Re: The Battle of Seattle
Whats the diffrence between Chechnya and Kosovo? How is it that the US can smash one yet is poweerless to act on behalf of the Chechins? Easy one: Greater Serbia doesn't have a stupendous strategic nuclear arsenal. - Mike I would add that by attacking Serbia you are giving the bear a little warning by poking him in the ribs. By sending in troops, you are taking him on directly. Ed Weick
Re: The Battle of Seattle 99/12/09
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
Re: The Battle of Seattle
Michael Spencer wrote: Whats the diffrence between Chechnya and Kosovo? How is it that the US can smash one yet is poweerless to act on behalf of the Chechins? Easy one: Greater Serbia doesn't have a stupendous strategic nuclear arsenal. - Mike Greetings! There was an article in the 8Dec99 NYT about Chechnya which I found sufficiently interesting to put up a note about it on my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/etc.html (The second item from the top of the page -- the topmost item is about Chernobyl) The Sorrow and the Pity goes on \brad mccormick -- Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21) Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] 914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua NY 10514-3403 USA --- ![%THINK;[XML]] Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
Re: The Battle of Seattle 99/12/09
Edward, Thanks for the important bit of history. The WTO will continue to rear its ugly head but it appears that protesters can have an impact on policy. Bill Ward 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
Re: The Battle of Seattle
Jan Matthieu of Flemish Greens wrote: The tragic of the whole thing is that the protestors who managed to disrupt the talks at Seattle played straight into the cards of those interests they are so much against. The US big companies prefer no new talks to any real changes the way third world and some European countries wanted. Well, I'm not sure about that. In the WTO, the smaller countries do have some clout, if only because of their numbers. I believe that the late and unlamented MAI was pursued in the more exclusive OECD because a similar initiative, the MIA, was facing opposition from small countries in the WTO. But I'm also led to believe that the WTO is, as I think Clinton mentioned, that the WTO is a "concensus" organization because the powerful nations in which the TNCs are based know that under a one-nation one-vote regime, the small nations would gang up on them. That said, isn't it the case that if the WTO goes ahead, the US and TNCs will wheedle, bribe and threaten the smaller and less developed countries into submission? So long as the structure of the WTO remains, individual concessions can be used as negotiating fodder (bribes of a sort) and then be gradually whittled away by challenges from TNCs in the WTO tribunals. The arcane legal details by which, say, shipping a load of X implies a right to trade in megatons of Y on the same terms or that absolute "proof" of harm must be evinced in order to ban Z on health risk grounds -- those details offer a host of cracks into which the TNCs will drive flying wedges of lawyers whenever they choose. I doubt that India, let alone Botswana, can front as much legal and technical expertise to tackle the Frankenseeds invasion as Monsanto alone can to pursue it. Even Canada, under existing NAFTA rules, was unable to defend itself against the determination of Ethyl Corp. (the folks that brought us tetra-ethyl lead) to flog methyl-cyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl as a gas additive. That couldn't have happened if NAFTA had been scuttled in a timely fashion. If the WTO hits a wall, that does leave the way open for the US to continue its program to keep the world safe for TNC markets and resource exploitation. But at least the small countries haven't publically and officially signed over their sovereignty to tribunals dominated by US/TNC revolving-door econocrats. So I dunno, Jan. I think the TNCs want their Declaration of Independence and their Constitution, signed and sealed by putatively democratic governments, establishing them as the only true citizens and officially reducing the rest of us to the status of biomass. Until they get that we can go on annoying them, however mixed our collective motives and devious or corrupt our governments. - Mike -- Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/mspencer/home.html ---
Re: The Battle of Seattle
