>I don't quite get this. How does having Sweeney push for labor rights
>promote the TRIMs/TRIPs agenda?
Simply the US can now threaten to impose bans/tarriffs out of social protection on any country that does not meet US TRIP/TRIM regulations or whose export surges force adjustments that US elites think are too rapid. Which means in the latter case that other countries will have to endure all the rapid adjustments. Sweeney, junior imperialist, has provided Clinton with a legitimate idiom which which to bring poor third world indebted countries to their knees. Are we just going to ignore that this is how it seems to a lot of people outside the US?
>Sweeney wants to make MNC investment
>in places like China more difficult; TRIMs & TRIPs would make it
>easier.
Yes, Sweeney says it wants to ban imports from China, to keep them out of the WTO. China is made to freak out that Clinton can't convince US labor to go along with its WTO application. China is then forced to swallow local content requirements in order to placate US labor that jobs won't be exported. So TRIMS would help ensure US exports by lowering other countries trade barriers. They are exactly what Sweeney wants.
>My reading of this is that Clinton wants to make sure labor
>goes all out for Gore, and needs to placate them a bit. No doubt
>they'll fall for it, and in the unlikely event Gore becomes
>president, he'd betray them.
I don't think Sweeney is stupid. He made it clear upfront that he was supporting Gore who is free trade and pro China in WTO. He knows he will be 'betrayed'. His role is to strike fear in other countries that social protection will bite their ass unless they do what Sweeney's boss (Clinton, Gore, Bush--it doesn't matter) asks for.
>Not exactly. U.S. unions are no fans of U.S. labor markets, while the
>U.S. position in trade negotiations is that other countries should
>make their labor markets more like ours.
That's not the real US position which is about this TRIP/TRIM thing.
>How do you know this? The AFL-CIO's chief economist, Tom Palley, is a
>left Keynesian, who, for all the shortcomings of that position, is
>still no Bakerian austerity/dereg hound.
Well as you said liberal intellectual self delusion knows no bounds. Palley is no Marxist anyway.
>>
>>Nothing concrete here.
>
>It's a speech, for heavens sake.
Doug, he could have have at least alluded to criticism of TRIP/TRIM. He chose to focus on development aid, debt reduction, etc. The silence and choices say much. Why is no one picking up on this point of mine?
>
>What should they do instead?
I have suggested many other things.
>Third World elites hold this position, as do the editors of The
>Economist.
Not true at all!!!!!The Economist, The WSJ do not argue against the TRIM/TRIP regime US capital is fighting for. Sub imperial countries like India are divided on intellectual property: on the one hand, they import; on the other hand they export high tech. So my position is against both the financial press and third world elites.
>Third World unions don't. Which side do you come down on?
I don't think any third world union would really want to be closed off from the US market once the US decides unilaterally its regulations are not up to snuff. Sure they want support to win labor rights. We should give it to them. That would mean that Sweeney would have to get rid of the Cold Warriors which as Rachleff notes in latest New Politics he has not done.
Rakesh