Oxfam, 2002, said: “International trade rules matter. They can create an enabling environment for poverty reduction, or a disabling one. Good international rules do no create automatic benefit for human development, but can facilitate policies that are good for the poor. Converser, bad rules can outlaw such policies. Many of the rules enshrined in the WTO all into the latter category. They threaten to marginalize developing countries and the word’s poorest people within an already unequal global trading system. ” The same author further said:
The same author further said that the authority of the WTO has been extended into areas of public policy that have a critical bearing on poverty reduction. Its mission is nothing less than to provide the common institutional framework for the conduct of trade relations between its 144 members. However, the implications go beyond trade to other important areas of public policy. The problem is that many WTO agreements, and the manner of their implementation, reflect the negotiating strength of Northern governments and the influence of powerful transnational companies.
In some areas, the multilateral systems is now little more than a smokescreen for the pursuit of private interest and the subordination o developing countries the dictates of rich countries. Conclusion: The problems of trade liberalization may be enormous or may even sound contradictory to the very purpose or which it was contemplated. As analyzed however, there are options and decision that must be done.
Trade liberalization is choice consciously chosen the WTO’s members for the purpose of humanitarian mission of helping the ever increasing population so sustainable development and therefore necessitated their voluntary consent in joining and not joining. By so joining it must be presumed that a country or state is ready to lend a helping hand in the attainment of the organizations’ objectives. The poor countries may not be necessarily left behind if they are given a fair chance and not taken advantages at their present state.
The richer nations owe them a moral obligation to help these countries so that they can increase their income and contribute to the sustainability of development. Decline in trading on primary commodities may be addressed may be solve also by extending to the poorer countries a helping hand to grow and not to unnecessarily burden given their present situation. The observation that international trade has become an obstacle to development may be altered by making better policies to go for the betterment of mankind. Good international rules can make easy policies that are good for the poor.
Perhaps may change or modify some of its rules in order not to threaten to marginalize developing countries and the word’s poorest people within an already unequal global trading system. ? Bibliography: Oxfam, 2002, Rigged rules and double standards: trade, globalisation and the fight against poverty , Make Trade Fair, Oxfam International, London, retrieved 2 February 2006, http://www. maketradefair. com/assets/english/report_english. pdf – ok accessed World Bank (2001d).
World Development Report 2001/20001: Attacking Poverty,’ Washington, World Bank WTO 10th anniversary 2005, ‘The future of the WTO’, retrieved 31 January 2006, http://www.wto. org/english/thewto_e/10anniv_e/10anniv_e. htm UNCTAD, (1999b) ‘The World Community Economy: Recent Evolution, Financial Crises and Changing Market Structures. ’, Geneva, UNCTAC International Task Force (1999), ‘Dealing with Commodity Price Volatility in Developing Countries’, Washington, World Bank. UNCTAD (2001a) ‘ The Role of Commodities in LDCs’, Geneva’ World Bank (1999) ‘Curving the Epidemic- Governments and the Economic of Tobacco Control’, Washington: World Bank World Bank (2000a). “Vietnam Development Report 2000: Attacking Poverty’ Washington World Bank.