That the opposition was as much to the WTO as any trade liberalization proposals, emerged at the very start of the Millennium Round, was aimed at non-economic issues and sought a roll back of past gains, might be seen as creating unsumountable challenges for the WTO. The pay-off for what seemed to be an open invitation to the oppostion will occur later in the negotiating process.

Anyone fresh to trade liberalization issues could be forgiven for concluding from last week's Circus at Seattle that the World Trade Organization (WTO) was on the verge of being crushed under the onslaught of popular and activist opposition. The matter of trade liberalization often got buried under reports of rioting on a level not been seen in the United States since the Vietnamese war.

Opposition to WTO activities is not new. While this normally occurs through backroom lobbying by vested interests, it has attracted large scale demonstrations before, most notably the farmer demonstrations in Brussels in December 1993. Several fresh elements to the opposition have, however, emerged at Seattle.

Last week's demonstrations were as much against the WTO itself as any trade liberalization proposals. The demonstrations have come at the very start of the Millennium Round, before a meaningful progress has been made. They were in the main aimed at non-economic issues. And demonstrators were looking for a roll back of provisions of past WTO agreements rather than opposing new proposals.

For an organization composed of member states or countries, the WTO's Third Ministerial Meeting, as it was formally called, was remarkably open. Specific effort appears to have been made by the WTO to publicize what was a rather mundane agenda, - setting the agenda for balance of the Millennium Round.

In particular the WTO put great emphasis on its very public Internet web site presentation. This almost seems to have been aimed at the activists. The method in this apparent madness was very probably to draw their fire in the early stages of the negotiation. It has certainly spiked any criticism of underhand activity.

More importantly concerns of the population at large, as opposed to those of the members' governments, have been expressed. This is no bad thing as such demonstrations late in the negotiation process could cause carefully engineered and complex agreements to become unraveled.

Although only governments are party to eventual agreements, they are, of course, influenced by changes in public opinion. The European Union, for instance, clearly has had second thoughts about its commitments to the WTO Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement, certainly in the context of growth hormone fed beef and Very probably on the genetically modified organisms issue. It is certainly not the only signatory with second thoughts about it commitments.

Popular demonstrations have value in alerting governments to opinion. That four environment ministers and all 15 trade ministers of European Union(EU) were reported to be openly critical of the EU's agreement to the biotech issues being discussed as a trade rather than an environmental or health problem issue, illustrates this point. The ministers were undoubtedly playing to the gallery. They were surely unaware of the full context of their negotiators' decision. There is value in getting this type of learning process over early.

That major concerns of the dissidents were not main streams economic issues, - human rights, the environment, health, food safety, local development in less developed economies and the like, might be seen to be a challenge for the WTO. In contrast, the benefits of trade liberalization are seen to be increased trade and general economic growth.

The fear is that these benefits are likely to be achieved at the expense of more benevolent objectives, at the same time as growth in income allows society to be more generous. The structure of the WTO, however, specifically recognizes the growing importance of these issues. Nevertheless the level of benevolence that the world at large is prepared to provide through the powerful mechanism of trade concessions is a legitimate and important item for negotiation.

Further, the WTO forum is an excellent one for identifying what is most needed by the less fortunate and how this can most effectively be provided.

It is understandable that demonstrators were looking for a role back of provisions of past WTO agreements rather than opposing new proposals. It is after all through negotiation that progress is made and posturing is a legitimate part of that process.

That the WTO was able to be as open as it was at Seattle, to accept criticism from all quarters whether legitimate or not, and achieve most of its meeting objectives is indicative of its strength. The process of trade liberalization will surely be guided by societies concerns. While there are benefits to be gained, the WTO is likely to continue to be an effective forum for finding the way forward.

top of page