I partially agree, Peter. George is generally so sensitive to power relations and so critical of corporate influence over "public institutions" that this "I was wrong" article really required bizarre distortions.
I have a gut feeling that he is reacting to the rise of deglobalization discourses, as found in Bello's and Amin's work, and I suspect that his new book (which I haven't seen yet) punts the globo-parliament idea even more heartily -- hence leading down the slippery slope of fix-it not nix-it politics. That in turn requires him to entirely avoid the obvious questions: a) what good has come from numerous WTO reform initiatives (from AFL/ICFTU, enviros, Cairns Group, Like-Minded Group, etc etc)?; b) what manipulations are being carried out by the new "Green Men" (Friends of the Chair, including SA trade minister Alec Erwin, responsible at Doha for WTO rules) who have replaced the discredited Green Room process?; c) what are the underlying features of international capitalism that generate both overproduction and protectionist tendencies?; and d) how could one expect to price in the negative environmental and social externalities of trade, as Herman Daly et al suggest (and I guess, Peter, too), in such a politicised forum as the WTO? Really, reform is thoroughly utopian. Moreover, his contention that the US is trying to destroy the WTO is a ridiculous misinterpretation. Zoellick will use the WTO when he can to defend US corporate interests (e.g. Big Pharma); and he will also set up bilaterals and hemispheric deals when he can (we're seeing this now with Africa). So I'm back with Keynes on that 1933 Yale Review citation that Daly likes: "let goods be homespun whenever reasonably and conveniently possible". Comrades, let's globalise people, not capital... Was debating this in Ottawa with public choice poli-scientists from Harvard/Columbia/Bonn last week: their ancient line -- "commerce makes the manners mild" -- is contradicted by many variants of export-oriented output in this part of the world (oil, diamonds, coltan, gold, timber). I'm convinced we need a profound shock to the global trading system, on the order of the payments freeze and transport crises of 1929-45, to allow for a bit more sanity and balance in the restructuring of economies, and for peace-building, at least in Africa. Patrick Bond phone: (27)83-425-1401 and (27)11-614-8088 fax: (27)11-484-2729 ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 2:47 AM Subject: Re: Monbiot on the WTO > Here are some thoughts on Monbiot and some of the pen-l responses. > > 1. I think Monbiot came to the right answer, but mostly for the wrong > reasons. He is in grave danger of falling in with Oxfam and other > internationally minded NGOs who have bought into the notion that what > poor countries most need is unfettered access to rich country markets. > From there it is one short step to signing on to the Cairnes group, > etc. He hasn't looked deeply enough into *why* poor countries are so > desperate for export markets. In other words, he hasn't incorporated an > understanding of the post-debt-crisis financial framework into his > analyis of trade. He is quite right to argue for a transformation of > poor countries from resource to industrial exporters, but this makes > sense developmentally only in terms of a coherent domestic > transformation on all levels: domestic markets, domestic capabilities, > etc. If industrialization serves mainly as an export-directed > phenomenon, bereft of local linkages, for the purposes of servicing > debt, then "free trade" in such products is part of the problem, not the > solution. > > 2. Obviously (to me anyway), if the gross financial and trade imbalances > need to be fixed, and if some unspecified debt reduction and capital > flow regulatory framework is the answer on the finance side, then an > international organization that coordinates trade balances -- keeps them > within acceptable bands that have been openly negotiated -- is the > answer on the goods and services side. In my make-believe world, this > is above all what the WTO would be doing. > > 3. The institutional problem of environmental and social standards is > huge. The ILO (which I will be working for once again over the summer) > is admirable in many ways, but only because it is largely powerless. It > benefits from the importance of being unimportant. The WTO is fatally > flawed because it rests on the foundation of trade ministers, the > designated corporate gofers within any government. On top of that, it > is the product (as are all really important international organizations, > unlike the ILO, UNESCO, etc.) of global power imbalances. I cannot > begin to imagine anything good coming from this organization under these > circumstances. The sort of democratic and accountable global governance > we need will require much more radical changes at the national level in > the US and other great power countries. In the meantime, I believe > there is lots of unutilized potential for creating "shadow" institutions > (paralleling the WTO, IMF etc.) from below, based on hard-nosed > negotiation between groups representing democratic interests in > different countries. To really be effective, these alternative groups > would have to actually take concrete positions on specific issues as > they arise; i.e. they would have to cooperate on a detailed program and > not just on their opposition to the status quo. This is something > effective political groups have always done on a local and national > level; now global capitalism has forced the same necessity on us > internationally. > > 4. In the end, I think there really is a case for substantial > relocalization, but it should be the result of a sane trading framework, > not an imperative imposed on it. Once the debt treadmill is smashed, > and once the false economies based on hyper-exploitation of populations > and resources are ended, most of the impetus for destructive trade will > cease. Then it will be enough to build up healthy local economies on > their own merits, through the methods some communities are beginning to > pioneer. > > I apologize for the soapbox tone of this e-mail. I guess I must be > pretty opinionated about this stuff. > > Peter > >
