>I imagine you've seen the same claims in the same places I have, namely
>on various and sundry "left" chat groups. I really don't recall if those
>who were making this argument presented hard empirical evidence that U.S.
>trade negotiators raised this threat in Seattle or any time hence. It
>certainly makes _logical_ sense to me that U.S. trade negotiators would do
>this -- that way the Clinton Administration ensures continued AFL-CIO
>loyalty (no matter how miniscule the crumbs) and pushes for more U.S. exports
>too (especially critical right now given how the yawning U.S. trade deficit
>could well put pressure on the dollar, which could well cause capital flight
>from the U.S. stock market, which would definitely spur a huge-ass domestic
>and global recession). Plus Third World peasants (who stand to lose the most
>from liberalized trade regime in agro-food sector, from tougher IP standards,
>etc.) are the one constituency in this whole shell game that Clinton and Co.
>don't have to give a rat's ass about (unlike AFL-CIO, globally-oriented U.S.
>capital, nationally-oriented U.S. capital, Third World neo-liberal elites).
I think you only signed onto this list the other day, so you missed the post-Seattle tussle over these matters. So let me lay out my line, which anyone is free to disagree with: Clinton has no intention of allowing any but the most gestural, symbolic labor standards (if that) into the WTO. He'll make cooing noises to keep the AFL-CIO campaigning for Gore (and writing big checks to Dems - there's a story into today's NYT on how intensely they're dedicated to this debased aim). So I find the tit-for-tat argument implausible. But maybe I'm wrong.
Doug