I'm a big supporter of Fair Trade, but I don't agree with Kucinich

[IrateCitizen]

Dennis said last night that his first act in office would be to repeal NAFTA and withdraw from the WTO. While I can appreciate Dennis's devotion to American workers and passion on this issue, I also think that these actions could be, perhaps, the BIGGEST mistakes we could make.

The fact remains that, no matter how corrupt these frameworks may be, they are at least frameworks in place. And we also must embrace the fact, described by Mark Hertzgaard in his book In The Eagle's Shadow, that the US is the biggest global leader out there. When we talk and act, the rest of the world listens and follows our lead. While this is a force that has been used for narrow self interest in the past, there is no reason that the proper leadership could not use it as a force for good -- to secure human rights and the right of labor to organize throughout the globe, not to mention a more responsible stewardship of our global environmental resources.

While NAFTA and the WTO need to be SERIOUSLY restructured, I believe that a quick withdrawl from them could be more damaging than just maintaining the status quo.

Any thoughts?

[terryg11]

1. WTO is organized by large corporations

so I doubt they would be hip to letting their cheap labor oranize.

I agree tht maybe they should be revisited before pulling out of completely so maybe Dennis can either be convinced of that or he can more fully explain why we need to disengage from them completely

[Zuni]

3. It is an International body

made up of states, not corporations

[IrateCitizen]

5. Officially, yes -- in reality, no

While it is officially made up of states, delegations are often comprised of officials from corporations. Additionally, states consistently operate in the interest of those corporations, even when it is detrimental to their population. They have, in effect, become little more than salesmen for corporations rather than assuming their role as guarantors of the public interest.

I posted a thread on this yesterday, referencing a book I recently finished entitled The Silent Takeover by Dr. Noreena Hertz.

[terryg11]

6. not according to Palast and others

in his book "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" he explains how the IMF, WTO and World Bank are fronts for the same group of conspirators and while they may have governments representing them on these stages it's really corporations pulling the strings, thus my claim they are corporations.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

11. Palast talks about bribery during trade and restructuring talks

He's talked to a few people who have worked for the WTO and IMF and they have described outright bribery of officials from other countries to give benefits to specific corporations. In the US of course, bribery, in the form of campaign contributions, is legal.

So we have corporate representatives hired for the US trade delegation, and they have been bribing dictators to sell them a countrie's water supplies, while the dictators and their thugs enforce the corporation's control of public resources.

Call it what you will, it's not something the US should be supporting.

[AntiLempa]

12. Good article on the WTO

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/Sept2003/x-sept2003-WTO2.html
<snip>
Sounds like a big international free trade love-in.

Hmm, not quite. Although the WTO is ostensibly democratic, the big boys from the US, Canada, Japan and the EU – known as ‘the Quad’ – rule the roost. One developing country delegate at the 2001 Doha ministerial conference said: ‘If I speak out too strongly the US will phone my minister. They will twist the story and say I am embarrassing the US. My government will not even ask: “What did he say?” They would just send me a ticket home tomorrow.’ The Quad meets several times a year to decide policy behind closed doors. Its decisions are then sold to less powerful governments.

[chadm]

27. Wrong

It is made up of bankers and large corporations, not states.

[HFishbine]

2. The Question

DK's point was that the "framework," which is to say NAFTA and GATT, don't allow for the kind of changes people want when they speak of free trade. He made the statement that the treaties make it illegal to impliment equality in labor, human rights and the environment.

Now, I don't know if that's true or not, but I'd like to find out. If he's correct, then others are just blowing smoke when they talk about tweaking trade agreements.

[IrateCitizen]

4. It's partially true

Trade deals have VERY explicit guidelines when it comes to commercial interests. However, when it comes to labor and the environment, they use touchy-feely words like "encourage" or "work towards".

Essentially, what a retooling of the whole system will require is someone who is willing to stand up to corporate interests, and tell them that there will be no more business as usual -- that the state will no longer be nothing more than a tool of corporations. I would bet that if the US were able to seriously threaten pulling out of NAFTA or the WTO unless specific reforms were implemented, those reforms would get done. Both would collapse without the participation of the world's largest market.

Where I disagree with Dennis is his insistence on bilateral trade deals. IMHO, these are often MORE detrimental to developing nations, because the best hope that they have is banding together to ensure that their interests are taken care of -- much like Lula is trying to do with the rest of South America in the run-up to FTAA. While I appreciate DK's concern for American workers, his solution just reeks of protectionism to me -- the "we've got ours and intend to keep it" thinking that will do nothing to address the increasing inequities throughout the world.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

7. That's why Kucinich supports Bilateral trade agreements

Instead of multinational corporations having their own international government, the USA can spell out a trade deal with each country we trade with. We can enforce these agreements (like in the case of China) without necessarily cutting off all trade.

