WSJ on A16

Max Sawicky sawicky at
Tue Apr 11 12:49:43 PDT 2000

> mbs: don't be slippery. you quoted O'Connor approvingly
> to the effect that membership would open China up to more,
> not less, pressure, and you evidently see any such pressure
> from the U.S. as Bad. So why aren't you opposed to China
> entry into the WTO?

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?

[mbs] Under the right circumstances, yes.

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

[mbs] Make up your mind. Is China better off in or out of the WTO?

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.

[mbs] Sounds like you are saying China is better off in the WTO. So is O'Connor wrong? If he is, why did you cite him?

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list