We often hear about the complains by Attac members about the unfair and "neoliberal" WTO, that wants to keep the poor workers of the Third World impoverished and the Rich nations richer.
Sadly, this is true and I can support this claim, albeit for entirely different reasons. While those wackos don't want to abolish the WTO, but turn it around to serve their purpose of global-unionism, my take on it is, that the WTO is indeed not supporting Capitalism, but national Imperialism by allowing Tariffs by the 1st World Nations. While the 3rd World Countries have to open up their markets for our products, we don't allow the same for this (just look at the agriculture market in Europe).
The WTO has a huge share in this development and is still used as a tool by the rich nations. It is a two-pronged attack. First, it serves as a sign of fair trade to the public (see we unite to help all people), second it serves as a tool to keep the 3rd World Countries from coming on the global market.
We conclude from this, that the WTO is neither just nor capitalist nor pro-liberty. In fact, the WTO is a socialist tool to keep a bunch of elite nations in their priviliged position, while stopping third worlders from claiming their fair share of the wealth.
So, Attac doesn't want to abolish the WTO, but to turn it into a World Worker Union, a new socialist tool. On the other side are libertarians who want to abolish the WTO entirely (along with the World Bank) and allow fair free trade for all nations on Earth. So, who do you think is just? Those who want to substitute the evil with the same package for different clients, or those who want to abolish it and give everyone the same rights?