>A no-strings admission of China is a way of saying,
>forget about labor/enviro standards. A denial keeps
>the ball in play.
As Jim O Connor points out, a China more securely integrated with the world economy and and thus growingly dependent on its economic relations therewith may be more open to pressure on labor/enviro standards than a China that is made to live in fear of ostracism. The annualized threat of exclusion of China may indeed have only negative effects on these standards--a possibility that Jim O Connor notes anti globalization activists seem not even to recognize.
Also lost in this discussion has been Gerard Greenfield's analysis (downloaded by Doug long ago) of why social clauses, even if implemented, could be unfair and harmful, e.g., (as I remember his point) the exports of an entire country could be locked out if some multinational abuses labor (and then shifts its operations elsewhere at no real loss to itself).
By the way, Michael P, FT article did not show that Cambodian labor does not want bigger quota unless labor standards improve. Article only quoted one labor leader saying something that could possibly be construed as support of social clauses. Well, even that he did not really say.
Social clauses are not only weak but also potentially abusive; and should be no reason to exclude China from WTO, though obviously Brazil and India, along with many other states, should be able to do in social clause already--so dream of social clause even less reason for China non application.
Some groups within the US--obviously not just labor groups, but agricultural capitalists, national security state representatives and many others-- do not think it can get China to abide by WTO rulings or make even more mouth watering behind-the-scene concessions if the unilateral threat of non renewal on an annualized basis is lost.
Keeping the ball in play may then allow the US to use unilateral power to win masive concessions not of the labor/enviro type (and who is going to educate the educator here?) but rather in the spirit of Super 301 in terms of dual-use technologies (liberally defined in the most ridiculous way--see suit over transfer of satellite technology), GATS, capital liberalization, TRIMS (look at the complete capitulation the EU is presently fighting for--China is obviously in a very weak position presently for much of this to even be taken seriously), the management of China's exports to maintain US export position in agricultural goods and fertilizers in particular to South East Asia, etc.
It is this kind of broad-based unilateralism that is kept in play by refusing to let China in to a multilateral institution on the grounds of labor/enviro standards, the best instrument for which is probably further integration of China into the global economy.
If this debate is going to be honest, there has to be some recognition of the problems of maintaining annualized review, the possibilities that it creates for abuse, the way it could set back democratization in China, the fillip it provides to the unilateralism of the US which has been so brilliant in displacement of burdens of adjustment on to weaker nations, and impediments it poses to multilateral trading and world cooperation.
Yours, Rakesh
ps Max, I would sincerely appreciate a point by point response to my response to Doug's call for questions that could be submitted to AFL CIO representative Thea Lea--I could be wrong about all this, and so stay in the discussion to elicit refutation. Doug, how did the debate go?