The idea of open markets reassures us that competition, a leveling playing field for all, and greater benefits for all, is the way of the future, the only way a global economy can prosper. I do believe that free trade does have its benefits, and countries that trade enough, compete enough, will win in the end. Cato scholars also say, " The freedom to trade is a basic human liberty, and its exercise across political borders unites people in peaceful cooperation and mutual prosperity. "Free Trade is a democratic principle linked to the very core principles the United States was founded on. Once you acknowledge that the freedom to trade is a basic human liberty, no one can argue against it. Who wants to take away someone's liberty? No one, definitely not an American or anyone who supports democracy. But I ask, Does not capitalism, trade, and competition, cause inequality, where some will rise only on the condition of another's failure? If trading is a human liberty, then is not equal pay, a minimum wage, the right to organize and form unions, the right to take maternity leave, and have unemployment and disability benefits considered essential for equality.

An Equality that is not based on the color of your skin, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender, disability, or a difference of opinion. The difference of opinion is the type of equality that the WTO enforces by considering intellectual property rights. Many have asked, "If intellectual property rights can be strictly enforced, why should minimum standards. . betreated differently?" the ICFTU asked. The environment and development have now become part of the WTO agenda, and yet labour standards are still not. Does the inclusion of the environment, provide hope that labour standards will one day become part of the WTO?

Freer investment will not repair the damage to our atmosphere. Lower tariffs will not halt the destruction of our forests. What an open, rules-based trading system provides is a necessary precondition - in partnership with the appropriate environmental, development, or social policies - for building a more globally coherent policy response to the challenges of globalization.

The broader solution to environmental, social, and other challenges lies in reaching a global consensus in each of these areas. Reaching enforceable global agreements and standards. And building the kind of global institutions needed to manage them. It lies, in other words, with developing global rules to address global needs - as we have done over fifty years with the trading system. If only the WTO could guarantee the world, that all major problems between countries regarding the issue of trade could be settled at the Roundtable, and not the battlefield, then there is nothing else we can ask them to do. If trade does bring about democracy, prosperity and encourages mutual respect leading to no other major wars, then the WTO will have succeeded the United Nations, in securing global peace.

It is hard to argue that establishing labour standards in developing countries only benefits industralized companies. Trade restrictions secure the country's companies from remaining within the country, and not translocating to other countries for the reason of a higher profit, and also a moral obligation is fufilled by knowing that equality has been achieved around the world, and slavery, child labour no longer exists. Thus industrial countries do win, and the curious question remains, how concerned would industrial countries be in the lives of others, if their jobs did not depend on it, or if those people suffering were not their relatives or loved ones, or if they were not suffering day to day with their own working conditions, Would industrial countries really try to impose labour standards only on the basis of not seeing another country suffer, if they had nothing at stake? Maybe the question should be would industrial countries know of others suffering, unless they had something at stake? Does not the apathy of Americans to International Politics, answer this question?