>Well, from Mackenzie Wark's new book _Beach Beneath the Street_:
Haven't heard that name since years ago when our host tangled with him on nettime. (This was amazingly easy to find):
http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9912/msg00079.html
[...]
McKenzie Wark wrote
>If there is something relentlessly US-centric, it is this
>supposedly critical view of WTO. In terms of what actually
>happened in Seattle, surely the most significant is the
>complete *failure* of the US to get its way.
Yeah, wasn't that wonderful?
> WTO involves
>negotiations among member states, and it was the breakdown
>of the political process, for which the US must take a
>lot of responsibility that, is the legacy of Seattle.
That was wonderful too, don't you think?
> The
>concessions of agricultural protectionism that finally
>found their way into the lanaguage of the agreement will
>not now come to pass, and a rule based system of trade
>dispute resolution is now further off than ever. The
>worst effected are agricultural exporters, which overwhelmingly
>means poor countries in the developing world, to whom
>many first world markets will now remain closed.
Poor countries like the U.S. and Australia, leader of the Cairns Group of agricultural free-traders?
> Many
>people will now not have the option of adopting an "American"
>or "consumerist" way of life, not least because of the
>intransigence of the Europeans on recognising the call for
>agricultural trade justice.
This is truly the most amazing nonsense. "The option of adopting an 'American' or 'consumerist' way of life"? Who has that option? Bangladeshis? You mean the millennial round is all that stands between them and an OECD living standard? Over the last 10-20 years, with each successive round of trade and capital liberalization, gaps between Third and First World incomes have widened. The only exception was Southeast Asia, which though it's recovering, has had a tough time of it lately.
> In return, there will be no
>new initiatives on the protection of intellectual property
>rights in the developing world, which certainly doesn't
>help the digital economy.
Most countries that have industrialized violated IP rights. Eli Whitney smuggled plans for the cotton gin, and the U.S. stole German chemical patents in WW I. The U.S. push for tighter IP regulations is a defense of a dominant industrial position (consciousness industry, chips, drugs). Your concern for the digital economy is touching, and right in line with Bill Gates's.
> All in all a victory for
>inequity and privilege. First world beneficiaries of the
>current unjust trading relations can be well pleased,
>at least in the short run, that resources will continue to
>be misallocated in their favour. The rich of the developing
>world miss an opportunity to export into wealthier markets,
>but at least escape any tightening of labour standards
So you stand with the governments of Brazil and Malaysia and against the unions of 140 countries in the world?
> or
>accountability for intellectual property theft.
My heart breaks for the Motion Picture Association of America, Intel, and Merck, ravished so brutally by Indians and Thais.
>But the poor
>of the developing world have very little to cheer about in
>a result that shuts the door on new markets, new jobs, new
>ways to escape poverty.
You angling for a column in The Economist? A consulting job with the World Bank?
[...]