>On Behalf Of Rakesh Bhandari
> In the latter RobtBartley suffered a paroxysm in response to the
respectability
> bestowed upon anti globalisation leaders at Davos, though he knows full
well
> that Brother John's newly won respectability allows Willie to use the
threat of
> protectionism to wrench from indebted third world states every imaginable
> anti social and destructive TRIP/TRIM regulation that makes Bartley and
his
> class' mouths water.
Bizarre. Capitalist forces don't know what's good for them according to Rakesh.
And don't look at what Sweeney says or what other workers organizations are saying around the world, look at what Rakesh says Sweeney is saying. As in when Sweeney specifically noted developing nations sense of oppression by first world delegates:
"The protests in the streets by workers, environmentalists, farmers, and students from across the world were mirrored by the anger inside the hall from developing country delegates who felt just as locked out as the demonstrators."
Where Sweeney argues, "Leaders of developing nations face a growing inequality of income and hope. They should not be forced into one economic strait-jacket", Rakesh says Sweeney is arguing for the exact opposite.
Where Sweeney argues for global redistribution to developing nations, Rakesh says he means the opposite.
Where Sweeney says, "At the AFL-CIO, we know that we have to deepen our own growing internationalism, and develop new sophistication in bargaining and organizing across national lines", Rakesh sees pure nationalism.
Right now Rakesh wants an alliance of US capitalists and third world capitalist-aligned states to beat back demands for labor and environmental standards, and he won't even entertain the possibility of an alliance between US labor and environmental forces allied with anti-globalization forces in the third world seeking a combination of real debt forgivesness, serious developmental aid, a rejection of oppressive intellectual property TRIPS, defense of sustainable agriculture globally and a commitment to environmental and labor rights for all workers.
Somehow the magic is if the Wall Street Journal editorial page thinks Sweeney is evil, that is a sign he is really an ally of capitalism, but if Clinton praises anyone, that must mean he really supports their agenda. The latter will be a surprise to a lot of people, including most people on this list (including Rakesh) who in other contexts will argue for ignoring what Clinton says and look at what he does -- in this case, completely ignoring labor's agenda on labor standards in trade deals negotiated with China, the Caribbean, and Africa. Under political pressure and under the impact of Seattle, Clinton may be trying to move off that position, but this sudden transformation of Clinton into a loyal ally of domestic labor forces (and vise versa) is just too rhetorically opportunistic in this description.
In practice, Rakesh's position is indistinguishable from the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Bash labor protectionism and concentrate solely on tariff barriers. On in the abstract, Rakesh would like a different ultimate outcome, but for all intents and purposes in this round of negotiations he lines up with the most reactionary forces in both the US and the developing nations.
-- Nathan Newman