The thousands of chanting demonstrators who marched through Seattle last month drew the world's attention to the meeting of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and to the impact of free-trade deals on the environment and jobs. No agreement was reached in Seattle. But that doesn't mean the U.S., the EU and the other big guns of the WTO have given up on developing a global trading economy for the next century.

Discussions will be ongoing, and a key item on their agenda remains a new version of what's called the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). Major multinationals with close connections to trade negotiators have wanted radical changes to the GATS, demanding that a whole range of sectors--including publicly funded health and education services--be opened up to private competition. And so, many WTO officials stay committed to drafting a single agreement to open markets to competition, covering almost every service sector imaginable, from education to postal services to garbage collection--sectors that represent thousands of billions of dollars in business interests.

In Canada, the proposed changes have sounded alarm bells over possible threats to national public sector programs--as they should. Ottawa trade officials never confirmed that Canadian markets for health and education services are on the negotiating table. But given the objectives of the WTO's most powerful members--and the history of trade agreements such as NAFTA--our labour, environmental and safety safeguards remain at risk as the forces of privatization stay poised to perform radical surgery on our public services.

Even if Ottawa doesn't want to open up health or education to trade, according to Susan George, president of the Observatoire de la Mondialisation (Globalisation Observatory)in Paris, all WTO member countries are on the list for these services--unless the sector in question is totally run, administered and financed by government. "Even here in France, where the notion of public services is extremely developed," says George, "we don't have an education sector that is purely government-run." That would put schools within the ambit of the WTO.

The automatic opt-in feature being proposed for the GATS--which would place all service sectors on the table--also makes it more than just an economic trade agreement. Ellen Gould, a B.C. researcher on trade and investment issues, says it's explicitly political. "It's about how government regulates within its borders." Take the information and database services provided by libraries. Last summer, Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs distributed a survey to public libraries and archives--a hint that they were carefully eyeing the proposed changes to trade in services. The survey asked about the potential benefits of opening up export markets. Libraries are obviously under provincial jurisdiction, but the federal government contacted representatives directly--bypassing provincial authorities--to determine their interest in opening up their market through the GATS negotiations. (It didn't mention the awkward fact that if GATS is changed to cover public services, foreign corporations could bid on the very services these public institutions now deliver.)

And, as Gould points out, "the GATS is an existing agreement--this isn't like the MAI which may or may not happen. If you apply it to all sectors, it's like a nuclear device that's waiting for the key elements to be put into it."

NAFTA is ample proof that when consumer protection comes into conflict with free trade, the latter wins out. Ottawa promised us that NAFTA could never be used to challenge things like Canadian culture or environmental regulations. But remember MMT? Ottawa's ban on the toxic gasoline additive for health reasons led to a lawsuit from MMT's manufacturer, Virginia-based Ethyl Corporation, under chapter 11 of NAFTA. The feds settled out of court, awarding Ethyl $20 million in damages--and rescinded the ban. More recently, a California company, Sun Belt, sued Canada for at least $468 million under NAFTA, because of a moratorium the B.C. government imposed on water exports.

WTO guidelines likewise give corporations the option to sue governments over policies that cause them loss. So far, WTO rulings have overturned the use of safety devices in shrimping nets to protect endangered sea turtles, prevented Europe from shutting out imports of hormone-laced American meat, and overturned dolphin-safe tuna restrictions.

For all the talk of impartiality, it's clear that heavy-hitters such as the U.S. and Japan drive WTO policy. The WTO submission by the U.S. Coalition on Service Industries, representing many American private health maintenance organizations (HMOs), suggests who stands to gain the most. The Coalition's objectives are spelled out clearly: they aim to "obtain market access and national treatment commitments allowing provisions of all health care services cross border," and "allow majority foreign ownership of health care facilities."

The Canadian Health Coalition's McBane calls this the Americanization of Medicare. "It would certainly erect barriers to access ... because the costs go through the roof with American health industries. They're not in it for a public service--they're in it to pay off the shareholders."

The competitive edge sounds great--until you think of applying it to social services. As Mike McBane, national coordinator of the Canadian Health Coalition, a national watchdog group, points out, programs such as Medicare will not survive under market trade rules. "Those two systems are totally incompatible. You can't have a public service designed to meet need--regardless of ability to pay--and assume that it can operate on the principles of the market."

Pick up a copy of THIS Magazine at your local newsstand.
Better yet, subscribe to THIS right now!