>Social clauses will strengthen the WTO by giving it the appearance of
>legitimacy. More concretely, Clinton has said he will allow social
>protections only in the context of increased trade liberalization. So
>whatever gains are made for labor and the environment will be offset by a
>renewed drive for liberalization. It's like treating an illness by
>aggravating the underlying condition.
>Ted
>>>>>>>>>>
>
>Now you're confusing me.
>Are you for trade liberalization or not?
>If you oppose the social clause, you grease
>the skids for more liberalization.
Opposing the social clause says nothing about further liberalization. Promoting the social clause, on the other hand, is predicated on further liberalization.
>If you
>throw up your hands at the WTO debate and
>say a plague on both your houses, you ratify
>the existing power imbalance in favor of
>free trade (a.k.a. imperialism). Then you
>could go and organize squatters on the
>Lower East Side against Capitalism and
>console yourself that you have remained
>pure. Meanwhile the WTO keeps rollin'
>along.
>
Promoting the social clause means promoting the WTO. What I advocate is
fighting the WTO, which was rolling along quite nicely up until Seattle.
The WTO meeting was shut down by an anarchistic blockade of the Washington
State Convention Center, conducted by thousands of people who oppose the WTO
unconditionally. What they demonstrated was that global capital is not
invincible. We have power too. We can shut down the WTO. But we must
unify behind this goal. No other goal is even worth fighting for. Real
social protection means opposing global capitalism, aka the WTO, IMF, and
WB. You don't seem to believe this is possible, as though working towards
this goal is the equivalent of "throwing up your hands." You're saying that
we have no hope of winning the meaningful fight, so let's fight a
meaningless one instead.
>You seem to be characterizing the problem as
>that liberalization cancels out social protection,
>so getting more of one always brings more of the
>other, resulting in no net gain. This sounds like
>a Law of Political Futility.
The social clause is canceled out by liberalization because Clinton has said that no social clause can even be discussed without further liberalization. According to his time-line, these discussions would go on for 16 years before there's any implementation. If you work with Clinton, you play by his rules. We must oppose Clinton.
>Things could be hopeless. One thing is certain:
>if we all think that way, we will fulfill our own
>prophecy.
>
Exactly.
Ted