The developing countries say, in part, thank goodness for the rules, because they can't afford the environmental standards of the U.S. or the wage levels of U.S. and European workers. On the other hand, the developing countries say that U.S. practices are unfair--particularly those regarding intellectual property rights (which indeed deprive the poorest countries of drugs that are available only at monopoly prices protected by patents), and the use of trade barriers against products produced in low-wage countries (such as anti-dumping rules, set not by the WTO, but by the U.S. itself).

In short, standards are in the eye of the beholder. We have a real and continuing puzzle as to where to draw the line on what individual countries can choose to do, and what they should agree to set according to a single international standard. These issues need further debate, but we should take care not to let narrow interests manipulate or undermine open trade.

The U.S. wants to press the WTO to adopt labor standards and environmental standards, but refuses to discuss standards on intellectual property and anti-dumping rules. The developing countries want it just the other way around. In a fair world, we'd consider all of these questions in a serious, transparent and careful way, with a deep attention to the concerns of the poorest countries, who live at just one hundredth of the dollar incomes enjoyed by Americans.

These issues will not be solved in Seattle. At most the Seattle meeting will agree to launch a new round of negotiations over many years to solve these issues in the future. We'll see in the next few days whether the world can hold itself to standards of fairness, efficiency and transparency --the high principles that underpin the WTO--or whether the melee on the streets will be mirrored in an ongoing melee among the world's governments.

Jeffrey D. Sachs '76 is Galen L. Stone professor of international trade, and director of the center for international development.