Rakesh,
Since you have just declared the whole Jubilee 2000 effort a form of neoimperialism, I am not sure who is left outside the imperialist camp.
And since I specifically said "I could cite" a sentence and declare it AFL-CIO policy but "I won't since turning one-sentence phrases into developed theoretical statements of policy where no policy exists is just tendentious", yet you dropped that sentence to claim I was making that argument and ignore my point about your "self serving" interpretations.
Since my words are going to get distorted, I guess trying to argue over distortions of AFL-CIO policy is sort of hopeless.
I don't disagree that their are nationalist tendencies in parts of AFL-CIO policy, but to wilfully ignore the progressive aspects to create some kind of evil neoimperialist policy just does not jibe with the reality of folks I know in the labor movement.
-- Nathan
> >The AFL-CIO doesn't have a technology policy. I wish they did.
> But if we
> >are going to imply a policy where there is none, I could cite the AFL-CIO
> >resolution to "Provide more technical and legal support to developing
> >countries so their participation in negotiations is not hampered
> by lack of
> >resources or technical expertise" as a call for massive
> technology transfer
> >to create an even playing field.
>
> No, it's a call to give more jobs to Western LEGAL and other experts to
> advise Southern govts in negotiations. It's not a call for tech transfer.
> Your interpretation is nuts, if not self serving.
>
> Yours, Rakesh
>
>