A globalised Palestine is a normal Palestine and one that is a member of the WTO, writes Jamil Salman* in Amman Despite the recent surge in studies criticising the effects of globalisation and, by extension, the World Trade Organisation (WTO), Palestinian officials have remained steadfast in their desire to expose the Palestinian economy to the effects of globalisation. To some, membership of the WTO has become the next step not only in ending economic depression, but also in achieving Palestinian statehood. This is in part due to the major deficiencies regarding the present customs union with Israel. As has been shown, the customs union will always remain economically unfeasible, despite the proposed changes to the 1994 Paris Protocol. Political instability, security measures, and porous border controls, which lead to much more smuggling than anyone would care to admit, all weigh heavily on the success of this trading option. (It has been estimated that the Israeli-Palestinian customs union has created total losses that range from anywhere between $4.5-5.2 million. Smuggling meanwhile, has amounted to leakages of up to 40 per cent of potential trade revenues.) Hence, the WTO is increasingly becoming the popular choice as it encourages liberal solutions that are both economically and politically advantageous. Most of these benefits would arise directly as a result of the removal of anti- trade biases (most of which have been a direct result of Israeli interference in Palestinian affairs) and the allocation of resources to industries with the greatest potential. As such, Palestine would have to be prepared to reshape its entire commercial structure based on the expectation of global exposure and unrestricted access across economic borders. This much was confirmed by Palestine's most recent interaction with the WTO at the 2005 Hong Kong Ministerial Conference. Not much has been made of this event, yet it could well mark the watershed event in Palestinian economic recovery. In this instance, the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) submitted a request for observer status on behalf of the Palestinian Authority (PA) at the 2005 Hong Kong Conference. The PLO claimed that this exposure was necessary for Palestinian officials, who would learn first-hand about the intricacies of the operation of a multilateral trading system. This experience would be used to "significantly contribute to, [our] on-going efforts in formulating a comprehensive trade policy for Palestine." The PLO thus made their position clear: they expected observer status to expedite their transition towards a WTO-based autonomous commercial agenda, with a view to permanent membership in the near future. At Hong Kong, Palestine's observer status entitled it to very little in terms of authority and influence over the scope of issues discussed. Nevertheless, by accepting that Palestine was entitled to some form of involvement at the Hong Kong proceedings, the WTO essentially acknowledged that the occupied Palestinian territories (OPT) had the right to partake in "matters of direct interest to them." One could interpret this acceptance as a symbolic recognition of the major role that international trade, and more specifically, the WTO, has to play in restoring a defunct Palestinian economy. The PLO, for their part, took advantage of what limited authority they did have by addressing WTO members with a statement aimed at advocating free trade and multilateralism in a Palestinian context. Saeb Bamya, representing the PA, was adamant that "the Palestinian Authority is committed to the idea of an open economy and to the rule of law in foreign trade relations, as well as... integration into the rules-based multilateral trading system." Palestine's public commitment to the principles of the WTO was more than a publicity stunt aimed at garnering support for their embattled political status. There is genuine belief amongst officials that a globalised Palestine is a "normal" Palestine, as was echoed numerous times by Bamya himself throughout his address. This process of "normalisation" through globalisation assumes an expansive role for Palestinian stability. David Fidler, an expert on international law and the economics of the occupied territories, supports this view in his formulation of "no peace -- no trade; no trade -- no peace," which very much encompasses the dilemma Palestinian officials find themselves in at this crucial economic juncture on the road to Palestine's future. Bamya recognised as much when he emphatically declared that the WTO was an "opportunity, an inspiration", and a fundamental building block towards establishing peace. Meanwhile, on a more regional level, Palestine's intentions have been affirmed by the PA's former economics minister, Bassem Khoury, who days before his resignation spoke at length about the role of global trade as a key instrument for Palestinian recovery and growth. It appears then, that the territories have fully identified with Fidler's formulation, and though it may appear to be over-simplifying an increasingly complicated problem, this has nonetheless emerged as a possible concept to strive for. One of the appealing advantages of reaching for economic independence is that it reduces the political overtones that have affected every aspect of Israeli-Palestinian relations. People are well aware of the political animosity within the region, yet with the backing of the WTO, a 150-plus body, economic integrity will be able to trump political problems, or so the Palestinians would hope. * The writer is a lawyer based in Amman, Jordan, having obtained his LLB and LLM in the United Kingdom.
