Human Rights and the Changing Normative Ideologies of International Trade: Critical Perspectives on the 2003 Cancún WTO Ministerial Conference

The 2003 WTO Fifth Ministerial Conference was one of the most important due to the various issues discussed that could likely influence various countries and their economic futures. Supposed to redress international trade imbalances, the event, however, ended dramatically failing to come to any conclusion on rules to govern the international trade system. It failed when developing countries refused to accept a draft declaration heavily biased to the EU and US agenda, including green light for continued agriculture export subsidies and the launch of WTO negotiations on controversial new issues such as investment and government purchasing. Developed nations wanted to talk about newer issues that mostly they themselves would have benefited from. The failure of the Cancun is a historic moment on the linkages between international trade, human rights and the evolution of North - South relations. Developing countries organised effectively and did not give in to the bribery and pressure by which the EU and U.S forced them into accepting a negotiating agenda that would run counter to their interests. There will be no change to the unfair international trade rules to allow developed nations to continue to subsidise their farmers at the expense of millions of poor people. However, it is arguable whether the world trading system will yield positive results in the future. The estimation results from the time-series models of global trade support the conclusion that international trade has been unfairly driven downward for decades. The starting point of the inquiry is that the June 2011 Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights provide a common reference point, and serve as a useful basis for building a cumulative positive effect that takes into account the respective roles and responsibilities of all relevant international trade stakeholders. One of the major and widely recognised contributions of the Guiding Principles has been to set out the duties of States and the responsibilities of companies to ensure that businesses operate with respect for human rights. This essay argues that unfair trade policies lead to human rights abuses, and, in the long run, to deflationary macroeconomic policies in developing countries. International trade reduces States’ propensity to deliver infrastructures and socio-economic welfare programmes. This leads to higher inflation and unemployment rates, which affect the economic position of wage and salary earners and, in particular, erodes the economic well-being of the poor. I present my argument in four parts. I first analyse the weaknesses of the current international trade system, thus setting some theoretical framework for analysing economic change in an unequal business world. The bulk of the paper discusses the intricacies of Cancun and reviews its defining moments, namely the osmosis from the South as evidenced by its collective bargaining strength. The essay then set forth the intellectual framework and theoretical issues governing international trade, namely the role and place of developing countries in international relations and trade theories. Lastly, the paper turns to the way forward, progress made, lessons learned, and substantive issues pertaining to the challenges and prospects for the world trade governing body. The paper concludes with a prognostic view of the role and place of developing countries in the world economy. In the end, referring to the symbiosis between human rights and international business, I contend that greater policy coherence is needed at the international level, including where States participate in multilateral institutions that deal with business-related issues, such as international trade and development institutions.