It appears the Trade Rep position will be downgraded for the express
purpose of subordinating it to Condoleeza Rice, the National Security
Advisor. Many people who don't know Ms. Rice's record nor her positions
have unwisely assumed she is just a token woman/Black on the cabinet.
Nothing could be further from the truth. She will be the Kissinger of this
administration. The elevation of her position, her unremitting hostility
to Russia, where Mssrs Cheney and Rumsfeld--as well as Rice, an oil exec,
among other things--envision investment opportunities in the completion of
the recolonization process there, should tell us something. Bush is a
front for Dad and Cheney/Rumsfeld, and Rice's central, powerful position in
this cabinet augers a very dangerous, confrontational, and military
approach to foreign policy. Combine that with the emerging and
unsustainable contradictions on the domestic front, and we are entering a
very risky period indeed.
For comrades in the periphery, however, the combination of a deep and
protracted recession in the US, the spending on military hardware,
adventure in the Caspian Basin (which I believe is likely), rebellion in
Latin America, the emergin bloc between Russia, China, and India, etc, etc,
might be a window of opportunity. Once the US economy "goes south," and
the dollar follows, the economic leverage we have used to twist arms around
the world will disappear with it, and only naked force will remain. The
question then, is what are the limits of that force and where will it be
prioritized?
This is also a time for comrades in the US to intensify and maintain their
pressure on this Adminstration, blocking, challenging, disrupting at every
turn.
At 10:31 AM 1/11/01 -0000, you wrote:
>[has the FT already made up its mind about the Bush regime? I see only
negativity
>and fear. mark]
>
>Published: January 10 2001 19:50GMT | Last Updated: January 10 2001 19:53GMT
>
>
>
>When Bill Clinton first became US president, he pledged that trade would
top his
>foreign policy agenda. But George W. Bush's delay in appointing a US trade
>representative and rumours that the job may be dropped from the cabinet
suggest that
>he is less sure of his priorities.
>
>Mr Bush may simply want to review or restructure his administration's
apparatus for
>inter-national economic policymaking before naming a USTR. Mr Clinton
substantially
>expanded White House machinery in this area. There may well be a case for
re-shaping
>his bureaucratic legacy.
>
>However, to downgrade the role of trade policy would be a mistake. The
steadily
>increasing importance of trade to the US economy has made other countries'
>prosperity heavily dependent on its market and reinforced US interest in
an open
>world trade system. And in the year ahead, expanded exports will be needed
to offset
>flagging growth at home.
>
>Furthermore, active trade diplomacy is increasingly vital in maintaining
stable
>international relations. That is particularly true in regard to Europe:
not only is
>the European Union the biggest US trade partner but trade questions have -
for good
>or ill - long dominated the dialogue between Brussels and Washington.
>
>Whether the USTR carries cabinet rank probably matters less than the
stature of
>whoever does the job. Above all, he or she should be a skilful political
heavyweight
>who is trusted and respected by the president and carries clout in
Congress. One
>reason is that all trade deals involve compromises, which must be sold
successfully
>at home. Another is that a USTR can be effective only if trade partners
know he or
>she speaks with the full authority and support of the White House.
>
>The international credibility of the USTR also depends on the job being
distanced as
>far as possible from special interests. The biggest mistake Mr Bush could
make would
>be to give primacy in trade policy to the Commerce Department. Its
perspective is
>too narrow and framed by excessively close ties with often protectionist
producer
>lobbies.
>
>How far Mr Bush can advance trade liberalisation in the face of a divided
Congress
>is uncertain. If the US enters a recession, the agenda risks being shaped
by a
>resurgence of protectionist pressures. These, and any temptation to
relapse into
>unilateralism, need to be firmly resisted. Giving way would not only harm
other
>countries. It would also threaten a backlash of retaliation that the US
cannot
>afford when its own prosperity is so closely linked to the global economy.
>
>Mr Bush's choice of USTR will send an important political signal about his
trade
>agenda. It will also critically influence how the rest of the world responds.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Crashlist website: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
>
"I am not a Marxist."
-Karl Marx
"Mask no difficulties."
-Amilcar Cabral
"Am I to be cursed forever with becoming
somebody else on the way to myself?
-Audre Lorde
_______________________________________________
Crashlist website: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