[sangh0]

8. I agree

I don't think we should destroy the structure that's in place, even if it is corrupt. I think we should hijack it, and reform it.

[IrateCitizen]

9. What??? You AGREE???

A simple statement of agreement from sangha? No parsing? No corrections? Where's the pod? ;-)

What's next, dogs and cats living together? :evilgrin:

[sangh0]

18. Thank you

There's very few things that please me more than upsetting people's expectations of me. I hate the idea that I'm "predictable". I am even more pleased that it was you I was able to surprise because IMO, you're a pretty sharp person.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

14. That's what Kerry said (essentially)

we have to fix what we have.

[ibegurpard]

30. That's what they ALL said

except for Kucinich.

[buddhamama]

10. when the entire system

was initiated by the State for the benfit of corporations and the wealthy Few, and has been corrupted beyond measure, how does one go about reforming it?

[IrateCitizen]

13. Your question is an interesting one -- I'll respond

when the entire system was initiated by the State for the benfit of corporations and the wealthy Few...

This part of your question identifies the root of the problem: the state. Corporations are behaving exactly as they should be expected to -- pursuing maximum profit. The problem is that states have gone from being guarantors of the public interest (their intended goal in a democratic system) to becoming cheerleaders for business.

So, the problem doesn't seem to start with these organizations or corporations, but rather with the states themselves. Perhaps if the states can be reformed to the extent that labor, environmentalists, human rights groups and other NGO's can get the same deference at the bargaining table as commerical interests, then the system will be automatically reformed as a result.

Some of the leading "opponents of globalization" are beginning to recognize this -- namely George Monbiot. We must begin to move past the idea of simply stating what we are against, and instead begin to hammer on real, concrete proposals to reform the system for the betterment of ALL. To abandon international frameworks, especially in these times, would be a grave mistake.

[buddhamama]

20. appreciate the response,IC

it appears that you and i agree on the States
responsibility. my next question is this, how would you go about reforming the States? and, should the U.S. broker Trade Deals with countries who are corrupt and do not respect Human/Civil Rights?

[IrateCitizen]

23. That's where I'm a little lost, buddhamama..

how would you go about reforming the States?

I'm not certain I can offer up concrete proposals on this one, but I do have to say that I am seeing some encouraging signs. While voting has gone down in the US, membership in activist organizations has significantly increased. At least this shows a desire on the part of a lot of people to get involved, and the realization that something just ain't right.

I think we're beginning to see the reforming of the states, at least in the way they do business, in several ways. First would be some pressure on the legislative front. The fact that McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan even passed was a victory, although the "state" turned around and gutted it. In the face of this, Clean Elections campaigns are picking up steam in several states. Changing the private financing of campaigns is a BIG step to this end. Also impressive is the recent victory for public health care in Maine -- the defeat of a well-heeled HMO/Pharma lobby for the benefit of the greater good. The public outcry to FCC changes was another indication of this spirit of dissatisfaction turning to action, IMHO.

Of course, the reform of the state also requires real leadership that is willing to oppose big business when necessary, rather than allow it to dictate the terms of engagement. This brings me to your second question: should the U.S. broker Trade Deals with countries who are corrupt and do not respect Human/Civil Rights?

If the US were to lead the way in making such concerns centerpieces of trade agreements, then sanctions could be brought against businesses who deal with such governments. For example, if the US knows that Indonesia is not respecting the rights of labor to organize or environmental standards laid out in trade agreements, like the clearcutting of old-wood forests, then the US could immediately cut off access to US markets for any corporations doing business with Indonesia. The businesses then wouldn't tolerate Indonesia's actions, because of their losing the world's largest market. Indonesia would then have to change its ways, if it wanted external investment. Essentially, it's a matter of "international jujitsu" -- taking the ways in which those ideals are undermined in pursuit of profit, and instead using them to enforce such ideals.

[RichM]

26. But IC, isn't the whole point of trade agreements precisely to allow

the lacking labor/safety/enviro standards of countries like Indonesia to be taken advantage of?

