>On Behalf Of Rakesh Bhandari
>
> 1. "Trade agreements have opened our markets while leaving in place
> other countries' barriers"
> This is bullshit
Not true in regard to the third world but often true in regards to Japan and Europe, which has been the concern of most US unions looking to export. Don't assume all trade complaints are North-South; most WTO disputes have been filed between the US and Europe.
> 2."Develop stricter rules AGAINST the mandatory transfer oftechnology,
> production and production techniques." (my emphasis)
> This says it all.
Not really. I assume the language is over the Chinese government's demands for the transfer of aerospace production units from the US to China in exchange for any deal for airplane purchases. The merits of disentangling such production decisions from purchasing decisions by governments is a hot one, but the justice issues are not one-sided, since if the largest consumer nations can use such consumption to dictate production location, it is Southern nations that are more likely to be screwed.
I know you are concerned about TRIPS and intellectual property issues in the WTO and I think you are looking at the statement in that light, but unfortunately most AFL-CIO leaders just are not paying attention to the issue, positively or negatively. The AFL-CIO statement is glaringly silent on the issue, but the quoted passage is not dealing with the issue either, but completely different complaints.
While there are some debateable points in an ambiguous sentence, you seem intent on selective quoting and ignoring unambiguous statements dedicated to global redistribution. To against quote the full section on the IMF and World Bank:
"The IMF, the World Bank and the regional banks must fundamentally rethink the conditionality they impose on developing countries. Rather than forcing austerity, privatization, deregulation, export-led growth, trade and investment liberalization and weakening of labor laws, the international financial institutions must emphasize domestic-led growth, democratic institutions and the observance of core workers' rights."
Seems straight-up progressive, especially in light of the overall leadin to the resolution in the second paragraphy which said:
"Long-term trends toward growing global inequality continue, both between and within countries. In sub-Saharan Africa and in many other of the poorest countries, per capita incomes are lower today than they were in 1970. The gap in per capita incomes between countries with the richest fifth of the world's people and those with the poorest fifth widened from 30-to-1 in 1960 to 60-to-1 in 1990 and to 74-to-1 in 1995. Meanwhile, the richest three people in the world have assets greater than the combined incomes of the 600 million people living in the 48 poorest countries."
The resolution is written by committee and no doubt there are bits and pieces of labor nationalism in it, but the overall thrust is supporting the right direction for global change.
I probably agree with you that the phrase you cite needs to be cleaned up to be clear about what is being discussed, but I just don't know why you have to see such malevolence in a progressive document, even if it may have a few self-interested phrases scattered at points.
-- Nathan Newman