Bill Bartlett at [log in to unmask] writes:

> 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.

That, too, but what I was getting at is that he sets up a picture of
benevolent Third World governments having their social safety nets shredded
through US/UK/First World free market imperialism. I want to ask: what
benevolent Third World governments? The Sandinistas are long gone, the PRI
is a kleptocracy, Argentina and Chile are in the hands of neoliberals, etc.,
etc. In any event, one of Chomsky's near-axioms is that governments by
definition serve the interests of the wealthy. From that it flows that the
more skewed the income distribution in a country, the more unrepresentative
the government. So, with the possible exception of Costa Rica, I can't think
of a single Third World country where we might expect to find a pre-existing
social safety net of any consequence to shred. In fact, one can theorize,
and find confirmation for, the proposition that the ONLY countries with a
social safety net left to shred are those of Europe and Canada
(Australia?)--all First World countries. So my framework would start from
the assumption that nearly everyone at the WTO table is representing the
elites of their respective countries--subject to counterevidence of course.
Chomsky doesn't do this, and I think it's inconsistent with his stated
axioms.

Chomsky makes much of the telecommunications agreement, but does not discuss
the background or content of it at all. The link I supplied elsewhere does
discuss it in illuminating depth, and to some extent provides support for
Chomsky's assertions about TW consumers paying higher rates if it goes
through. However, the article also discusses how the agreement came to pass,
and adds the interesting data point that jurisdiction only passes to the WTO
from the ITU *if* the world's countries can't find consensus on a
renegotiation of the status quo. Some participants quoted in the piece
speculate that the First World is dragging its feet on the negotiations
precisely to achieve this outcome, which I don't dismiss out of hand. But
the background does suggest that the current impasse is not simply due to
the Big Bad Media Monopolies suddenly getting hungry for more profits, but
rather to changing economic conditions that are squeezing all parties.
>
> 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.

This is where a bit of research would be necessary. I don't know. Certainly
one would expect the treaties to reflect the relative strength of the
parties to it. But the fact that there are many businesses in this country
that are anti-NAFTA, anti-WTO suggests that even here there are winners and
losers.

Moreover, if free trade is seen elsewhere as purely a vehicle for predatory
US multinationals, I can't see anyone going along with it.

I did do a little Internet searching on this topic, to see if there are any
adverse WTO rulings against the US. The only one I've found so far,
ironically enough, was an environmental decision ruling that US laws
protecting the sea turtle are discriminatory. The US is appealing the
ruling. Since that ruling doesnt' directly affect US interests, it doesn't
count obviously. But my search was not exhaustive by any means. I do recall
a case in which Canada was the plaintiff, but I can't seem to find it yet.
>
>> 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.

My feeling is that the neoliberal tidal wave creates its own inexorable
pressure on "hold-out" countries, and doesn't require additional coercion
from its source. But that's another discussion.
>
>> 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.

No kidding. I have a short list in my mind of astonishing assertions that
Chomsky has made on economic matters, which makes me wonder if he is out of
his depth in this area. I won't list them here. But regardless, his approach
gives short shrift to the actually existing political and economic
constraints that nations operate under. In Chomsky's world, all too often,
there is a morally right outcome, and if that outcome isn't achieved, then
someone must be corrupt. That, I am afraid, is a pretty naive stance to
take.
>>
> [..]

>> 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.

Well, that's true, but that doesn't automatically make those forays unjust.
In fact, it's almost a tautology to say that governments seek to justify
their actions to their populations by reference to an ostensibly neutral
body. That's what trials are about; that's what deliberative bodies are for.
It doesn't automatically decide questions of right or wrong, of course, but
it does help settle questions of procedural legitimacy.

Perhaps the WTO could be perceived as giving a cloak of legitimacy to overt
actions the US might otherwise undertake clandestinely, but for that to
work, the WTO has to have a perception of neutrality. I realize that with
our chauvinist press, that might not be such a tall order, but it does pose
risks. So if the theory is that the WTO is just a stalking horse for US
interests, there are some complicating factors to consider.
>
>> 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.

One of the arguments made in favor of an activist judiciary in this country
is that, of the three branches of government, it is the least powerful
because it doesn't command armies or the power to tax; hence it has the
least potential for abuse. I say this only to illustrate the point that the
same applies to the WTO, at as I understand it. Unless I am mistaken, the
WTO has no real authority to do anything except rule on one side or the
other of a question. The enforcement is ideally on the honor system. I know
WTO rulings can authorize the levying of fines and counter-tariffs, but
those are matters solely within the purview of the traditional powers of
nations. If one country wants to blow off the WTO, nothing can stop it from
doing so. I am open to being corrected on this.

This is the fundamental problem with world bodies like the UN: lacking any
monopoly on the use of force, they are little more than talking shops. I
don't see the WTO as being too much different. That doesn't mean that they
are without influence, but it's of a limited scope, in my opinion.
--
Tresy Kilbourne
Seattle WA