>What UNCTAD should be doing, in the aftermath of Seattle, is challenging
>the role of the WTO as the ultimate arbiter of trade and development
>issues. UNCTAD should instead be putting forward an arrangement where
>trade, d evelopment, and environment issues must formulated and
>interpreted by a wider body of global organizations, including UNCTAD,
>ILO, the implementing bodies of multilateral environmental agreements, and
>regional economic bl ocs, interacting as equals to clarify, define, and
>implement international economic policies.
I'm a big fan of Walden Bello, but I wonder what he's thinking when he says this (which is why I'm cc'ing him). How can UNCTAD do any of these things, if it's part of a UN organization that can't do anything that displeases the U.S. The evisceration of UNCTAD - and the UN Center on Transational Corporations, which was severely reduced during the 1980s and then folded into UNCTAD, on instructions from Washington - is proof of this. And the U.S. gets to do this while not paying its dues!
Doug