The WTO aims to weaken national government. A strong government in a poor country might discourage the export of raw commodities or crops so that value can be added to them within its own borders. It might also exclude imports that had been cheapened unfairly by subsidies in the exporting country. These are both ways in which the poor could climb out of poverty. But they are forbidden.
Under WTO rules governments are not allowed to favour local firms, prevent foreigners having a controlling interest in local companies, favour trade partners or subsidise domestic industry, (though it has not prevented massive US and EU subsidies to their farmers and exporters). Governments are not allowed to interfere in a market to pursue social objectives such as racial, ethnic or gender equality, nor to favour friendly countries that might have special needs. The rules work to the advantage of corporations which benefit from economies of scale, which can undercut to capture a market, which are immune to local consumer feed-back and which can shift their production at short notice to countries with lower wages and fewer environmental or labour regulations. In all these fields manufacturers, suppliers, retailers and farmers in poor countries are at a disadvantage. It is hardly believable but the WTO sets maximum, not minimum, standards for environmental protection.
Trade spreads films, music, language, business methods and attitudes. The WTO is therefore establishing a single culture, globally. But modern communications also make everyone aware of stark and growing inequality, disintegrating societies, collapsed economies, violent reaction from disaffected groups and environmental crises.
