Ed Weick replied to Bill Ward who wrote
>What has been of interest in the discussion of the WTO across several list
servs is the lack of discussion about why nations have developed a new
organization and have not used a variety of organizations within the UN.
>
>I can anticipate some of the possible responses but the fact that a new
organization had to be created says that the UN's openness might be the
major problem.
=========Ed Weick said
As I understand it, a number of institutions grew out of talks held just
after WWII, particularly talks held at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. These
institutions were to be relatively independent of governments and pro-active
in promoting more liberal trade, resolving international monetary problems
and providing capital for third world developement. They included the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the International Monetary
Fund, and the World Bank. I don't know why they were not put under UN
auspices, but the reason may be similar to having central banks which are
independent of government -- you want to give them as much freedom of
action as possible, and not be constrained by politics. The WTO grew out
of, and replaced, GATT some time within the past decade. My understanding
is that this happened because GATT could no longer deal with the kinds of
international trade problems that were emerging. Something stronger was
needed, something that could resolve disputes, set rules and take leadership
on emerging issues.
Edward Goertzen said:
Just to add that the Bretton Woods Agreement (1944) was to assure the IMF
and World bank were government controlled. They were to replace the
discredited BIS. The BIS was the international " bankers bank" that handled
the international trasactions of the Axis powers during the war as though
they were respectable nations. Much like the Swiss banks accepted Nazi gold
with out question as to the source.
To date the BIS is the paramount financial organization serving
international bankers and their global corporations customers irrespective
of moral considerations.
The General Agreement on Tarrifs and Trade, was transsubstantiated into the
WTO so that it could incease its powers to include services in addition to
material goods and to dictate compliance to sovereign governments.
We can expect the WTO to use the services of NATO type organizations to
enforce its dictates rather than the UN. (As in Kosovo) Failing that, the
UN will grow its own "enforcement" army.
War is so messy, but a neccessary means to extend diplomatic maneuvering.
(sarcastically) some countries simply will not listen (latin root = obey)
to reason.
Regards
Ed ward Goertzen
