of a new millennium. It is a time for planning and reflection. As I reflect on the events of the past few years, one of the most significant events was the final completion of negotiations for the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), Uruguay Round. Questions were posed to me in preparation for an interview with Arab journalists. The answers I prepared provide useful information for my regular readers.

Q: The GATT Agreement has been ratified by the US Congress by a resounding vote. Even those well versed in economic matters are confused about certain aspects of US policy and have heard sundry criticism of the GATT. Why for example will the US resign from the GATT in order to join the World Trade Organisation (WTO) after seven hard years of negotiating GATT? A: Actually the WTO is a provision of the agreement negotiated by the 125 members of the GATT. It is intended to replace the GATT in all practical respects, although its governance and structure will differ slightly from the current GATT structure and governance process.

Q: Why are people who agree on nothing else eg., Ralph Nader, Jesse Helms, Ross Perot and Jesse Jackson united in opposition to GATT? A: Some of what you are reading about these people is predictable political posturing. However there is a real threat that the US Congress will bend to the current trend towards protectionism. Nader is concerned about giving power to WTO which will allow it to challenge the sovereignty of the United States.

Neither the United Nations or NATO currently do this. Both organisations provide a veto power for the United States and other major nations. They are not run a single vote democracies. Jesse Helms, Pat Robertson and many of the conservatives in what is called `the religious right` are also concerned about national sovereignty.

Jesse Jackson is concerned about the lack of human rights and environmental controls in the GATT Agreement. not only is the Uruguay Round agreement silent on these issues, the WTO's plan and governing structure has not made clear provisions for raising and addressing these issues.

The real issue for the United States Congress and ultimately this nation's citizens is the impact on the standards of living and potential for creating sustainable jobs for middleclass and working class Americans. The answers to these questions are not clear. They were a bit more clear in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). And the economists have been born out in that NAFTA has created jobs in the United States in manufacturing, service and support services. These jobs are of the kind and calibre to become lasting jobs which will continue to contribute to the economic well-being of the nation.

Q: Do environmentalist have anything to fear from the WTO? A: There is nothing to fear in the current agreements or plans because the environment has not been an official topic in Uruguay Round negotiations.

However environmentalist should begin to develop an ability to influence the workings of this new international trade governance body. A recent survey of independent business owners taken by the US Chamber of Commerce determined that business owners consider the environment an important issue, by more than a 10 to one majority. Environmentalists should be forewarned that business owners are organized and will protect their property and manufacturing facilities against unreasonable demands for environmental protection or cleanup.

Q: What is the meaning of the agreement between Senator Dole and President Clinton which paved the way for Senate ratification of GATT? A: Under the negotiated GATT agreement which is the basis for establishing the WTO, withdrawal from WTO was considered solely a presidential decision. The Dole/Clinton compromise acknowledges the authority of Congress to vote for withdrawal if it decided that the United States was being subjected to unfair rulings by the newly created court of international trade, in the WTO governance structure.