WATER ABLAZE - Patagonia Sin Represas

in January 1995 (see page 156). At present, it constitutes the highest
authority within the hierarchy of international jurisdiction, dealing
with the regulation of trade relations and economic ties and extending
its influence into every sphere of life in the 153 member states. Its
goals are the liberalisation, deregulation and privatisation of trade and
services, the implementation of patent rights and the dismantling of
trade barriers for commodities at all levels: a programme in keeping
with the popular concept of “neoliberal policies”.
The members of the WTO, which is more or less a global
organisation, together produce more than 90 per cent of world trade
volume. Non-member states include several countries in the Middle
East, some former Soviet Union republics and Russia itself, which has
been seeking membership for the past 16 years. At present, Russia,
Belarus and Kazakhstan are applying for membership as a single
customs bloc.
The WTO is the only international organisation with efficient
instruments and agencies at its disposal – unlike the UN – to enable it
to fulfil its liberalisation agenda. Whenever trade disagreements arise,
the WTO Dispute Settlement Body can be called upon to settle matters
and its rulings are binding for all parties. Each year, the DSB negotiates
in up to 40 cases, the most famous ever being the steel dispute between
the USA and the EU. Non-observance of the DSB’s verdicts can lead to
penalties, usually in the form of sanctions or fines.
As mentioned earlier, WTO “legislation” is positioned higher up
the legal hierarchy than EU law, which itself has priority over national
law. It is alarming to think that this fact has not yet been sufficiently
recognised or grasped by many of our political decision-makers. This
unrestricted authority allows the WTO to interfere in the right of national
governments to act autonomously and its decrees have to be converted
into national law, which in turn has an impact on the self-determination
of local government bodies. WTO regulations make it possible for a big
company to sue a state, for example, if the latter fails to invite tenders
for a water supply franchise or if it wishes to operate the supply itself.
One example illustrating just how seriously these rights to sue must
be taken is a U.S. offensive against the EU because of its restrictive
154