2. As for "the key sentence of this strategy" blah, blah, blah--been there, done that. Remember the "Not *This* NAFTA" campaign? This is Global Capital the Naderites are talking about "pulling the wool" over the eyes of--not the Progressive Caucus on Cap Hill. Nathan, have you been watching Clinton the last 7 years? Give him any kind of opening and he will exploit it, lethally. This is a green light to get fucked. (Probably pull in a lot of grants, though, which, when it comes down to it, is probably the real objective of this "campaign".)
3. As for your "obvious question", I can't speak for Alex, but, yeah, as far as the WTO goes, I'd say the best action would be a real, sustained, raucous international riot. Damn straight.
--jsc
Nathan Newman wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> > [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Jeffrey St. Clair
> >
> > [another example of how the beltway crowd "out-thinks" itself. they
> > admit WTO can't be fixed, but plot a campaign to do just that.--jsc]
>
> No they don't, which is why a two sentence ad hominen analysis contributes
> very little to building real coalitions, as opposed to selling copy in a
> magazine.
>
> The key sentence in the strategy piece is:
>
> "The thing about this approach is if the 10 points were to be implemented,
> we effectively have just killed the WTO and replaced it with a new
> institution even if it is still called WTO. If the key changes to prune
> back WTO are not made, then we got on the warpath with added credibility
> as to why it has to go and cannot be repaired and we need to start over.
> (ie either WTO bends or it breaks."
>
> The fact is that most progressive folks support trade so just calling for
> "nixing it" does sound like protectionism. This approach pushes for
> abolishing the bad aspects of the WTO - notably its override of domestic
> environmental and labor protections - under the rubric of "fixing it."
> The Left may be as in love with "Just Say No" slogans as Nancy Reagan, but
> a positive program usually beats a negative program any day.
>
> But why get caught up in rhetorical differences? Analyze the strategy
> instead.
>
> The key to this analysis is in point One of proposed changes in WTO:
>
> "For all countries: the [new] rule is to treat domestic and foreign goods
> alike but that WTO has no role in forbidding differences in treatment of
> goods according to how goods are made (ie. with child labor or fish caught
> with drift nets). Similarly, the LEVEL of health protection is not
> questioned, but simply whether it applies to both domestic and foreign
> goods. This would restore every country's right to make its own decisions
> re its own domestic market, economic design, etc."
>
> This guts the WTO's superlegislature position while avoiding
> protectionism. It says that the original goals of free trade - reducing
> tariffs and treating foreign and domestic goods of similar nature the same
> - are reasonable goals that serve both growth and international equity.
> But the WTO cannot force a country to accept goods made in ways that would
> be illegal in its own country.
>
> Darci does highlight the real conflict which is between those who want to
> depend on national legislation to try to ratchet up environmental and
> labor standards and those who want to have them part of an enforceable set
> of standards, using the WTO structure to do the enforcing:
>
> "However, many in the labor movement do call for adding labor standards to
> WTO as the only way to obtain enforceable global labor standards given WTO
> is the only effective global enforcement mechanism that exists. Ideas on
> how to avoid this conflict are appreciated!"
>
> This is a conflict, but since the global capitalist class is not going to
> accept enforceable labor standards, in practice pushing them will end up
> leading to a "nix it" outcome as much as the Naderite strategy.
>
> The obvious question for Jeffery is that if this strategy makes so little
> sense, what is his and Cockburn's positive program? Just riot?
>
> -- Nathan Newman