Forwarded message:
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 10:02:07 -0700
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Sid Shniad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Globalism With A Human Face?
The Washington Post Friday, May 29, 1998; Page A27
In today's Washington Post editorial page, E.J. Dionne Jr. claims that
President Clinton's speech at the World Trade Organization last week marks
"a major shift in America's approach to global economics" that reflects the
concerns of globalizations critics. Unfortunately, Dionne argues, no one
was listening - particularly the critics themselves.
Globalism With A Human Face
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Some of what happens in politics is hidden in plain sight.
Last week, President Clinton announced a major shift in America's approach
to global economics. His ideas would affect how workers and the environment
gain protection and whether trade issues are settled in the open or in secret.
Almost nobody paid attention.
Clinton's announcement came in a speech before the World Trade Organization
in Geneva. There was a time when the address would have been front-page
news. It was, for one thing, a direct response to critics of the WTO who
accuse it of bowing to the wishes of powerful international companies and
making its decisions without any public accountability.
Clinton said that on the matter of secrecy, at least, the critics are
right. "We must modernize the WTO by opening its doors to the scrutiny and
participation of the public," Clinton declared. "Today, when one nation
challenges the practices of another, the proceeding takes place behind
closed doors. I propose that all hearings by the WTO be open to the
public." Clinton promised that the United States would open any proceeding
it is part of and challenge other countries to do the same.
For good measure he proposed that private citizens be able to present their
views before the WTO -- meaning that business or labor people, Ralph Nader
or Pat Buchanan, environmentalists or anyone else could raise a ruckus when
they thought vital issues were at stake. Since international organizations
now play such a big role in every nation's economy, how can the basic right
to petition and air grievances be denied?
Calling on the WTO to work more closely with environmentalists and the
International Labor Organization to lift standards, Clinton directly
borrowed rhetoric from critics of his past trade policies: "We must do more
to ensure that spirited economic competition among nations never becomes a
race to the bottom -- in environmental protections, consumer protections or
labor standards. We should be leveling up, not leveling down."
Clinton acknowledged with unusual bluntness that without such protections,
"we cannot build the necessary public support for the expansion of trade.
Working people will only assume the risk of a free international market if
they have confidence that the system will work for them."
That Clinton's speech got so little coverage may reflect the muffling of
his voice by scandal news. But it demonstrates for certain the eclipse of
trade as a major public issue after last year's defeat of authority for the
president to negotiate trade deals on a "fast track."
In fact, Clinton's new proposals are a direct response to the defeat of
fast track. They grow out of continuing discussions between Treasury
Secretary Robert Rubin and a group of House Democrats.
Some of Rubin's interlocutors -- Rep. David Bonior of Michigan, for example
-- were sharply critical of Clinton's old approach to trade. But many of
them, including Reps. Nancy Pelosi of California and Barney Frank of
Massachusetts, are also interested in a "third way" that accepts global
markets as a reality but seeks, as Frank put it, "globalization plus
civility."
On trade, says Frank, "the president and the Democrats realize there's a
fundamental intellectual tension. We're not for trickle-down domestically.
Why should we be for trickle-down internationally?" Thus the importance of
Clinton's "leveling up" rhetoric. "We're not saying no to
internationalism," Frank says. "We're saying you have to do it with offsets
for inequality."
Another sign that foes of Clinton's past trade policies see him responding
to their views came from AFL-CIO President John Sweeney. He praised the
speech as "a dramatic turning point in the debate over the rules of
globalization."
Commerce Secretary William Daley -- a free-trader who served as the
administration point man on the North American Free Trade Agreement --
acknowledged in an interview this week that "some of our friends on the far
right and far left" regard the WTO as "some sort of Trilateral Commission,"
a powerful body that makes important decisions in secret.
"If we're going to depend on international organizations," Daley said,
referring to the WTO and International Monetary Fund, "we'd better not only
start defending them but also deal with the legitimate problems that have
come up. . . . We're trying to get this debate on a different level."
Forging a new consensus around global growth with equity would be a major
achievement. But the resounding silence that greeted the president's speech
suggests that the road there will be long and that there may be limits on
Clinton's ability to lead the journey.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