I would not like to see the WTO scuttled or backed off into a small corner, though I do recognize that it is flawed as it currently exists. How might it be fixed? In column in the Globe and Mail recently, Sylvia Ostry suggested that we need a WEO to handle global environmental issues and a revived or empowered ILO to handle global labour issues. And on the matter of negotiation and dispute resolution between rich countries and poor, a special fund might be established which ensures a more level playing field. But I'm probably dreaming in technicolour here. Ed Weick Jan Matthieu of Flemish Greens wrote: The tragic of the whole thing is that the protestors who managed to disrupt the talks at Seattle played straight into the cards of those interests they are so much against. The US big companies prefer no new talks to any real changes the way third world and some European countries wanted. Well, I'm not sure about that. In the WTO, the smaller countries do have some clout, if only because of their numbers. I believe that the late and unlamented MAI was pursued in the more exclusive OECD because a similar initiative, the MIA, was facing opposition from small countries in the WTO. But I'm also led to believe that the WTO is, as I think Clinton mentioned, that the WTO is a "concensus" organization because the powerful nations in which the TNCs are based know that under a one-nation one-vote regime, the small nations would gang up on them. That said, isn't it the case that if the WTO goes ahead, the US and TNCs will wheedle, bribe and threaten the smaller and less developed countries into submission? So long as the structure of the WTO remains, individual concessions can be used as negotiating fodder (bribes of a sort) and then be gradually whittled away by challenges from TNCs in the WTO tribunals. The arcane legal details by which, say, shipping a load of X implies a right to trade in megatons of Y on the same terms or that absolute "proof" of harm must be evinced in order to ban Z on health risk grounds -- those details offer a host of cracks into which the TNCs will drive flying wedges of lawyers whenever they choose. I doubt that India, let alone Botswana, can front as much legal and technical expertise to tackle the Frankenseeds invasion as Monsanto alone can to pursue it. Even Canada, under existing NAFTA rules, was unable to defend itself against the determination of Ethyl Corp. (the folks that brought us tetra-ethyl lead) to flog methyl-cyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl as a gas additive. That couldn't have happened if NAFTA had been scuttled in a timely fashion. If the WTO hits a wall, that does leave the way open for the US to continue its program to keep the world safe for TNC markets and resource exploitation. But at least the small countries haven't publically and officially signed over their sovereignty to tribunals dominated by US/TNC revolving-door econocrats. So I dunno, Jan. I think the TNCs want their Declaration of Independence and their Constitution, signed and sealed by putatively democratic governments, establishing them as the only true citizens and officially reducing the rest of us to the status of biomass. Until they get that we can go on annoying them, however mixed our collective motives and devious or corrupt our governments. - Mike -- Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/mspencer/home.html ---
Re: The Battle of Seattle
Ed, 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. --- Bill Ward Research Director Arthritis Research Institute of America [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, 8 Dec 1999 08:18:26Ed Weick wrote: I would not like to see the WTO scuttled or backed off into a small corner, though I do recognize that it is flawed as it currently exists. How might it be fixed? In column in the Globe and Mail recently, Sylvia Ostry suggested that we need a WEO to handle global environmental issues and a revived or empowered ILO to handle global labour issues. And on the matter of negotiation and dispute resolution between rich countries and poor, a special fund might be established which ensures a more level playing field. But I'm probably dreaming in technicolour here. Ed Weick Jan Matthieu of Flemish Greens wrote: The tragic of the whole thing is that the protestors who managed to disrupt the talks at Seattle played straight into the cards of those interests they are so much against. The US big companies prefer no new talks to any real changes the way third world and some European countries wanted. Well, I'm not sure about that. In the WTO, the smaller countries do have some clout, if only because of their numbers. I believe that the late and unlamented MAI was pursued in the more exclusive OECD because a similar initiative, the MIA, was facing opposition from small countries in the WTO. But I'm also led to believe that the WTO is, as I think Clinton mentioned, that the WTO is a "concensus" organization because the powerful nations in which the TNCs are based know that under a one-nation one-vote regime, the small nations would gang up on them. That said, isn't it the case that if the WTO goes ahead, the US and TNCs will wheedle, bribe and threaten the smaller and less developed countries into submission? So long as the structure of the WTO remains, individual