On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
> Michael P(ollak), I don't see what's new here
I thought there were three points, Rakesh. One, he's not for sanctions, he's for incentives, for increasing trade from where it is, not decreasing it. Two, and most importantly for me, he's not for putting the clause in the WTO, but in the ILO. Three, he makes a distinction between core labor standards (like the right to organize), which have nothing to do with the income of countries, and detailed standards (like air quality) that do. I'm not saying that will be enough to sway you (I'm not sure it's enough to sway me) but I think it does change the cast of the argument.
My own argument has been that people who want a social clause should push for it to be administered by UNCTAD or the ILO. If they succeed, they will weaken the WTO by strenghtening UNCTAD (or the ILO) and the result will be purely to the good on both counts. Those agencies have no trade sanction powers. They use the "shame sanction" that has already proven effective in anti-sweatshop actions. They would just give it more heft and the representative imprimatur -- overcoming the argument that NGO's aren't representative.) And on top of that, strengthening UNCTAD would mean a return to a developmental focus in international economics. But if this project fails, no one will be harmed. Presently powerless agencies will simply remain powerless; protectionist forces will not be handed a new weapon. But perhaps most importantly, this displacement would put social clausers on the same page as people who were trying to abolish the WTO. Increasing the power of UNCTAD or the ILO would by definition be weaking on the WTO. Activists on each side could then support each other's projects with a clear conscience while devoting their energies to the one they preferred. It would overcome the wedge issue effect.
> and didn't want to reply to Waghorne's comment until someone
> downloaded the piece to which he was responding. No fair trade without
> free debate.
I honestly thought Rolanda Bullard's article had nothing to add to the standard social-clause-is-protectionist argument and she went on at great length, so I didn't want to waste everybody's time, since Waghorne was pretty long himself. Your own position is much more detailed. If you are still interested, it's up on Bello's website with all the back issues of Focus on Trade and I'll be glad to get it for you if you have any trouble connecting.
(BTW, some day Columbia U. Library will get the 1999 volume of _The Critique of Anthology_ back from the bindery and I'll be able to read that issue on child labor. Maybe by 2001.)
Michael
__________________________________________________________________________ Michael Pollak................New York City..............mpollak at panix.com