Sweeney in Davos

[Rakesh Bhandari]

Nathan writes:


>Bizarre. Capitalist forces don't know what's good for them according to
>Rakesh.

Clinton knows that Sweeney's mobilisation of a protectionist threat is very
good for imperialist forces at the bargaining table; that's why he is
treating him with such respect. Are you intentionally missing my point?


>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.

no, no. nathan. look at what Sweeney is not saying--isn't that what I
wrote?  He is not criticising the US' full out push for TRIP/TRIM
regulations.

>"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."

This is simply a description of the forces that must be dealt with.

>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.

This is rather vague. At any rate, of course Sweeney believes should have
access to our markets as long as the US can 'lower other countries' trade
barriers', viz. adopt US property rights and investment regimes, for which
his candidate Gore is fighting. The quoted part is the AFL-CIO's own stated
goal.

>Where Sweeney argues for global redistribution to developing nations, Rakesh
>says he means the opposite.

It comes down not to goals but concrete proposals. The only real proposal
in that speech is debt reduction which may just be a call for another Baker
Plan.


>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",

Nothing concrete here.

>Right now Rakesh wants an alliance of US capitalists and third world
>capitalist-aligned states to beat back demands for labor and environmental
>standards,

Yes, I am against US social protection which I don't think would save many
American jobs anyways--not to say that it is a progressive goal to even
operate in such terms. You haven't even defended the Harkin BIll in terms
of its progressive impacts. If you don't stand by that, why do you think
these standards will have better effects?

And for all the reasons I have stated, this clamoring for eco-labor
standards that the US capitalist state will then defend on behalf of US
labor in WTO fora should not be a priority for US labor based on its own
interests.

>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,

What's the concrete model here? Modeled on other such plans the real goal
of which was to prevent default, not to promote development.


>serious developmental aid,

The strings attached to which often make it a tool for the expansion of the
donor's state capital.

 a rejection of oppressive intellectual property
>TRIPS,

Where has Sweeney's said that?  Or expressed opposition to the US backed
TRIM regime? Nathan, you must know that a lot of the rest of the world
thinks that this Sweenyite threat of social protection to which Clinton has
accorded respect is a transparent attempt for the US to continue to
monopolize the bargaining chips in trade negotiations.

>defense of sustainable agriculture globally and a commitment to
>environmental and labor rights for all workers.

Why note start in the US by asking for the world to ban our exports until
US capital grants these rights to us?


>In practice, Rakesh's position is indistinguishable from the Wall Street
>Journal editorial page.
 Bash labor protectionism and concentrate solely on
>tariff barriers.

My position includes explicit criticism of the TRIM/TRIP regime US capital
is fighting for; it includes a roll back of Taft Hartley and expansion of
strike rights in collective bargaining. But if you are convinced that there
is a place for me in Bartley's heart, I'll send out the resume.  Hell, Max
Boot from our UC Berkeley days is already  deputy editor of the features
page. Maybe I can work for him?

yours, rakesh