Bello on nixing the WTO

[Carrol Cox]

What Michael (or Welden Bello) says before is an improvement over
other proposals for this or that reform of WTO -- but it is really
necessary to have the *framework* of thought determined by the
needs of mass movements, *not* by theories over what particular
bureaucratic arrangements would be better or worse. Stop thinking,
in other words, about what would be the details of a desirable
international trading agreement. Think *only* of how demands can
be formulated in the form of *NO to X." What should replace
X (even what is proposed here) simply complicates the task of
organizing *and* turns the movement over to experts to do the
bargaining. And that bargaining will be empty. The establishment
side will agree to verbal formulae (which it will then implement at
it pleases) while the protesting side will agree to be good and
go home.

Carrol

Michael Pollak wrote:


> The Walden Bello article from Focus on Trade that Doug post-advertised a
> few days ago is excellent.  And he has a simple answer to people who say
> "If you want to destroy the WTO, you have to explain what you want in its
> place."  He makes a good case that the GATT that preceded it was better
> for developing countries (i.e., most of the world), and that with a beefed
> up UNCTAD, things would be even better.  So his answer is: a return to the
> status quo ante -- the world before Trims and Trips and central conflict
> resolution -- would be a huge improvement.  And then we could worry about
> democratizing reforms starting from a better base.
>
> Michael
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> Michael Pollak................New York City..............mpollak at panix.com