-Caveat Lector-

----Original Message Follows----
From: MichaelP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Subject: WTO (Seattle) and the CIA
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 00:18:56 -0500 (CDT)

Again I'm playing catch-up - I posted the report about the CIA's National
Intelligence Council "rehearsing" for the WTO meeting in Seattle. I still
haven't seen a copy of the original Financial Times' report but the
following implies that the CIA has more than just "law-and-order"
interest in that event.

And again it's worth noting that the agenda at Seattle is about world
trade, subjects like the environment, health, education, sustainability
and human rights are peripheral.
  Cheers
  MichaelP


World Socialist Web Site
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/aug1999/wto-a18_prn.shtml

As WTO prepares for "Millennium Round"  World trade conflicts intensify

By Nick Beams 18 August 1999

An article published in the Financial Times last Saturday on some recent
activities of the US Central Intelligence Agency has cast a revealing
light on the tensions between the major capitalist powers as they prepare
for the ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organisation to be held in
Seattle in November to set the agenda for global trade negotiations in the
so-called Millennium Round.

Entitled "CIA rehearses for sleepless night in Seattle", it reported that
earlier this month the National Intelligence Council, which reports to CIA
director George Tenet on potential threats to US national security, had
held a mock WTO conference in Washington in order to prepare for the
November meeting.

A CIA spokesman said the exercise had been undertaken to "prepare
policymakers" for the meeting and that the agency "routinely" held such
conferences "in order to help sharpen the level of debate about important
issues."

According to the report: "Delegates to the mini conference included a wide
range of intelligence officers, former senior trade officials, academics
and others. Many are understood to have played the parts of
representatives of other countries - in particular of traditional trade
rivals such as the EU and Japan - to try and simulate what kinds of debate
and disagreements might be heard in November."

It noted that while the CIA was widely rumoured to have stolen the
position papers of the French delegation towards the conclusion of the
so-called Uruguay Round of global trade negotiations in 1993, "the
decision to give such prominence to the forthcoming ministerial meeting
appears to mark a new departure for US intelligence."

Preparations for the WTO meeting have been underway for several months
amid growing reports of deep divisions between the major economic blocs.
Last Monday, for example, the Australian Financial Review reported that
the tabling of policy positions by WTO members had "exposed a startling
absence of consensus on the content of the negotiating round". While there
was agreement of the need to include agriculture and services, there was
"little common ground", particularly among the major countries on the rest
of the agenda.

The EU and Japan are believed to be in favour of the development of global
rules on investment and competition policy. But the US is opposed to such
a wide agenda fearing that it could take years to reach such broad
agreement, thereby holding up the adoption of specific policies to open up
markets in services, agriculture and industrial products.

Even before the talks get underway, this year has already seen the
eruption of a bitter conflict between the US and the EU over agricultural
policies with the US imposing punitive duties under WTO rules in
retaliation for the refusal of the EU to abide by rulings on the imports
of banana and hormone-treated beef.

But the beef and banana wars may well turn out to be just the preliminary
skirmishes for a even bigger conflict over the issue of genetically
modified foods, for which the EU decided to suspend authorisation in June
until a new system of safety standards could be agreed upon.

Issuing his first major policy statement since taking up the post of US
ambassador to the EU in July, Richard Morningstar warned that Europe and
America are heading for a $1 billion trade war if the EU persisted in its
opposition.

In a biannual Letter from Brussels, Morningstar, who previously held the
position of Special Adviser to the President on Caspian Basin energy, said
that "politics and demagoguery have completely taken over the regulatory
process" in regard to EU policy on genetically modified foods.

"Particularly in the UK, the media has learnt to love a good food safety
scare, and the public debate all too often is dominated by scare stories
and nightmare scenarios without any scientific basis. Until the EU can
credibly separate science-based risk assessment and regulations from the
political process the outlook for resolution of this issue is bleak."

There was a danger that the EU was over-reacting to the Belgian dioxin
food scare and was moving to impose bans on animal feed substances which
were permitted in the US. Hasty EU actions in this area risked becoming
"another trade flashpoint".

With the market in genetically-modified foods likely to be worth billions
of dollars in the coming years, the conflict over this issue would make
the row over beef and bananas pale by comparison, he warned.

