The World Trade Organization is incredibly undemocratic. Its nature is a no-holds barred, no-sleep fest where major decisions are made late into the night by whomever is left standing in the “invitation-only” Green Room. It has the air of a buddy-buddy old boys club that you are either in or want to be in. Jokes are made about the lack of sleep and number of cups of coffee consumed.

It is scandalous that decisions impacting so many lives are made in a pressure cooker that literally relies on negotiators’ sleep-deprived capacity to function in order to make a deal.

Negotiators from the 149 member states of the WTO met in Hong Kong December 13-18, 2005, for the 6th Ministerial Conference. And typical of any Hollywood epic, as this one ended, it laid the groundwork for its sequel. This spring (2006) will be the next attempt at pushing forward full negotiations even though meetings targeting specific areas like the ones on opening up Services for privatization have already begun.

Although the Global South tried to play by the rules and went to Hong Kong with alternative proposals, very few of them made their way into the drafts or the final text. The Least Developed Countries (LDCs) alone submitted several hundred proposals on agriculture — the sector where 65 per cent of the world’s poor make their living and huge agri-business multinationals’ interests dominate — only five of which made it into the official text for discussion.

At the beginning of the Ministerial, it wasn’t even clear whether there would be a deal or whether the whole thing would collapse. The last two attempts at moving global free trade forward had ended in spectacular failure: Seattle in 1999 and Cancun in 2003.

Looking back, the meeting was an amazing, unbelievable spectacle of how democracy and consensus-decision making are manipulated in favour of cementing corporate power. The Conference was full of intrigue, uncertainty, conflict, manipulation, posturing and — sometimes — action. But because the WTO’s legitimacy hung in the balance, the U.S., EU, Canada and others were determined to salvage the flagging institution. At the same time, many feared that some Southern countries’ narrow self-interests would dominate, resulting in a bad deal for all.

From the outset, the U.S. and EU were crystal clear that if they were to “give in” on agriculture they would need to get something in return in Services or GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services) and industrial/manufacturing or NAMA (Non-Agricultural Market Access).

Meanwhile, although Canada was committed to preserving our supply management system, negotiators went in with an aggressive agenda on NAMA and GATS. Our government chose to advocate for corporate interests instead of development. Disturbingly, WTO members agreed to accelerate and broaden the approach to GATS negotiations. The new plurilateral approach means that WTO members can band together and pursue privatization of specific areas collectively. In other words, increasing the pressure on developing countries to open up a whole range of services. Canada is actively looking to promote its financial services, telecommunications and environmental sectors while the US and Europeans have taken a more explicit interest in water, heath and education.

Mid-way through the Ministerial, 110 Southern members of the total 149 membership publicly announced their new alliance, the G110. They committed to harmonizing their negotiating positions for the first time ever. Their statement reiterated their now collective platform that included a demand for the elimination of Northern export subsidies and a call for LDC export goods guaranteed duty-free and quota-free access to Northern markets, among others. As the G110 representatives rose to link arms, observers were sure that the turbulent WTO was on its way to another spectacular crash.

Meanwhile, the strongest voices on the streets belonged to Via Campesina. From the beginning, Korean farmers and others were well-organized and provided strong leadership. They repeatedly highlighted the forced exclusion of those impacted most by these policies. Their courage on the front lines was an amazing display of sheer determination.

The police used brute force, rubber bullets, tear gas, and attack dogs to squelch dissent. Hundreds of people were arbitrarily arrested, denied food and water and held without charges. Addressing accusations against Via Campesina of violence, Jose Bove charged: “The WTO is killing farmers. We are fighting for our lives.”

Amidst an air of disagreement and melodrama the bets were in favour of collapse. Yet, somehow an agreement was hatched, which — for the most part — only paid lip service to Southern country demands while committing countries to this new plurilateral approach to negotiations in Services, and a harsh new formula that will determine how non-agricultural tariffs (NAMA) get reduced impacting the North nominally and the South substantially.

Two countries, Cuba and Venezuela, went against the “big boys.” As to others, the pressure was on, particularly from the new “insiders,” Brazil and India, to accept the deal. Consequently it ended up being too politically costly for Cuba and Venezuela to derail the product. So they went along reluctantly, articulating exceptions.

And so a deal that wasn’t, materialized right on schedule.

Disturbingly, this agreement provides a dangerous new platform for future negotiations, even though there is still so much to accomplish. The tepid deal brings with it new ways to cement corporate power at the expense of people, communities, and the environment.

In order for the WTO to claim success, survive and move forward this entire set of negotiations, known as the Doha Round, need to be completed by the end of this year. The pressure is on — so watch out for more fast-paced perilous negotiations.

At home, this results-oriented pressure cooker combined with a Conservative government could spell also doom for Canadian family farmers. Stephen Harper’s Conservatives publicly committed to eliminating the Canadian Wheat Board, a global example of good farming management. And despite the fact that Canadian supply management has been saved to date, the dairy and poultry farmers using supply management are eastern-based.

So the path that this high-stakes drama will take — at home and globally — has yet to be decided. Will there be a pivotal shift to a just trading system or a final cementing of corporate rights?

Stay tuned for the Sequel.