concessions can be used as negotiating fodder (bribes of a sort) and then be gradually whittled away by challenges from TNCs in the WTO tribunals. The arcane legal details by which, say, shipping a load of X implies a right to trade in megatons of Y on the same terms or that absolute "proof" of harm must be evinced in order to ban Z on health risk grounds -- those details offer a host of cracks into which the TNCs will drive flying wedges of lawyers whenever they choose. I doubt that India, let alone Botswana, can front as much legal and technical expertise to tackle the Frankenseeds invasion as Monsanto alone can to pursue it. Even Canada, under existing NAFTA rules, was unable to defend itself against the determination of Ethyl Corp. (the folks that brought us tetra-ethyl lead) to flog methyl-cyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl as a gas additive. That couldn't have happened if NAFTA had been scuttled in a timely fashion. If the WTO hits a wall, that does leave the way open for the US to continue its program to keep the world safe for TNC markets and resource exploitation. But at least the small countries haven't publically and officially signed over their sovereignty to tribunals dominated by US/TNC revolving-door econocrats. So I dunno, Jan. I think the TNCs want their Declaration of Independence and their Constitution, signed and sealed by putatively democratic governments, establishing them as the only true citizens and officially reducing the rest of us to the status of biomass. Until they get that we can go on annoying them, however mixed our collective motives and devious or corrupt our governments. - Mike -- Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/mspencer/home.html --- Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com
Re: The Battle of Seattle
Bill Ward: 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. --- 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. Ed Weick
RE: The Battle of Seattle
Re the USA Whats the diffrence between Chechnya and Kosovo? How is it that the US can smash one yet is poweerless to act on behalf of the Chechins? Also the McDonalds in Belgarde did not save the Serbs did it? Another hole in the argument of the globalising running dogs Cheers From Aotearoa - New Zealand We just elected a post structurally adjusted Centre-Left-Green Coalition government Cheers David Tolich Bill Ward: 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. --- 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. Ed Weick
Re: The Battle of Seattle
Whats the diffrence between Chechnya and Kosovo? How is it that the US can smash one yet is poweerless to act on behalf of the Chechins? Easy one: Greater Serbia doesn't have a stupendous strategic nuclear arsenal. - Mike
Re: The Battle of Seattle
Jan, What were the "real changes.. third world and some European counties wanted"? And what were the chances that they could have gotten them? Bruce Leier - Original Message - From: "Jan Matthieu" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Michael Gurstein" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "futurework" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 6:07 PM Subject: Re: The Battle of Seattle The tragic of the whole thing is that the protestors who managed to disrupt the talks at Seattle played straight into the cards of those interests they are so much against. The US big companies prefer no new talks to any real changes the way third world and some European countries wanted. Jan Matthieu Flemish Greens -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Michael Gurstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aan: futurework [EMAIL PROTECTED] Datum: mardi 7 décembre 1999 17:48 Onderwerp: Fw: The Battle of Seattle This is by no means the end of Big Business. The richest 1% still own 90% of everything in this world. They will not go down without a fight. But they have been put on notice that people from all walks of life have had their fill and will not let up until we have a fair, just, and democratic economy. This week, Seattle was the Lexington and Concord of a movement that now cannot be stopped. Mark it down, this last great, important date of the 20th century -- November 30, 1999 -- The Battle of Seattle, the day the people got tired of having to work a second job while fighting off the collection agents and decided it was time the pie was shared with the people who baked it. Yours, Michael Moore A HREF="http://www.michaelmoore.com"http://www.mich aelmoore.com/A [EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. We're still looking for someone to run our web site. Someone who can write, edit, and make the thing look like a million rubles. It's a full time job located in our New York City office. We need someone who, like us, sees all the subversive, crazy potential of the Internet. E-mail us at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