But agriculture is not the only area of dispute. Even more significant
could be the demand by the US that a global free market in services be
established as a result of the WTO negotiations.

The significance of this area for US corporate interests and the wide
ranging scope of the American agenda was set out in a speech delivered by
US Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky to the World Services
Conference held in Washington on June 1.

The US, she said, was "laying the foundation for a very ambitious and
challenging agenda on trade in services over the next few years" covering
a "vast range of industries, from finance and telecommunications to
distribution, health, education, environmental protection, travel and
tourism, construction, law, engineering, architecture and more."

The United States had created "the world's most efficient, competitive
services sector" providing more than $6 trillion worth of production - 70
percent of American GDP and more than one dollar in seven of world
production.

However, while 50 years of negotiations had provided substantially freer
trade in industrial goods, the situation was very different in services
where "rules and market access commitments are new."

"Even for WTO members trade is highly restricted. In most service sectors
we see few specific commitments. Seventy WTO members have signed the
Financial Services Agreement ... and a comparable number the Agreement on
Basic Telecommunications; that means over sixty have signed neither. Only
14 WTO members have made commitments in audiovisual services. No
developing countries have made commitments on gathering and dissemination
of news; fewer that 50 WTO members have made commitments in distribution.
And economies outside the WTO have done even less.

"There are barriers to American exports and job creation. Our performance
in a relatively closed world - $265 billion in services exports last year,
supporting four million jobs - is simply an indicator of how much we can
achieve in an open market."

Citing the importance of "regional initiatives" both for their direct and
intrinsic benefits and as "models for what we might hope to achieve
worldwide" in the forthcoming Millennium Round, Barshefsky pointed to the
Transatlantic Economic Partnership with the EU, the aim of which was to
"make it easier for US professionals and firms to operate in Europe,
safeguard US interests as the EU expands and set an example of bilateral
liberalization which the world can follow in the Round."

"Our work in Japan," she continued, "has similar implications. Here, our
agenda will assist the Japanese government's efforts in the financial
services ' Big Bang' and elsewhere to create a more flexible and efficient
economy, open new opportunities for international business, and create
areas of consensus as the Round approaches."

The US agenda in Japan includes liberalization of key sectors such as
distribution, professional service, finance, energy and
telecommunications.

In their public pronouncements, the representatives of the major
capitalist powers proclaim the benefits of the free market agenda in terms
of the expansion of economic growth and jobs. But behind closed doors, the
discussion assumes a more hostile tone ... at least where the majority of
poorer countries are concerned.

This week the Indian Financial Express reported on a WTO Trade and
Development symposium held last March. Held with the aim of winning
support from developing countries for the agenda of the new round of
negotiations, it ended with threats and insults from the chairman.

The director of the World Bank's Development Research Group, Paul Collier,
wound up the conference with a speech in which he attacked African
countries for having marginalised themselves in the WTO by not
participating in it, pressing for special treatment which did not meet
their needs, aspiring to regional trade arrangements that were a "dead
end" carrying out "low credibility liberalisation" and creating a "hostile
environment" by focusing their trade on a few commodities.

According to the report, Collier denounced "African elites [who] did not
want to undertake economic reforms because the status quo benefited them.
' In political science we learn under what circumstances the elites would
bite the bullet and make changes,' he said. ' Political science tells us
that changes come when the elites get scared.' He said the Africans ought
now to be scared, because the future will be one of protectionism in the
United States, unless the Americans could be offered something in a new
round of trade negotiations."

Collier's concluding remarks followed similar threats by the main speaker,
Fred Bergsten, the director of the Washington-based Institute for
International Economics, who warned developing countries that they faced
"huge risks" if they did not agree to a new WTO round. They had to provide
"increased and eventually full access" to their markets as part of a
bargain with the US and the EU not to erect new protectionist barriers.

No doubt - when the conference opens in November, the air will be filled
with the rhetoric of freedom, the rule of law, global economic expansion
and international collaboration. But behind the scenes, with the
activities of the CIA and the issuing of threats to smaller nations, it
will be a very different story as the most powerful transnational
corporations and their governments lay down the agenda for the next stage
of their global expansion.



*** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes. ***


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing!  These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically  by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to