This will be a brief appearance on lbo-talk (very busy), but for those of you who saw my act on pen-l, you know what is coming. I am going to present a list of rather contrary observations and questions regarding what went on in Seattle and the nature of the protests against the WTO (which, before I start, is far from perfect, but... ).
1. Why is it that not one single demand made in Seattle involved any costs for US-based produceres whereas all the (specific) demands involved increased costs for producers in LDCs?
2. Is there not a contradiction between wanting to demolish the WTO (nix it!) and between demanding that it become a more democratic and open decisionmaker that will (presumably) impose the views of US-based labor unions and environmental NGOs on LDCs (fix it!)?
3. Is it not the case that the overwhelming majority of the people in the LDCs do not agree with the (specific) demands made in Seattle, although most would certainly like a more democratic decisionmaker (see point 2).
4. Is it not the case that the US is in violation of the ILO labor standards provisions with respect to prison labor? Would not a "reformed WTO" impose sanctions on the US? Why was this point not made by protestors in Seattle?
5. Is it not the case that the most serious global environmental problem is global warming and that the US is the biggest contributor to that and has not accepted the global agreement made in Kyoto regarding combatting this? Why did not the protestors in Seattle demand that US exports of SUVs and other global warming related commodities be banned until the US accepts the Kyoto Accords? Is this because it would disturb the "alliance" between the AFL-CIO and US-based enviro NGOs?
6. Is it not the case that the ending of the conference meant no pressure on the US to end its arbitrary and universally condemned anti-dumping lawsuits? Why were no protestors in Seattle bothered at this position of the US?
7. Why did protestors in Seattle only focus on human rights violations by China and other LDCs? Why should not exports from the US be banned or limited because of our jailing of Leonard Peltier and our insistence on imposing the death penalty?
8. Is it not the case that the end of the conference meant the end of pressure on the EU to end its export subidies in agriculture? Are these not environmentally damaging as they encourage excess use of pesticides, etc.? Do these subsidies not discriminate against exporters from LDCs as exemplified by the Cairns Group (that includes some well-off countries, including Canada, Australia, and New Zealand)?
9. Is not the bottom line of this movement going to be simply keeping China out of the WTO (for its own good, of course!)? Does this not serve the interests of the US military-industrial complex to have a new Cold War (and get some more good US-union jobs in the complex)?
10. As a final note let me note that there is no necessary contradiction between having a very progressive domestic social and political policiy and having almost total free trade. The great example has been Sweden. I say, follow Sweden, not the people unable to articulate a coherent arguement in Seattle. Barkley Rosser http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb