Initially, globalization was looked upon as a unifying agent for international business and multi-lateral trade. But lately, the hypothesis of opening up markets in the name of globalization is perceived as a threat to domestic markets and small businesses alike. Panglossian optimism is not there any more in any markets those are strong in particular products or services. Every business accentuates on protectionism because the initial forward thrust provided by globalization is no more evident in the global markets now. Notwithstanding, it has tremendously helped business powerhouses to garner all the glory, making them invincible, even in markets beyond their psychological horizon.
But today international trade is at the cross roads, beset with varied issues, including climate change, ever rising prices of essential commodities and energy, etc. And for all the ills emanated from globalization, World Trade Organization (WTO) is pilloried by most critics, as usual without providing viable solution. WTO was persistently blamed for its failure to make suitable changes to the needs of the times. WTO policies delved deep into politically sensitive domestic regulations and delayed the process of striking an early inevitable solution. It has had to withstand the pressures of different internal government differences, protectionism and even, anti-market NGO’s. The initial carrots offered by developed nations, during the early stages of globalization, turned out to be a steroid treatment for rabbit economies which transformed themselves into predators, which gradually devoured the lion share of the market pie. In the process WTO was left high and dry, clueless about its road ahead.
Before losing its core competency, WTO should wake up to the challenges of 21st century to live up to the expectations of its very existence. It has to accept that lopsided trade agreements have no place in the world today since every country can afford and has the intelligence to rope in expert international negotiators for favorable trade agreements. If it could provide ample scope for domestic products and services, to equally succeed in the world business arena, the organization will be able to fulfill its goal.
Preferential Trade Agreements (PTA) or any such are still designed for developed economies, flouting the laws of level playing field. Such deals should address the needs in a partner-specific manner and there by should facilitate the interests of both parties evenly. The pacts signed in a hurry, in future, may have to spend years in courts for implementation, due to domestically ever changing political scenario and other unexpected issues. Accords with complex and discriminatory regulations cannot expedite the process of implementation in present circumstances. Besides, red tapism and high gestational business costs also could be prevented, if proper care is given while signing deals. Businesses engaged in global supply chain, need simple, transparent and non-discriminatory models to derive the best out of tailored pacts.
At this juncture, WTO is with grievous limitations, if repair measures are not made quickly, perhaps it will lose its relevance. Most of the developing countries of Asia and South America have already latched on to the unilateral liberalization programs. China, the unilateral engine of free trade has started this way back in 1990 before joining WTO. Other East and South Asian nations are engaged in replicating China model to supersede the international institution to gain larger clout, and for doing more business. It is high time for a trade policy to be less of a foreign policy, and it should be solely the one which is attached within the framework of domestic economic needs. Therefore, the global trade body must give utmost care to address these needs in subsequent rounds of negotiations to avoid unnecessary stalemate.