Sid -- or anyone, Is there any way to translate this shocking material into campaigns that have a South-driven character? I ask because there continues to rage a debate here in Johannesburg, based especially on writings from the Third World Network in Penang, Malaysia, about the legitimacy of social clauses in trade agreements, when these are North-driven and moralistic in character, and when in addition they coincide with Northern protectionist impulses. The difficulty with the unintended consequences of the Pakistani carpet boycotts illustrate the dilemma. Crucial ingredient, it seems, is whether such clauses are being demanded by Southern social and labour movements as part of their own strategic orientation. The Chilean trade union movement, for instance, has (I have been told) demanded that Northern countries promote social clauses that will make it easier for Chilean workers to win demands for better working conditions and better labour legislation. But I haven't come across any other examples. The SA labour movement, incidentally, has demanded that social clauses be applied so as to prohibit imports by countries that abuse labour standards... but there are plenty of internationalist progessives here who think this is the wrong approach. The close-to-home analogy that makes sense to many of us is that SA workers demanded anti-apartheid sanctions during the 1980s and early 1990s, even though they knew it would cost some of them their jobs. Aside from the Chilean CUT, have we rebuilt that durable a level of international progressive strategic coordination yet on the broader social clause issue?
