Tresy, first of all thanks for the pictures-- both strident and gorgeous.

> Well, we don't have many illusions about Clinton's labor record, but he
> quite evidently felt compelled to throw us a bone when he spoke
> here (coming
> out for labor standards), and the reaction inside the WTO was swift and
> harsh.

Yes, it was almost jarring to hear Charlene Barshefsky call the protests a
"democratization of the trade negotiations."  Clinton has used his legendary
ability to "feel your pain" to particularly dramatic effect here.  Very few
powerful men have the political acuity to agree so heartily with serious
criticism.  His agreements and praise then can be followed up with business
as usual.

Many Third World delegates fumed about it all week. To the extent,
> then, that the protesters communicated their political will to the WTO
> through Clinton, there is an arguable case for having an effect.
> But I have
> also long thought the Left minimizes the degree of inherent
> conflict within
> the WTO. I wasn't surprised that they foundered over these kinds of
> differences.

Indeed, the US press tried to couch the failure of the WTO in terms that the
US delegation spoon fed:  the developing countries were unable to compromise
on labor rights, and the EU refuses to stop subsidizing their farmers.  Thus
Clinton was able to use some isolated sentiments of the protest to
strengthen the bargaining position of the US (as if the US position needs to
be strengthened).  Meanwhile, the "developing" countries complained
vociferously about the way that trade negotiations take place-- they are
systematically excluded from important sessions, understaffed and not given
enough time to wade through new documents.  Indeed, when the negotiations
are not going smoothly enough for the G-8, they just adjourn to the green
room and hammer out some fait-accompli without the meddlesome voices of the
troublesome Africans and South Americans.
> My main beef is with those who preach the benefits of
> Schumpterian 'creative
> destruction," while being well-insulated from it themselves. If
> globalization took into account the externalities imposed on the rest of
> society (through job loss, envrironmental degradation, etc.) the costs as
> well as benefits of globalization would be shared more equitably.
THis crucial variable has been missing from the debate.
I would be curious to hear what you think the effects of the demonstrations
were and will be.  I participated in a march on the Gap and Disney in NYC,
but I doubt it had much effect other than a casual diversion for shoppers.

Soren