Max, cannot one accept as progressive the achievement of more multilateral trading and a more integrated world economy in which the unilateral power of a hegemon is constrained by global institutions? The US ability to close off its market unilaterally to wrench god knows what concessions (which is what annualized review amounts to) is what I have been opposing since it seems to me an extension of Super 301.
China's ability to trade freely with the rest of the world will open China up to a free flow of radical ideas and organizations, just as JC Helary suggested Japan was benefitted from greater openness to world trade in the 20th century. I think China should have been allowed the opportunity of multilateral trading without the concessions it has given up. But since they are going to given up due bilateral pressure anyway, why oppose ascension to WTO to the rulings of which the US will then be subject in its dealings with China.
At any rate, this anti globalization or anti elite globalization movement really amounts to the protection of the subsidies US companies defacto receive from regional agreements like NAFTA. As I have been saying for some time, I also maintain that the social clause will be used against countries outside of such regional agreements (or those who haven't agreed to US exports as inputs) to ensure the valorization of imperialist capital. Since social clauses can be invoked against any country, what will govern against whom they are applied? This idea that the US capitalist state out of some benevolent paternalism will use the social clause to prevent a race to the bottom among foreign labor forces is absurd. Any trade union movement that is banking on this is merely wasting its members resources and time.
In this way the integration of the world economy--one of the world historic tasks of capital--is thwarted by by the AFL CIO and the various subsidized American companies in with which it is now in cohoots.
By imposing the requirement to import US yarn, etc to get access to the US market--NAFTA allows duty free imports of garments only if textiles and yarn have been produced within the region-- the US capitalist state may protect some number of jobs. But is the kind of managed trade fair trade when the poorest nations are being subjected to liberalization in the broadest sense without any regard for the painful adjustments that must be endured and against which the more powerful states have always provided protection?
I think the left should fight regionalization with globalization. Regionalization is what capital is achieving; globalization is the wrong target.
Yours, Rakesh