Tresy Kilbourne wrote:

>That said, it bothers me that Chomsky often seems to try to have it both
>ways. On the one hand, when the U.S. tries to advance the interests of its
>elites, that is bad; but there is no reason to assume that that is exactly
>what the other countries are doing as well.

True. Chomsky's analysis is somewhat US-centric. But then the world economy
is somewhat US-centric. ;-) Anyhow, I think his analysis did mention a
couple of other countries, like Britain, that such agreements are supposed
to serve.

But his main point, that the US is the only economy that is effectively
immune from the sanctions provided by trade treaties, is valid. US
protectionism in high-tech manufacturing and even non-strategic areas (such
as food production) is blatant.

> He provides no evidence that
>these agreements are entered into coercively; indeed, if it was a simple
>matter of the U.S. putting a metaphorical gun to the heads of LDCs,
>Godfather-style, then the various rounds of GATT/WTO negotiations
>wouldn't be going on for over a decade.

I think the gun is an economic one and the experience of New Zealand,
another country to feel the heat from US economic terrorism (after it
banned the entry of nuclear-armed and powered US warships into its ports)
illustrates the "godfather" syndrome. Unable to comply with US demands on
nuclear ship visits because of the prevailing mood of the New Zealand
people, successive New Zealand governments have gone all out to placate the
US in other ways, by becoming the leader and the guinea pig for neo-liberal
economic policies.

> But rather than address the sticking points
>in any kind of detail he falls back on his standard rhetorical reflex,
>namely, withering sarcasm, and paints a picture of the U.S ramming its will
>down the defenseless world's collective throat.

I tend to agree with the sentiment, though I see it somewhat differently.
One thing that I have often noticed about Chomsky's writings is that he
tends to stay away from economic analysis. He almost appears to see
economic issues in purely political terms, as if economic fundamentals
don't actually matter.

This can be striking when his analysis goes to issues that are
fundamentally economic. To only look at the political is to miss a crucial
part of the picture. There is obviously a lot more to "free trade" than the
political, in fact the economic imperatives are what drives the political
bullying. It is somewhat misleading to see an analysis that does not even
mention such underlying issues.
>
[..]

>and 2) since
>when did the US ever need some extragovernmental body without any
>enforcement powers to achieve intervention in another country's affairs?

Quite often actually. I think it relates to the issue of US public
"consent" for such intervention. When the US acts with the authority of the
UN, as in Korea or Iraq it is easier to justify it to the US population.
Likewise it is much better if economic warfare against other countries can,
at least nominally, can be portrayed as a "police" action carried out by,
or under the authority of, an international body.

> I
>don't recall the lack of a WTO being much of an impediment to overthrowing
>Third World governments over the past 40 years. I could go on.

The WTO doesn't have jurisdiction to use military force, economic force is
it area of responsibility. Economic force is clearly a more palatable
technique, a more publicy-acceptable method. The US is, economically, the
most powerful nation on earth, so the results are the same, no
international body has the power to coerce the US economically. The only
force that could stand up to the US ruling classes economically is the US
working class, hence the need to maintain the consent of the US working
class for military and economic warfare abroad.

>Let me emphasize that I am not pro-WTO, only that I think Chomsky's analysis
>is not without significant weaknesses. Since this is supposed to be a list
>for discussion of Chomsky's ideas (all evidence to the contrary
>notwithstanding), I figure I might as well play Devil's advocate in the
>interests of stimulating same.

Keep up the good work.

Bill bartlett
Bracknell Tas