Does Doha Mark the End of Unions' Quest for a Social Clause?

 
Since the Havana Trade Conference just after World War II, the trade union movement has advocated greater linkage between trade and social issues, specifically, the conditionality of trade to international labor standards. Over the years, alliances between the union movement and civil society have expanded this conditionality to include the environment and human rights. At the same time, however, official opposition to the idea of a social clause or dimension in the trade negotiations has also grown. Environmental and labor standards are labeled as protectionist by developing economies and as barriers to trade expansion by the developed nations. One by one, potential civil society allies of organized labor have distanced themselves from a negotiated social clause. This trend is particularly evident in attitudes toward the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), which the AFL-CIO rejects on the grounds that it lacks a social dimension.

But at the highest level of the world labor movement, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), the idea of engagement through a social clause linking workers' rights and trade is very much alive. This was evident as the ICFTU prepared for the WTO meeting in Doha. As recently as late October, the ICFTU made approval of a "labor forum" its objective at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) conference in Shanghai. This demand traces back to the first FTAA Ministerial in Denver in 1995, an indication of the lack of progress on this front. It failed yet again in Shanghai, and the ICFTU delegation was still licking its wounds when it arrived in Doha in November.

Forty trade union officials, representing more than 150 million workers, attended the WTO meeting. Their message was that globalization, as managed so far by the WTO, has not brought general social and economic gains; instead, they argued, its main effects have been an increase in poverty and violations of workers' rights. They lobbied the WTO to forge a direct working relationship with the International Labor Organization (ILO) to give meaning to the commitments of the 1996 Singapore WTO Ministerial regarding core labor standards.

Backing the unions in Doha were hundreds of thousands of trade union members calling for a fairer process of globalization. In general, their attitude was significantly more moderate than those of most of the ICFTU's allies and affiliates, many of whom called for the end of globalization as we know it. Some developing country NGOs, including an Afro-Asian coalition, went so far as to oppose the introduction of labor standards altogether, complaining that "they [the EU and other supporting countries] think that one size can fit all�.their issues are entirely different from our issues�In our case... it is not a matter of choosing the best work conditions. It is a matter of subsistence and livelihood." This question of cultural relativism continues to be a sticking point between developing nations and trade unions.

After initial optimism that European and other developed country delegates would get their labor issues on the table at Doha, ICFTU Secretary General Bill Jordan appeared chastised at the end of the meeting. "After Singapore, everyone expected the WTO to start cooperation with the ILO, yet that commitment has been a non-starter," he commented. "After the Doha Conference, the minimum we expect to see is some effective initiative to bring about genuine cooperation between these two bodies. Less than that will turn workers and their organizations against the world trading system."

Jordan argued that "the WTO and its members have to tackle a basic problem: the support for social progress of a silent majority of WTO members has less weight than the loud voices of a handful of hard-liners, who can stop decision-making being representative." He pledged that "the union movement will be maintaining its campaign until the day that the WTO incorporates adequate development, social, labor, gender and environmental concerns into its work and mechanisms."

This language seems out of step with the tone of the NGO declarations and the statements of many of the ICFTU's major affiliates. In fact, the strong backing and technical support granted by the WTO to developing nations on the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) and public health reveal a new climate and that may work in favor of the NGOs. The organization now seems to be making an intentional effort to curry the support of poorer countries, which traditionally are wary of NGOs based in developed nations. Nowadays, in contrast, "NGOs are offering to work very closely with developing countries to achieve their objectives. It's how they intend to get into the negotiating room," said one former trade negotiator.

Some observers criticize NGOs for encouraging developing countries to enter into unrealistic and intransigent negotiating positions. "Developing countries are getting wound up by NGOs," complained one diplomat. "They're telling poor countries, wrongly, that there's nothing in the negotiations for them." It is too early to tell where this strategy will lead. But without a doubt, the NGOs played an important role in the developing countries' victory in gaining some control over the pharmaceuticals they need to combat AIDS and other endemic diseases in their nations.

The Teamsters and Turtles alliance of Seattle continues to unravel, with each side heading off in its own direction. In fact, the importance of civil society actually has increased, with key issues and strategies taking on new life. The union movement itself will find new strength in the ILO, which remains the one recognized institution for dealing with the work-related consequences of globalization. The overall lesson is clear: Don't discount the power of unions and NGOs to influence the pace and design of globalization.