By New Economy Information Service
December 8, 1999

Is this just a North/South Debate? Here is what some of the developing country media have been saying:

In a strongly worded commentary, the Chinese government-run newspaper People's Daily on Monday accused the United States and other rich countries of using the World Trade Organization to ride roughshod over the interests of developing countries, the Associate Press reports. "At this meeting the developed countries only were concerned with their own interests and proposals and they ignored the demands and suggestions from the developing countries," said the article, which was signed by Ma Shikun and Zhang Yong, identified as People's Daily reporters based in the United States. "The so-called labor standards are merely a disguised form of trade protectionism. The reason developing countries' labor conditions are poor and incomes are low is poverty. The only answer is development," it said.

Weng Xiang judged in official Central Legal and Political Commission Legal Daily (Fazhi Ribao, 12/6): "The Seattle conference is considered the biggest Setback to the WTO since the birth of the international organization. Apparently, The motive behind the United States' giving free reign to the protests of labor organizations is to use the turmoil as a bargaining chip during the negotiations on the issue of labor. ... The Seattle Conference has spotlighted the existing problems of unjustness and imbalance within the WTO."

Hong had this to say in the Beijing Morning Post (Beijing Chenbao, 12/6): "The Seattle meeting indicates that it is unworkable for the West to impose its own will on other countries. Contrary to what the United States and some other developed countries had expected, the meeting concluded unhappily, badly discrediting the United States."

The government-influenced, English-language New Sunday Times held (12/5): "The hypocrisy of the United States and its European supporters is evident in the WTO Seattle summit. The American-led demands to include environmental and labor standards in trade negotiations show that the rich Western countries are for free trade and free market competition as long as the outcome is in their favor."

An editorial in Islamabad's rightist Pakistan Observer noted (12/4): "We have always maintained that the WTO agenda is meant only to establish the big powers' monopoly over international trade by restricting developing countries' exports and by taking over their markets. The WTO is, in fact, a prelude to the imposition of the United States' New Economic Order in the world. Like other developing countries, Pakistan is also the victim of [this] clandestine agenda."

Leading independent Adevarul carried this editorial by Gheorghe Cercelescu (12/6): "The end of the 20th century saw two major accomplishments: more democratic societies and more open economies. But none of them will last if ... they don't have solid social support. It is very likely that many of the WTO participants left Seattle with the thought that, beyond the liberalization of international trade, there is a much more important necessity of diminishing the insecurity and inequality caused by globalization."

Independent Dong-A Ilbo reasoned (12/6): "It looks like the conference was meant to fail ... primarily because it sought to force the unfair trade order led by the developed world upon others. ... They [also] attempted to tackle too many issues. ... The failure brought the United States and President Clinton a clear political defeat, although it does not really spell victory for the developing world either. ... The clear lesson from the Seattle conference is that the United States and the EU must leave behind their self-centeredness and stop trying to maximize their control at the world organization. They should not bully globalization."

An editorial the right-of-center Indian Express opined (12/6): "India will not be sorry on the whole that the Seattle talks have collapsed. ... It was suspected that the Seattle process would be used to smuggle in extra-trade issues like labor and environmental standards, which could hurt the competitiveness of developing countries. In that respect the session will be remembered as the occasion when the American gloves came off. If there is a belief that the expansion of global trade benefits all countries, it was not demonstrated when America's president was at one with its labor unions in wanting to shackle developing countries' exports. ... "The most serious division and one with possible long-term implications turned out to be the North-South divide on labor standards. ... Now, by suggesting trade sanctions against WTO members who fail to comply with whatever labor norms are eventually laid down, Bill Clinton has very probably stiffened developing country resolve to block any mention of labor standards at the door. ... What would genuinely threaten globalization is the unequal distribution of the benefits of a liberalized global trade regime between countries and within countries. That and the factors responsible for distorting open trade are issues the WTO and individual countries should concern themselves with over the coming months."

The opposition, English-language Island held (12/2): "Even though the majority of the 135 members of the WTO are poor countries, they are being virtually held hostage. Third World countries ... at Seattle would be compelled to go along with the developed countries because most of these poor countries are dependent on bilateral trade relations with one or more developed countries. ...

Faouad Mardoud, chief editor of the government-owned Syria Times, commented (12/6): "The problem with the United States is that it has become stronger than necessary. Therefore, we have to expect more trouble ahead and more confrontations. Uncle Sam refuses others' competition ... and wants to tighten American control on the globe. The paradox is that Washington wants to impose its policies upon others even by force, and at the same time it calls for 'democratize' international relations [sic]. ...

Independent Jornal da Tarde's editorial argued (12/6): "The conference may not have attained all the expected goals, but it served at least to show how mistakes and fraudulent interpretations about globalization persist. The most underhanded speech was that by Bill Clinton, who while mentioning Brazil, among other nations, as an exploiter of child labor, proposed the creation of sanctions on countries that violate labor rights. If Clinton is really a defender of more respected labor conditions worldwide, why did he and his administration struggle so much to bring China into the WTO, when everyone knows that China is a violator of the workers' minimum rights? ... Brazil fears that with speeches like this by Clinton, the rich nations are trying to prevent the developing nations from entering their markets."