The current model is threatened as well by a couple of its more glaring imperfections. The two largest players in the WTO have forged their ideas on free trade based on entirely different approaches to the issue. The U.S. has forged its own trade policy based on bilateral agreements and leveraged its economic might to operate almost independently of trade bodies. The EU, on the other hand, has built a trade policy on a vast body of overarching rules and organizations with the intention of these superseding U.S. dominance. It has been hypothesized that these two completely different approaches will eventually clash, bringing all progress towards free trade to a standstill. Should China emerge as some predict to become a third power, with its own perspective on the management of global trade, the risk of such a standstill becomes even greater.
Moreover, the present international economic system will only work if all parties involved have faith in it. At this point, there is an imbalance of power at bodies such as the WTO. Developing nations feel obligated to be a part of such organizations lest the economic benefits bypass them but also feel marginalized by the larger, more developed nations. The developed nations drive the policy, which then reflects their interests, which in turn are largely the interests of the large corporations who control the economic power in these countries. Moreover, developing nations feel that WTO rulings in their favor but against the U.S. Or EU are routinely ignored. This has lead to a certain lack of faith in the system, faith without which the system will not be able to continue to function.
This apparent lack of accountability at high levels of the system's architecture means that it is difficult for anybody to ensure that the system of free trade is working in the manner in which it is theoretically supposed to be working (that is,...
This fuels resentment amongst developing nations, free trade's opponents in developed nations, and even amongst the strongest nations, who are now beginning to question whether they are getting all that they want out of the current structure. Moreover, there are significant military costs to securing this system, and those costs are presently being borne by only a handful of nations. In those nations, this is a hot-button issue and a change of governments in any of the nations in question could see a dramatic re-evaluation of the entire approach to securing trade.
Lastly, the distribution of the wealth generated by free trade is being called into question. There is evidence showing that the gap between rich and poor is growing. Ultimately, the goal of each nation in entering into trade agreements or the WTO is to improve its economic situation. If this is happening, the path of international free trade will continue to progress. However, there is the risk that the balance of power will tip too much towards the large Western multinational interests, jeopardizing the improving wealth of developing countries. The underlying theory does not address wealth distribution, merely wealth creation. The issue of distribution will be a major factor shaping the future of international free trade.
Works Cited
Crook, Clive. "Beyond Belief." Atlantic Monthly. Oct 2007. 44-47.
Keohane, Robert O. & Nye, Joseph S. Jr. "Globalization: What's New? What's Not? (and So What?)." Foreign Policy. Spring 2000. 104-119.
Barker, Debi & Mander, Jerry. "The WTO and Invisible Government." Peace Review. 2000. 251-255.
Abdedal, Rawi & Segal, Adam. "Has Globalization Passed its Peak?" Foreign Affairs. 2004.
Gladwell, Malcolm. "The Risk Pool." Dept. Of Human Resources.
