First, thanks to Bill for posting this.

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. 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. 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.

Along the way he makes some questionable assumptions. One is that the WTO is
essentially an extension of US power, allowing it to intervene in the
internal affairs of other countries to an unprecedented extent. Two
objections immediately arise: 1) If that is true, then why is the US having
to deal with a possible adverse ruling against it in the WTO? and 2) since
when did the US ever need some extragovernmental body without any
enforcement powers to achieve intervention in another country's affairs? 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.

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.


--
Tresy Kilbourne
Seattle WA