----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Weick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Victor Milne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: December 13, 1999 9:06 AM
Subject: Re: Krystallnacht in Seattle
> >Ed,
> >
> >In a parallel posting directed at Tim Rourke I've indicated that I agree
> >with your main point about the dangers of ideological labeling of groups
of
> >people, but I don't quite agree with your comparison of the vandalism in
> >Seattle to Krystallnacht on a smaller scale.
> >
> >The important difference is this: Krystallnacht was the work of a single
> >powerful group, the Nazi Party, acting on orders from the top. The
> >demonstrators in Seattle were a whole bunch of different groups of
> >relatively powerless people protesting against the actions of the
powerful.
> >The vast majority of them were non-violent, and there was no top command
to
> >order the vandalism. Indeed we do not even know for sure if the vandals
> were
> >protestors of any stripe. It may be they were just vandals, drawn by a
> large
> >noisy crowd and the opportunities it presented for mischief. Quite
possibly
> >the window-breakers wouldn't be able to tell you what the letters WTO
stand
> >for.
>
> I agree. But I would suggest that Krystallnacht was not only the work of
> the Nazi Party, it was supported by many Germans of the time. As Daniel
> Goldhagen argued (convincinly in my view), the Nazi Party itself, with its
> notions of racial purity and superiority and its intolerance of "inferior"
> people like Jews and Slavs, was a product of German history and popular
> culture. A great number of strands came together in the virulent
> anti-semitism that produced Krystallnacht and the Holacaust. There is
> always danger whenever enough strands come together on any identifiable
> common enemy.
No question about it--the Nazis had a lot of popular support. (So does Mike
Harris in Ontario.) However, any history and culture is made up of a lot of
conflicting traditions. Dietrich Bonhoeffer's biographer relates that the
morning after Krystallnacht, Bonhoeffer's grandmother, an aristocratic
Prussian dowager, emerged from her home, stared icily at the brownshirts on
the street, and walked into the Jewish butcher shop where she had dealt for
decades.
>
[snip]
> I don't want to see the WTO destroyed because, as I believe I've stated in
> other postings, the removal of trade barriers and extension of trade
> represents one of the surest ways of so completely enmeshing the world in
> common interests that any part of it would be foolish to be in serious
> conflict with any other. Rather the WTO promoting peaceful trade and
> competition among all countries than the development of large economic
> blocks which could become political blocks and ultimately military blocks.
> When it comes to labour standards and the environment, I rather like
Sylvia
> Ostrey's idea of a meaningful ILO (International Labour Office) and a WEO
> (World Environment Organization). I would even accept that the latter two
> should have primacy of place over the WTO, as someone on the list has
> suggested. If you simply kill the WTO, nothing much will happen that is
not
> already happening -- i.e., the continued formation of blocks of interest
and
> an increasingly polarized world.
>
As was pointed out in one of the reports, the goal of the demonstrators was
not to end trade or reduce, but to end the corporate hegemony employing the
WTO to ensure that the interests of capitalists (the filthy rich) will
always take precedence over environmental and social issues. A case in point
would be the recent banana wars in which the USA got a ruling that E.C.
countries could not give preferences to their former colonies in the
Carribean; they had to buy the cheaper bananas produced by US-owned
companies in Central America, companies which are more exploitive of their
labour force.
>
> >To me the answer lies in a re-assertion of governmental sovereignty,
i.e.,
> >the rule of the whole community in the interests of the whole community.
If
> >that were done, we simply would not allow pollution. Manufacturers would
> >have to bear the cost of producing their products through pollution-free
> >processes and then pass the costs on to their consumers instead of
relying
> >on the community to subsidize them by either absorbing extra pollution or
> >paying the costs of the cleanup. Corporations should be stripped of their
> >fictional legal status as persons--and not be allowed to make any
political
> >contributions. A hefty Equities Sales Tax (EST) should be slapped on
stock
> >market transactions to stop this insane casino in which "investments" are
> >bought and resold within a matter of minutes, and disemployment of
workers
> >is a favoured tactic of management to ratchet up the price of their stock
> by
> >a few points. And on and on. There's an endless list of things that could
> >and should be reformed by a government of the people, by the people, for
> the
> >people.
>
> You may be right about the solution, but I would question how capable
> governments are of re-asserting sovereingty in the sense that they are
able
> to dictate terms to foreign investors. Many countries, especially
> small ones, are enormously dependent on such investment, which
> unfortunately often has far more options than they have. For the most
part,
> they are fortunate if they have a relatively strong negotiating position.
> Often this is not the case. I spent a month in Jamaica recently and hate
to
> think of where that country would be without investment in, and revenues
> from, bauxite and tourism. There are other sources of bauxite in the
world,
> and tourists can now go anywhere, and have indeed been going elsewhere
> because Jamaica has developed a reputation for violence. The Jamaican
> government is in no position to dictate to either of its major industries.
> All it can do is hope to negotiate favourable deals.
>
> And as long as it is in a state of dependence, a country is not really in
a
> position to "assert". It must negotiate, and its chances of getting a bad
> deal may be far less than its chances of getting a good one. This again
> suggests a need for global rules around matters such as host
country/foreign
> investor relations, labour standards, environment, etc.
I would agree that Jamaica is in no condition to start a movement of
re-asserting national sovereignty over corporations. The move would have to
come from within the G-7 to have enough clout. And who knows if that will
ever happen?
Victor