In recent months, I read Zinn & Kevin Phillips (partly because your descriptions of them made them sound like must-reads, which indeed they were). Anyone who's read these things has to feel pretty darn skeptical about the possibility of the US ever acting as a virtuous global citizen, to discipline the Indonesias of the world. It would unfortunately be much more in character for the US government, acting as usual as the agent of the transnationals, to be highly pleased with the opportunities offered by current conditions in the world's Indonesias -- that's why we support leaders like former Pres Suharto, after all. Being able to exploit the "race to the bottom" is the whole point. It's profitable for transnationals; that's why business pushed for NAFTA; and that's why it won -- even though some Monbiot-like critics predicted exactly what would happen, even at the time.

It seems to me that everything hinges on whether or not the near-total power of business can be curtailed. There are good reasons to fear it can not. The public has been raised & conditioned in American culture; this culture contains innumerable built-in propaganda features that make most people unable to recognize the frightening extent to which the US state is little more than a front for big business.

Your optimism about the possibility for reform is refreshing & admirable, especially since I know you know all these things. What I'd like to know is, after you've read Zinn etc, where does this wacky optimism still emanate from? :shrug:

[IrateCitizen]

33. What other choice do we have besides "wacky optimism", Rich?

If we lose faith that the world not only can, but WILL eventually change for the greater good, then what do we have left? Hopelessness? Despair? Cynicism? A reason for unfettered selfishness?

I am well aware that I am speaking against historical tendencies. But I also recall the words of MLK when he said, "The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice." And in many ways, it has. Abolition. Labor rights. Civil rights. Women's suffrage. At one time, all of these things flew in the face of convention.

I guess I believe, in my heart, that there is a way in which we can harness the power of basic human goodness, rather than simply caving to our more destructive impulses. It may be an overly optimistic view. Hell, it may be downright delusional! But I really can't think of another way of looking at it that doesn't equate with giving up.

[buddhamama]

35. wouldn't say it is delusional

i am forever the optimist but, in all honesty, i think it is getting attention now because the (upper) middle class is being affected.

its not just the blue collar workers losing their manufactering jobs any more but the white collar service/tech industries.

i do think that the citizens have given up in relations to elections and the inherent corruption. how else to do we explain the loss of voters but the rise of organizational membership?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

16. Yes, Bush Sr. started NAFTA and GATT with the "MAI"

The Multilateral Agreement on Investments - in about 1990. All the corporate press from the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal praised it. The TV stations simply wouldn't talk about it. Somehow, Americans found out about it and were able to stop Bush from signing it.

Then we had the Republican Congress (Newt Gingrich, et al) and Clinton's and Gore's sell-out to them, which resulted in NAFTA and later the WTO.

[CWebster]

15. If anyone has the tough determination

to see it through, it will be Dean.

For me, this is his greatest asset--his ability to accomplish daunting goals--from some of his solid achievements in VT to his dynamic campaign.
Even though originally a "flatlander", he has that Yankee straightforward and thrifty can-do.

[el_gato]

17. a gold plated turd

is still a turd

[AntiLempa]

19. Fair Trade in the House

I read your post as I am drinking a nice cup of shade grown, bird friendly, organic Fair Trade Coffee.

I partially agree with Dennis's stance. NAFTA and the WTO need to go. They are inherently undemocratic and favor the rich. Reform, in my opinion, would take too long. The UN should be utilized. It is a democratic organization that enjoys popular support throughout the world. Granted some people hate the fact that it is democratic, but democracy is a difficult thing to handle.

Of course the UN has it's flaws. Most notably are the Security Council and the US governments utter hatred for it (but that goes along with the disdain for democracy).

Bilateral trade agreements are scary as well. Zmag has some great articles posted on the subject. I don't have time to look them up, but a search for bilateral trade agreements on their site will turn up a fair number of articles. (http://www.zmag.org/search)

[Terwilliger]

21. Would anything happen if nobody threatened the WTO and NAFTA?

At least Kucinich forces the other candidates to talk about these things, because they'd simply ignore it otherwise.

there is no reason that the proper leadership could not use it as a force for good

Any historical evidence for that claim?

[IrateCitizen]

24. Nothing would happen, of course.

Which is why it requires a leader with the courage to stand up and do the right thing.

Any historical evidence for that claim?

No, but refer to my post #23 for a few ideas on how it could happen.

[DrGonzoLives]

22. I agree

Neither should have been created in the first place, but to withdraw now would throw the economies of many countries into anarchy. It's sort of like heroin addiction - when you start, it's great, but then you realize what it's doing to you, but you can't stop...

[Mairead]

25. "to withdraw now would throw the economies of many countries into anarchy"

I think that overstates the case by a factor of Lots. Withdrawal can be done pro forma, with everyone going on largely as before while the new terms are negotiated and put into place. It's not like putting up a new building, where you must physically tear down the old one first.

