Sid -- your own forward says this whole "not signing" thing was a trick. They had given up getting a final deal in April months ago. The announcement is just to accomplish three things: 1) trick all the groups opposing MAI into thinking they have won, to drop the anti-MAI pressure, 2) win an in-house turf struggle with the State Department, 3) get a better deal for the U.S. at the expense of other signatories. Given that, why continue to argue methodology? Again, your own forward from Lori Wallach warns that it is just a way of using a minor truth (that the treaty won't be signed in April) to spread a major lie (that MAI is in big trouble). Your forward also pointed out that similar lies were used to cool opposition to NAFTA , and other trade deals. Thanks Gar Sid Shniad wrote: > Bill, I have a methodological question: why is there a single "real > reason" involved? This implies that the real actors are capitalists and > that the actions of the little folk in striking, demonstrating,etc. are > merely incidental. Or am I missing something? > > Sid > > > > > > On Fri, 13 Feb 1998, Sid Shniad wrote, on why the US has said they will > > not sign the MAI: > > > > > Maybe they were looking for a way to save face by backing out this way > > > Marty, rather than acknowledging the enormous ground swell of opposition > > > to the damned thing. > > > > Isn't it more likely due to differences between imperialists? This may > > include each's margin of manuever in dealing with pressure from > > below, but the real reason is their rivalry. > > > > Bill Burgess > > > >
