A process that would give *all* interested parties a voice in establishing
rules on trade regarding environmental and labor issues would not give many
of the protestors what they're after.
Pat Buchanan and others seem to favor having us in the US "democratically"
determine our agenda (which Buchanan assumes matches with his platform) --
and then to enact this agenda unilaterally, closing the other nations out of
the discussion? "Hell, we're Americans, and we have rights, and we can do
whatever we damned well please, and no global bureaucrat stooge of the
multinationals is gonna tell me differently."
Those on the streets in Seattle seem to assume that doing so would cause the
"unenlightened" nations to recognize the benefits of civilization, change
their ways, and join in with the shining, happy people holding hands.
What is more likely is that the nations being hurt would retaliate with
measures against *our* exports.
US to India: "You don't treat your workers well enough, so I'm imposing a
tariff on your textiles."
India to US: "Well, you're not doing enough to open up your labor markets or
reduce carbon dioxide emissions, so I'm placing a tariff on telecom
equipment. Sorry, Motorola; sorry, Lucent. Ericsson and Alcatel will
supply our next generation of wireless and optical networking equipment."
(I wonder how receipt of a pink slip would influence a CWA or IBEW member's
views on global trade...)
It doesn't work if one side dictates terms and closes the other out of the
discussion. You've pointed this out numerous times in the ICANN debates, so
I'm puzzled why you are associating your cause with those of the Seattle
protestors, many of whom seem quite eager to dictate terms on the rest of
the world.
The article by Robert L. Borosage says, "The struggle to civilize the global
economy has just begun." Indeed. Some of those on the streets in Seattle
are interested in "civilizing" the heathens in the developing world -- in
the smug, condescending style of 19th century imperialism.
Hi Pete,
Again, I think your missing the point.
Here are the common complaints against
the WTO, which not so coincidentally,
mirror those against ICANN as well:
Jay.
To: Multiple recipients of list RANDOM-BITS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: NGO STATEMENT ON WTO CRISIS IN SEATTLE
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0d -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 15:13:58 -0500 (EST)
NGO STATEMENT ON WTO CRISIS IN SEATTLE:
A CALL FOR CHANGE
2 DECEMBER 1999
The WTO is in crisis. The process of trade negotiations is fundamentally flawed and cannot be the basis for global policy making for the new millennium. Any outcome of such a process is illegitimate. As the events of the last few days have illustrated, the WTO is:
Undemocratic - both between people and their governments, and among the governments of the world. For example, without consulting and over the objections of civil society and EU member states, the European Commission announced its support for a Biotechnology Working Party, causing 15 EU trade ministers to issue a joint statement of disagreement.
Unjust - denying meaningful participation of developing countries, ignoring their needs, and overriding their positions. For example, the chair of the Working Group on New Issues ignored the dissent of developing countries, and mischaracterized their criticism as support for the inclusion of new issues.
Untransparent - as "green room" deals exclude developing countries, and as civil society continues to be ignored and denied information. For example, African nations, small island states, and least developed countries were excluded when a small group of powerful countries brokered a deal addressing the lack of implementation of existing WTO commitments.
Unbalanced - elevating short-term economic interests of a few over broader concerns for equity and sustainability. For example, the EU and others continue to promote an investment agreement despite the deep concerns of civil society as demonstrated by the defeat of the MAI. Similarly, the USTR told NGOs working on forest issues that their concerns about the impacts of forest product liberalization would be disregarded.
These examples illustrate a systemic flaw. The ascendancy of a narrow set of business interests over all other interests of society must be reversed. As the protesters world-wide have made clear, WTO negotiators must not return to Geneva to continue business as usual behind closed doors. Rather, we must all engage in a broader search for a democratic, humane, and sustainable international system.
Action Aid
Action Aid Brazil
Africa Trade Network
AIDC, South Africa
Asia Indigenous Women's Network
Center for International Environmental Law
Citizens Trade Campaign, USA
Common Front on the WTO, Canada
Consumer Project on Technology, USA
Council of Canadians
Consumer Unity and Trust Society, India
Consumers Association of Penang, Malaysia
Friends of the Earth International
Friends of the Earth - Japan
Friends of the Earth - US
Greenpeace Brazil
Independent Farmers Association, Japan
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, USA
International Coalition for Development Action
International Forum on Globalization
International South Group Network
NCOS, Belgium
Network for Safe and Secure Food and Environment, Japan
Tebtebba Foundation, Philippines
Oxfam Fair Trade Belgium
Pesticide Action Network, Asia and Pacific
Polaris Institute, Canada
Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, USA
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, UK
Seikatsu-Club Consumers Cooperative Association, Japan
South Asia Watch on Trade Economy and Environment
Third World Network
Toto Consumers Cooperative, Japan
World Development Movement
=============
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello,
New Media Relations
------------------------------------
http://www.fenello.com
770-392-9480
"We are creating the most significant new jurisdiction
we've known since the Louisiana purchase, yet we are
building it just outside the constitution's review."
-- Larry Lessig, Harvard Law School, on ICANN
