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 . . .
>>>>>>>>>
That's the standard objection, the Clinton argument, and it could be true. But note you could have said the same thing about the SA boycott. Keep them in the family of nations, blah blah blah. Of course, there always seem to be exceptions -- Cuba, Iraq, etc.
When people really want to stick it to some other nation, they tend to back sanctions, if not violence. When they have some reason not to, they talk about influence arising from cooperation.
We could turn this argument upside-down too. If you really want to insulate China from imperialist influence, Rakesh, shouldn't you oppose their admission to the WTO and ensuing "dependence" on capitalist economic relations? Or are you just trying to jerk our chain?
RK: . . .
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).
>>>>>
[mbs[ Governments are responsible for what multinationals do on their soil. If they aren't, who is? You can't petition a multinational. YOu can only attack it with public policy.
>>>>>>
. . .
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.
[mbs] Confusing. Are you for standards or not? Are you for them, as long as they are the result of pressure arising from integration in the world market, rather than deliberate action by the U.S. and other nations? Are low wages o.k. if they arise from the system, rather than being decreed as state policy?
RK:
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, . . .
[mbs] Same question as above. Are you for or against democratization, and if for, why the scruples about how it comes to pass?
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?
[mbs] which post was that? There are so many. Resend it to me and I'll hit it, point by point.
mbs