Amidst a crowd of protestors in the writhing streets of Seattle, a voice challenged the tide of protectionist sentiment. As Barun Mitra, a managing trustee of the New Delhi-based Liberty Institute, said later, “The cost of staying silent was too great for people, particularly the poor, in the developing countries. In an open market, with free trade, the poor have nothing to lose but their poverty.” The sheer masses in Seattle opposed to Mr. Mitra’s view of the world might be intimidating for many, but when asked about the first day of meetings at the World Trade Organization, the native of India smiled. “I was sad that the protests blocked movement, but I love to argue with the protesters. I’m more of a street fighter. I want to reach out to these people even if they don’t listen.” And reach out, he did.
Barun Mitra added his voice to those of others at the world trade meetings representing the free market belief in open markets and trade without barriers. A charter member of International Consumers for Civil Society (ICCS), Mr. Mitra joined his fellow ICCS delegates in the fight to make sure that those advocating restriction on trade through environmental and labor standards were not the only ones to be heard.
Formed in mid-1999 with twenty charter members, the ICCS includes non-profit groups from around the world. The mission of the fledgling organization is “(1) to promote on an international basis a market-oriented view on consumer policy issues through representing non-profit organizations that support the premise that consumer choice and competition best advance consumers’ interests; and (2) to act as an international clearinghouse for the exchange of information and ideas about market solutions to consumer concerns.” The Seattle round of the WTO’s trade negotiations provided ICCS with its first opportunity to have an impact on international debate.
As an observer and participant in the actions undertaken by the ICCS at the world trade meetings (and generously supported by the Atlas Foundation), I made an effort to try and pin down the importance of free market groups attending such international events.
Taking to the streets provided Mitra and Bate
with access to journalists eager to interview someone with a dissenting
view from that typically provided by the protesters. As Mr. Mitra put it,
“If I put in a discordant voice, the media thinks it will sell.” A conservative
talk radio show, a Berkeley radio station, and The Oregonian were among
those interested in what he had to say.
The ICCS conference also presented an opportunity
to garner information for proponents of the free market. Speakers like
C.S. Prakash, Professor and Director of the Center for Plant Biotechnology
Research at the Tuskegee Institute, helped provide myself and other policy
wonks in the crowd with scientific support for our arguments. Professor
Prakash presented on the benefits that biotechnology can bring: from trees
that are genetically modified at the University of Georgia to clean mercury
from contaminated soil and release it safely into the air to modifications
that could help the ten percent of people in rice-eating countries who
are allergic to rice finally consume the dietary staple without allergic
reaction.
I attended a panel with members from the US Department of Agriculture, Commerce, and other national agencies. All of the questions were asked by NGO’s unfriendly to the free market viewpoint. This clearly shaped the debate. The free market side must be in attendance to counter false claims and to present liberty’s side of the story.
A different session held by the World Health Organization in conjunction with several members from the WTO illustrated a strategy for entering into the discussion with some success. When a bureaucrat for the World Health Organization presented his data in a questionable manner, Roger Bate asked a question which pointed out his error. The gentleman effectively avoided an answer to Mr. Bate’s question. I was then able to subtly point this out by asking the question again in a slightly different form. ICCS members also used this tag-team strategy at a discussion regarding environmental standards later in the week. The free market side must act to directly affect the debate rather than comment on it from afar.
In the introduction to his book Global Greens, James Sheehan asserts, “A new and unprecedented force has been created in world politics -– the non-governmental organization. NGO’s have joined nation-states, central banks and international agencies as institutions authorized to define the world’s problems and propose policy fixes. From the calling of United Nations conferences to the negotiation of international treaties, NGO’s today exert a profound influence on international affairs.”
With the formation of the ICCS, the free market side has come to realize the truth of Mr. Sheehan’s claim and decided that two can indeed play at that game. It is important that the WTO meetings become the beginning of free market NGO’s involvement in the international debate and not the end. When all is said and done: if the free market side doesn’t show up to protect the interests of freedom, consumers, and the impoverished against the rhetoric of anti-free market interests that task will be left to government agencies. I personally cannot think of a scarier prospect.
J. Bishop Grewell is a Research Associate with PERC (the Political Economy Research Center), a Bozeman research institute providing market solutions to environmental problems. He would like to thank the Atlas Economic Research Foundation for helping fund his trip to Seattle.