[T_i_B]

28. Are we in agreement for once IC?

I can remember seeing Kucnich's website for the first time and concluding that unilateralism on trade hardly the best way to counteract $hrubya's unilateralism on just about bloody everything! It is interesting to note that Kucnich's anti-globalism is in many way the opposite of the anti-globalism of George Monbiot for instance.

Even though I am a free trader myself I admit that the WTO needs reform. Here are my ideas.

1) The WTO at the present time is undemocratic. The US sends 230 negociators to the WTO where many nations do not send a single one. Therefore I propose that every nation sends 1 representitive to the WTO. It may even be an idea for these representitives to be elected as they will hold a great deal of power.

2) A register of interests of the WTO should be created disclosing all financial interests of members of the WTO. This should be public information.

3) Ban all gifts and donations from corporations to the WTO. This should clear up a good deal of any corruption hanging around the place.

4) Increase the transparency of the WTO by making its meeting more public and opening them up to the media.

5) Abolish TRIPS. It is absurd for a bopdy set up to promote free trade to be restricting trade in intellectual property.

6) Reform GATS so as to clear up any misunderstanding about what is public sector, what is private and what is open to trade. There should be a certain amount of emphasis here on protecting essential public services.

I suspect we will find something to disagree on from here on in. :evilgrin:

[diamondsoul]

31. I like your suggestions for reforming the WTO

However, Kucinich's platform on trade is a far cry from "anti-globalism". I'd say he's the one candidate who approaches every issue with global interests in mind. Global interests when addressing America and its citizens necessarily come in second place to US interests.

WTO is completely corrupt, most people seem to agree on that issue. So is NAFTA, to the extent that I believe Kucinich is absolutely right. It cannot be "fixed" as written. The candidates espousing "repairing" existing trade agreements are ignoring the fact that the fastest way to resolve the problems with them is to scrap them altogether and start anew. It will take years to repair the existing agreements meanwhile nothing will change. Scrap them and start over, and things will change immediately, plus we'll have begun the process of reorganizing our trade priorities.

[T_i_B]

32. Withdrawing from the WTO is not globalism

It is trying to shut out the interests of the rest of the world as well as many of the products & servces the rest of the world has to offer.

What Kucnich esposes is very plain anti-globalism, as opposed to the views of many alleged anti-globalists such as George Monbiot who are actually more interested in doing things that require more globalization in more different ways.

[IrateCitizen]

36. Rather than sow disagreement, I'd rather focus on agreement

Yes, we may be coming to some kind of convergence, TiB. I doubt we'll ever agree upon EVERYTHING, but perhaps we can work together.... ;-)

I must admit that I've been influenced a great deal by what Monbiot has been putting out there recently. I also just finished The Silent Takeover by Noreena Hertz -- I would highly recommend it.

The source of the breakdown is not in the international institutions themselves, but rather in the states that created them. Somewhere along the line, governments lost the idea of being guarantors of the public interest and instead became full-blown cheerleaders for business. The "New Labour" and "New Democrat" movements have joined in this fray with the Tories and Republicans. This, in turn, has left little recourse for those who do not agree with the current track, leading to a rise in political protest and activism despite falling numbers at the ballot box.

This is all stuff I gleaned from Dr. Hertz's book, but she does an excellent job at underlining how it is the governments that have failed us, and that THEY must be reformed (campaign finance is a biggie) before the WTO can be truly reformed.

The main key is to reform governments so that they embrace the support of labor, human rights and the environment -- which will then make it impossible for developing nations to NOT do the same, if they want to receive foreign investment. A sort of "ideological jujitsu" turning the "race to the bottom" into a REAL rising tide that lifts all boats not only in simple GDP, but in more complete ways.

One thing I would disagree with you above is in regards to the delegates to the WTO. No matter if you sent 1 person, or 230 from industrialized nations, that one person would still be bought and paid for by corporate interests. I think that we need to have labor, human rights groups, environmentalists, etc. ALL at the table in order to work these things out properly. Certainly it will be agonizingly slow, but at least we have a better chance of doing it RIGHT.

[donsu]

29. I agree with Kucinich

NAFTA and WTO are corrupted

[jos]

34. I agree

The trade agreements and organizations now in place exist to maximize return on capital. They seek to trump democracy and democratic institutions. Manufacturing industries in the U.S. and the west are supposed to compete with .50 cents an hour workers in Asia and Latin America. This must stop. Trade must be on equal terms for it to be fair. And trade agreements should never be used to scrap laws passed by democratically-elected governments.