THE WTO AND FREE TRADE--PART 2

In the U.S. (though not in Europe), a liberal is a person "who believes in a society that taxes the well-off and uses the proceeds to help the poor and unlucky."[1] In the U.S., liberalism is the political philosophy that expresses those ideas.

On the other hand, the "liberalization" of an economy (or "neo-liberal" economic policy[2]) has nothing to do with liberalism or being a liberal in the U.S. sense of that term. Liberalization means (according to the big Merriam-Webster dictionary) "to free from official control." That is what "neo-liberal" economics is about -- removing societal controls from markets. The goal of "liberalization" today is "global free trade." (See discussion in REHW #673 last week.)

Global free trade is a utopian goal, meaning that it embodies an impossible ideal: to remove all restrictions from markets. Free trade is utopian because it runs counter to the way humans have always behaved. When humans develop markets, they impose all kinds of restrictions on those markets.

U.S. history provides an excellent example of typical market restrictions and interventions. From the beginning, the U.S. developed its industrial base behind a wall of high tariffs (taxes on imported goods) to protect weak domestic industries against competition from Europe. Starting in the 18th century the federal government subsidized the construction of roads and later railroads. The western territories were taken from their original inhabitants with help from a host of government subsidies -- the government conducted land surveys; organized citizen militias and paid bounties for Indian scalps; promoted mineral exploration; and encouraged settlement by offering free land. Like every other country on Earth, the U.S. has always restricted and shaped market activity to promote its own particular societal goals.

Now supposedly things are going to change. For the past 25 years, a bi-partisan financial and political elite has made it a key goal to impose "free trade" on the U.S. and on the rest of the world -- to try to force every country in the world to remove restrictions from their markets. ("Structural adjustment" is the name for this activity when it is imposed on countries outside the U.S. by organizations like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.) After 25 years of evangelical effort, the utopian goal of "global free trade" has become a kind of civil religion in the U.S. People who favor international trade but not "global free trade" are stigmatized by the NEW YORK TIMES and the WALL STREET JOURNAL as "isolationists" or worse. Both major political parties are dominated by global free trade advocates -- Al Gore, Bill Bradley, George W. Bush, and Steve Forbes are all avid believers in global free trade. No choice here.

As we will see, the main proponents and beneficiaries of free trade are transnational corporations such as Gerber Foods, Chiquita, Kodak, Monsanto, Microsoft, the asbestos manufacturers, the lead industry, the major magazine publishers, and so on. Slowly, starting in the early 1970s, it dawned on the executives of these transnationals that the gospel of "free trade" -- if widely accepted -- could give them relief from the main factors that were causing their profits to stagnate. Those factors were (and still are):

(1) insufficient consumer demand for their products;

(2) the high cost of labor;

(3) the high cost and scarcity of raw materials;

(4) societal standards requiring openness and public accountability;

(5) laws respecting the rights of workers;

(6) legal protections for the natural environment.

As we will see, free trade doctrine and law now provide relief from each of these problems.

In carrying out their "global free trade" campaign over the past 25 years, the corporations didn't act alone. They funded other institutions that developed the rationale for global free trade and then spread the word -- new strategic organizations like the Business Roundtable, think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute, private philanthropies like the Olin and Richardson Foundations, universities (mainly University of Chicago with help from scholars based elsewhere), and publications like NATIONAL REVIEW. Together these organizations developed a vision that emphasized maximum freedom -- a version of 19th century libertarianism expressed in the language of individual liberty but implemented as freedom from market restrictions, libertarianism for corporations. The new libertarian gospel successfully blended "global free trade" with the promise that U.S. institutions -- because of their inherent superiority -- are destined to spread worldwide. This gave "global free trade" a patriotic coloring AND made its future seem inevitable and irresistible.

Armed with the utopian vision, corporate lawyers began patiently re-working a group of existing international organizations, among them the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). But they needed something new. They needed an agency with legal standing equivalent to that of the United Nations but one that wouldn't have to conduct its business in a fishbowl and wouldn't be subject to fickle popular controls. So over a decade they morphed an existing institution -- the GATT -- into a new agency with the needed characteristics. They called it the World Trade Organization (WTO) and it sprang to life in January, 1995. The WTO now has legal standing equivalent to the United Nations, but it operates largely in secret. It holds its meetings at undisclosed locations and times in Geneva, Switzerland, and makes decisions behind closed doors based on pleadings, evidence, and expert testimony that are confidential. Non-governmental organizations cannot submit documents to the proceedings, nor witness deliberations. WTO decisions are binding, world-wide.

