The Uruguay Round of the GATT ignored discussion of the rights of workers, except as trade barriers to be eliminated. The 1996 WTO Singapore Ministerial Declaration went further, declaring outright: "We reject the use of labor standards for protectionist purposes, and agree that the comparative advantage of countries, particularly low-wage developing countries, must in no way be put into question."

Workers and unions in nations rich and poor have opposed the WTO since its creation in 1994. They point not only to the WTO’s tendency to polarize haves and have-nots, but also to rules blocking countries from enacting workers’ rights laws. [See box]

President Clinton tries to have it both ways. He has repeatedly promised the labor movement he supports workers’ rights. In 1994 he promised not to support the establishment of the WTO unless it addressed labor standards. By the 1995 Marrakesh ministerial he seemed to have forgotten about the issue. The next year in Singapore, Clinton repeated his call for a labor rights working group—but at the same meeting, the U.S. backed a declaration explicitly rejecting labor standards and trying to pass the whole uncomfortable issue off to the International Labor Organization.

This year Clinton is again talking up labor standards. The Clinton-Gore Administration says future rounds should make the relationship between trade and labor a priority. Details of the proposal, however, don’t measure up. The U.S. wants merely to establish a working group to produce a report on labor standards, and admit the ILO to WTO observer status.

The proposal lacks substance. Working groups are at the bottom of the WTO food chain, lacking authority to conduct negotiations or draft rules. Clinton’s support for the ILO is also suspect; the organization has no enforcement power. Of the seven ILO conventions supporting workers’ rights, the U.S. has signed onto just one.

This argues that the Clinton-Gore Administration supports labor standards only to please the AFL-CIO, its political ally. In any event, the AFL-CIO responded enthusiastically to the proposal. President John Sweeney endorsed the U.S. trade negotiating position in a joint statement signed by many corporate leaders, to critics a capitulation signalling that labor would stay quietly in its place in Seattle. More confrontational union leaders, such as Jimmy Hoffa Jr. of the Teamsters and Stephen P. Yokich of the UAW, made public their strong dissent.

The AFL-CIO has defended its support of the U.S. negotiating position as a savvy political move. "Getting the business community to support a working group on trade and labor is a significant accomplishment," Sweeney told union leaders. He said the AFL-CIO continues to demand enforceable labor standards, greater transparency and democracy, and protections for human rights and the environment. The federation issued a strong resolution on the WTO and the global economy at their 1999 convention. [www.aflcio.org/convention99/res1_6.htm]

Poor nations remain suspicious of an international labor standards regime. Many worry that labor standards would be used by rich nations as a cover for protectionism. They say labor standards could undermine one of their few competitive advantages: cheap labor. They view any discussion of labor rights as a violation of the Singapore Declaration.

"This is simply unacceptable," said one developing-country diplomat about the U.S.’ priorities. "We are already behind time with the negotiations and this labor proposal will certainly complicate matters further and set us back."

"It will be a big problem," said Thai trade minister Supachai Panitchpakdi, who will succeed Michael Moore as Director-General of the WTO. "Several developing countries have expressed the view that if the word ‘labor’ is mentioned, they would walk out of the meeting."