The ERC said the main outcome of the agriculture negotiations was that they had “contributed a lot to defining its own common policy.” However, developing countries, which played a minor role throughout the negotiations, have benefited from significant tariff reductions, particularly for non-agricultural goods of interest to them. These include the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), EU-US negotiations and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TTP), which also includes the United States. Preventing the resurgence of discriminatory trading blocs is precisely the reason why GATT was established in 1947. It is a history lesson that today`s world leaders and heads of state would be well advised to think about. On 31 July, the Indian head of state took commercial facilities hostage and refused to sign the legal protocol necessary for its implementation. India`s veto, unprecedented in the history of the GATT/WTO, has led the WTO into what Director-General Azevedo has called a state of “paralysis. The good news is that after months of bitter battle, Modi refused his veto and declared victory. However, the entry of the agricultural sector into the world economy has forced farmers to “learn… the language of bankers and lawyers, market intelligence and computer science, plant health management and measures, biotechnology and intellectual property, and at least the foundations of trade policy and macroeconomics. They became demanding and secular.  Thus, armed with this new knowledge, it is not surprising that they have always formed local, national and global protest communities.
Although there have been more forms of local protest for centuries – such as the 17th-century French peasant protests  – the formation of multilateral organizations such as the WTO has also led to transnational protests. Since its inception in 1995, the World Trade Organization (WTO) has been committed to the maintenance and development of international trade. As one of the largest international economic organizations (along with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank), it has a strong influence on trade rules and agreements and therefore has the ability to profoundly influence a country`s economy.  WTO policy aims to align tariffs and other forms of economic protection with a policy of trade liberalization and to “ensure that trade is as fluid, predictable and free as possible”.  Indeed, the WTO asserts that its measures “reduce the cost of living and raise standards, stimulate economic growth and development, help countries to develop, and] give a stronger voice to the weakest.”  Statistically, over the past decade, world trade has grown steadily between 1 and 6% per year and $38.8 billion has been allocated to aid for trade in 2016.  This is not a trivial matter. In recent years, WTO members have cut more than 300 preferential trade agreements that distort trade with various preferred trading partners. They are all contrary to the fundamental principle of the GATT/WTO that Member States should not discriminate against each other. Perhaps half of world trade will be diverted by these discriminatory “free trade routes.” Many critics of the WTO also argue that the organization has fought with one of its fundamental goals: transparency. Even in one of its main tasks – dispute resolution through negotiation – the WTO is sadly opaque when it comes to revealing how the comparisons were made.
Whether it is dispute resolution or the negotiation of new trade relationships, it is rare to know which nations are in the decision-making process. The WTO has been attacked on both the left and the right because of this restraint. In 2001, trade liberalization for the launch of the WTO Doha Round seemed to be on the move again. But in September 2003, African officials openly rejoiced when WTO meetings in Cancun were again criticized.