
Search SpaceDaily
Subscribe To SpaceDaily Express