WTO prepares for battleground

   Few organizations hold meetings in the middle of a ring of battleships and policemen.
  The World Trade Organization, however, does.
   Anti-Globalization activists completely disrupted the last WTO meeting in Seattle in 1999 with massive protests and marches. Before talks began, the protesters were sharpening their horns, adamant that this meeting would go the way of the first.
   Weeks before the meeting, protesters marched down the streets of Cancun, stripped on the beaches and spelled out "No A La OMC" (No to the WTO) with their bodies.
   This did not bode well for the coming meeting of 146 countries.
   Dissidents included farmers and labor rights promoters as well as the usual anti-globalization advocates since agriculture reform was shaping up to become one of the meeting's hottest topics.
   Developing nations wanted reductions in the tariffs and subsidies that keep poorer farms afloat in richer countries.
   This proposed change would, of course, have lowered trade barriers and provide newer markets for developing nations, but it would force previously protected farms to compete in a fiercer goods market.
   Other concerns that global trade would only help big business, damage the environment and threaten cultures are short-term side effects.
   Talks eventually broke down, not because of protesters, but because of differences over four proposals concerning foreign investment and competition.
   The dissidents seemed to have forgotten the automobile industry. When it was opened up to foreign competition, the quality of cars improved dramatically.
   While protected by tariffs, American manufacturers produced big, gas-guzzling behemoths for U.S. consumers in outdated factories using outdated production methods.
   Japan's smaller, more efficient cars forced an update, opened new factories and created new jobs.
   Necessity is the mother of invention, but necessity's father in the business world is profit. Money. Without competition, companies have no threat to their profits, no reason to change the status quo.
   With global trade, however, a wider range of corporate competitors can threaten a company's dominance; said company is forced to improve its product, and global trade thus leads to better quality and cheaper prices.
   In the short term, globalization may not look too good, but all the benefits will cycle back to the consumer.
   The America of today focuses too much on short term effects; we build roads requiring constant repairs as it is the cheapest solution at the time, neglecting to take into account the millions of dollars of work the roads will need down the line.
   World trade will not only bring more money to the country in the long run but will also improve the world as a whole.
   Hopefully, Americans will see that by helping others, we help ourselves.