Marta Russell

The short five year history of the World Trade Organization (WTO) shows that

the WTO is most interested in building a new global economic order of free trade

unfettered by environmental, and labor regulations which protect people over

corporate interests. It is clear that the WTO has consistently settled trade

disputes in favor of corporate interests. The WTO has ruled against

environmental restrictions in every case that has come before it and has

frequently deemed labor regulations as "non-tariff trade barriers."

It’s less apparent, however, that the WTO also poses a threat to civil rights.

It is without question that people with disabilities (PWDs) live on the

economic margins in every country in the world. We are the least employed, the

most impoverished, the least likely to advance beyond subsistence. By far the

majority of the 500 million mobility impaired, blind, deaf, and other PWDs

around the world still lack access to basic human rights such as shelter, food,

health care, and medicine. The process of impoverishment has grown during the

NAFTA/GATT/WTO dominion over trade policies. Elite plans to further negotiations

that expand the scope and power of the WTO into health services through the

General Agreement on Trade in Services will place PWDs at greater risk as

privatization dismantles what remains of public health care system in many

nations.

Getting an education and a job remain even further out of reach. PWDs are

thwarted from full participation in the social and economic life in their native

countries. Powerful social, economic, and cultural forces and institutions

prevent PWDs from full and free development, in part, by failure to provide

fundamental access. PWDs cannot get into many office buildings, schools, and

even medical facilities in their communities but physical barriers also prevent

many from access to government institutions such as the courts, the

legislatures, and public meeting halls where policies get developed. The

American experience teaches that civil rights laws such as the Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA) are necessary to require that institutions build ramps as

an alternative to steps, inscribe Braille on elevator panels, and provide sign

language interpreters (to name a few) at meetings – to ensure the participation

of PWDs in the democratic process. Universal access is a right unique to

disability civil rights law.

In recognition of the world-wide discrimination and economic marginalization

of PWDs, the United Nations drew up a document titled "Standard Rules on

the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities." This

paper serves as the formal groundwork to educate UN member states about the need

for government policies that are disability-specific. In particular the document

emphasizes the importance of accessibility in the process of equalizing

opportunities. But as one international body progresses disability access,

another – the WTO – has the potential to override the ADA’s access regulations

in the name of "free trade" – as it already has done to national

environmental and worker safety regulations.

Here is how that can happen. The WTO limits governments’ ability to use their

purchasing dollars for human, environmental, and worker rights, i.e.,

non-commercial purposes. WTO rules assert that governments can make purchases

based only on quality and cost considerations, they do not have to adhere to

democratically imposed social obligations. Further, the WTO does not allow

countries to place restrictions on how products get made. Disability civil

rights require products be designed in ways that comply with universal access

rules of the ADA which impose specifications on products such as public buses,

toilets, commuter-rails, door handles, elevator panels, and other products the

public uses every day. For example, buses must be made accessible to wheelchair

users, elevator panels must include Braille symbols to designate numbers, public

toilet stalls and toilets must be constructed in a manner that all persons,

disabled and nondisabled can manage.

When the United States federal, state, county, or city governments contract

for large-scale purchases, they solicit bids from all over the world. Because

the WTO agreement allows a corporation that believes itself to be disadvantaged

by a particular law to look for a government to bring a challenge against it,

any competing company in any nation could challenge the ADA’s universal access

standard as obstructing trade. The objecting nation could bring a complaint

against the US calling for it to bring its national law into line with the lower

international standard or be subjected to perpetual fines or trade sanctions.

If a corporation were to pursue their interest in the WTO court, there would

be a panel of three "experts" comprised of trade lawyers making the

decision on the commercial worthiness of universal access. Since the WTO courts

have no mandate to gather alternative perspectives, amicus curaie briefs from

the public could be omitted from the hearings. Further, since all documents are

kept secret, corporations could be asked to submit amicus questioning the trade

merit of universal design from the business perspective and citizens with

disabilities would not know that had been a part of the decision-making process.

And since open public hearings are not a part of the WTO process, citizens would

have no say in the final determination about universal design.

Given that business – in the form of the National Association of

Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Banking Association,

and the National Federation of Independent Businesses – opposed the ADA from the

beginning and that the WTO functions like an international Chamber of Commerce,

it is highly possible that the WTO court would label the ADA a "trade

barrier." The WTO court acting in the interests of just one business could

render the ADA moot internationally and diminish the prospect of advancing

disability civil rights law in other nations as well.

It is not, however, my intent to promote reform of the WTO so that it will

accommodate disability rights. Rather it seems that we need to dismantle the

corporate controlled WTO and create an alternative international forum where

democratic goals can be properly met.