My appreciation of the impact of trade liberalisation and the organisation of the global trading system under the World Trade Organisation was limited to a vague acknowledgement of the fact that things seemed to have changed dramatically in my country, Nigeria, in the early 1990s. Apart from the strained living conditions imposed by continuous military rule, there were no real connections made between the declining rates of product manufacture and food availability and the country's attempts to abide by the single undertaking requirements of the WTO. Knowledge of trade liberalisation, of the impact of the WTO Agreements on the domestic economic system was at best academic. Developing countries’ criticism of the rules-based system was mainly directed to the perceived highhandedness of the more developed countries and not to what it should have been – on the capability of the system to sufficiently address the development needs and concerns of its Members. It was not until the Seattle protests that widespread criticism of the WTO began in the public and in the mass media.

Sitting amongst a group of well-read practicing barristers one day, the issue of the Seattle protests came up. As I listened intently, I tried to understand the reasons for the protests. But it was difficult. The difficulty was caused by the fact that even those who had a better understanding of the global market finally admitted that the work and relevance of the WTO was not easy to explain. There were too many issues to consider. What was most glaring, however, was that the Organisation's less-developed countries were not faring any better in the global trading system in spite of the promises of Membership of the rules-based system.

What promises? What benefits? What exactly was the WTO all about and why do developing countries seem to fare worse under a system that claims it exists for the good of every Member? What was the basis of organised global trade in the first place? Were there practical and honest attempts to address the constraints of market integration on developing countries? These and many other questions were examined, but even at the end of the informal discussion, we dispersed unconvinced of our own arguments for and against the WTO.