It's useless to try to distinguish between such neoliberal outrages and the "normal" workings of the WTO. The organization is simply a vehicle for corporate interests. There is no kernel of straightforward Ricardian free-trade buried beneath the venal scheming. On the other hand, I think Doug is a little too complacent about the danger that this movement could be hijacked by anti-Third World protectionism and xenephobia.
Seth
> -----Original Message-----
> From: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. [SMTP:rosserjb at jmu.edu]
> Sent: Friday, December 17, 1999 4:13 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Re: WTO, observations
>
> Doug,
> First of all, the overriding of standards does not
> involve undoing domestic laws about what domestic
> producers do. The WTO never said that the US could
> not demand turtle excluders for its fishers. It is that
> the US cannot unilaterally impose its own environmental
> laws on other countries without their consent via the
> mechanism of protectionism. The latter smells like
> imperialism to me. The question remains as to how
> global environmental agreements are to be mutually
> and multilaterally agreed upon. Somehow the protests
> only focused upon situations where LDCs were violating
> domestic US enviro laws, not situations where the US
> is in violation of global accords, however "tepid."
> You are right that the ICFTU supports having the WTO
> impose ILO standards. And I'll buy that the ICFTU represents
> .a lot of folks. So, this one is up in the air. Good question as
> to how we would determine the answer. Although I strongly
> suspect that when push comes to shove and a particular
> country's exports are being hit, their labor unions are not
> going to be enthusiastic, if they have any.
> You say that protestors in Seattle all know about
> US human rights violations and oppose imperialistic
> US policies. Well, of course I only read the Harrisonburg
> Daily Wanker, so I don't know much, but I saw zero
> reports of any protestors at Seattle saying anything about
> any US policies (aside from those supporting the WTO in
> general). All the specific complaints reported in the media
> I saw (wank, wank) focused on Third World evils.
> I certainly saw nothing about the anti-dumping suits, and
> when this was brought up on pen-l it was dismissed as
> "irrelevant" and good old Max Sawicky even began a lot of
> heavy breathing about "predatory pricing," suggesting the
> real AFL-CIO position on that one, which is that they love
> the anti-dumping suits.
> BTW, I am no fan of what the US wanted to do with
> intellectual property at the WTO.
> The real point of the Sweden example is that trade is
> simply the wrong place to be hitting for achieving anything
> of any significance on any of these issues. Perhaps it is
> easy intellectually or politically to focus on the WTO. But it
> is intellectually and politically lazy. As I said on pen-l, where
> is the movement to shut down Washington until the US gets
> serious about the multilaterally agreed upon Kyoto Accords.
> No, the tepid groups are not calling for that. Instead we have
> demands for LDCs to obey US enviro laws or face trade
> sanctions. Still looks like hypocrisy to me.
> Barkley Rosser
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
> Date: Friday, December 17, 1999 3:34 PM
> Subject: Re: WTO, observations
>
>
> >J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. wrote:
> >
> >> 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?
> >
> >Au contraire. A major complaint about the WTO among U.S.-based
> >activists is that it can override domestic environmental and labor
> >regulations. Where do you get your information from on this, Barkley?
> >
> >> 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!)?
> >
> >By golly yes. Separate groups of people are making these separate
> >demands, though some of the labor folks are now saying if we can't
> >fix it then nix 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).
> >
> >How ever do you know this? While you're researching some empirical
> >support for this claim, check out the ICFTU's WTO page
> ><http://www.icftu.org/campaigns/WTO/index.html>. The ICFTU, hardly
> >the most perfect of organizations, represents unions in over 140
> >countries. They have more claim to be representative than does an
> >economics professor in Virginia.
> >
> >> 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?
> >
> >U.S. unions complain constantly about U.S. labor law. While you're at
> >the ICFTU site, you might want to check out their critique of U.S.
> >labor practices
> ><http://www.icftu.org/english/pr/1999/eprol139-990709-dd.html>.
> >
> >> 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?
> >
> >Even tepid U.S. environmental organizations would agree with you.
> >This is a very strange crusade you're on.
> >
> >> 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?
> >
> >Lots of protestors think U.S. imperial policies suck. Maybe the NY
> >Times or the Harrisonburg Daily Wanker didn't report on this.
> >
> >> 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?
> >
> >You'd be hard pressed to find someone in Seattle who disagreed with
> >this. Really, where do you get your info from?
> >
> >> 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)?
> >
> >Since you can get arrested even for uttering the word "union" in
> >China, it's pretty hard to say what the position of Chinese labor is
> >on the WTO. But the most enthusiastic proponents of WTO membership in
> >China are the capitalist roaders. You can be a critic of the Chinese
> >government and not be a racist or cold warrior, you know.
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >This free trade/protectionism opposition is a load of crap. The WTO
> >is an instrument of state coercion, not some agent liberating the
> >spontaneous tendencies towards free trade inhering in the capitalist
> >economic order. What do tightened intellectual property restrictions
> >have to do with free trade?
> >
> >Doug
> >
> >