WTO judges are trade bureaucrats, usually corporate lawyers. There are no rules preventing them from having conflicts of interest in the matters they decide. There is no appeal to any outside organization; WTO rulings can only be appealed to another panel within the WTO itself. The WTO enforces its own rules by imposing sanctions against rule-breakers. Any country that breaks the rules repeatedly will find itself shunned, locked out of world commerce, without anyone to buy from or sell to at competitive prices. The WTO has no army but it has real power. (Of course the military apparatus of the developed countries, especially the U.S., is the ultimate enforcer of WTO decisions, though it is definitely not considered polite to mention this.) At present, the WTO is the closest thing we have to a world government but it is explicitly designed to serve the interests and needs of transnational corporations, not of people.

The WTO was created by international treaty; 134 nations have now signed on. Representatives of the 134 nations are meeting in Seattle, Washington November 29-Dec. 3 to discuss ways to expand the WTO's power even further. But there is now almost 5 years of WTO history to scrutinize and based on this history, representatives of labor, human rights, environment and community development organizations will journey to Seattle for a peaceful "Protest of the Century" to express their displeasure with the WTO. They want the WTO opened up to public examination before any consideration is given to expanding the WTO's power. (To learn more about protest-related activities, telephone 1-877-786-7986.)

The WTO serves the needs of corporations very effectively. To begin with, those who can afford to lodge a complaint with the WTO almost always win. Of 22 cases brought before the WTO in the last 5 years, 19 have been settled in favor of the party bringing the challenge. This means that big companies that can get their government to go to bat for them have a major advantage over small companies and small nations.

Example: The current accepted approach to environmental protection is called "pollution prevention" or "clean production." Pollution prevention is the highest stated goal of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It means not creating dangerous pollution in the first place -- often by banning dangerous substances. For example, the U.S. has banned lead from gasoline and DDT from farming because the U.S. concluded in the 1970s that there was no safe way to "manage" such substances after they were created.

Now the WTO has declared such product bans illegal. WTO rules forbid banning toxic substances -- the WTO only allows toxics to be regulated using risk assessment. Thus the WTO is an effective hammer for breaking apart the modern structure of environmental protection and returning the world to older "end of pipe" pollution controls. Large corporations had little difficulty meeting "end of pipe" regulations defined by "risk assessments." Under this older system, corporate experts and lawyers could usually battle regulatory officials to a standstill. Furthermore, the "end of pipe" system favored large corporations over small ones because big companies could afford the experts and lawyers to make the system work for them. Bans are a different kettle of fish -- once a ban is enacted, there is no "wiggle room" for corporate experts and lawyers. Product bans affect large and small businesses alike, removing the advantage that large corporations enjoyed under the "end of pipe" system.

Now the European Union has announced its intention to ban electronic products that contain lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium and halogenated flame retardants by the year 2004.[3,pgs.30-32;4] The EU also intends to require that 5% of the plastics in electronic components must be recycled, and further the EU intends to make electronics manufacturers responsible for their products from cradle to grave -- the manufacturer retains responsibility for ultimate disposal. (Such approaches are being used successfully in Germany today.)

Acting on behalf of the American Electronics Association (IBM, Motorola, Microsoft, Raytheon, etc.) the Clinton/Gore administration immediately filed an aggressive challenge to the EU's proposal. The EU proposal is WTO-illegal for many reasons, the U.S. says. And the U.S. is almost certainly right.

If the U.S. wins the electronics dispute, which seems very likely, Congress will not have to raise these issues because the EU's attempt to impose pollution prevention on the electronics industry will have been declared illegal by bureaucrats in Geneva, Switzerland, and their decision will override U.S. (and European Union) law.

Thus the WTO is an excellent vehicle for ridding the world of product bans for pollution prevention. The electronics giants don't even have to fight this battle themselves -- the free trade enthusiasts within the U.S. government, led by environmentalist Al Gore, are fighting it for them. For corporations, "global free trade" as embodied in the WTO is a dream come true.

And this is just the beginning. More next week.

-- Peter Montague (Rachel's Envoronment and Health Weekly) (~~@~~.~~~), November 04, 1999

Answers

I can hardly wait

-- (ax@grinder.groan), November 04, 1999.

The same people who are bringing you the WTO are also bringing you the global green movement. Now, what does that say?

If you can't read the writing on the way, then you a just plain BLIND.

-- OR (orwelliator@biosys.net), November 04, 1999.

brain (or finger) fart alert...

Make that, if you can't read the writing on the wall, then you are just plain BLIND.

-- OR (orwelliator@biosys.net), November 04, 1999.

The same people who are bringing you the WTO are also bringing you the global green movement. Now, what does that say?

It means that your reading comprehension is nonexistant...read it again with your knee-jerk deactivated.

-- (dsj@webvt.net), November 04, 1999.

djs ...no kneejerk reaction required. I have already done lengthy research on the subject. It's a fact jack, like it or not. You want me to clog up this board and post some of it? I just might, just to kneejerk you into a state of awakening.

-- OR (orwelliator@biosys.net), November 05, 1999.

Go ahead, OR. The environmentalists are the only people I know who are more AGAINST this WTO crap than the LibertariAnarchists. Who's protesting in Seattle this month, the Libertarians? HAH! It's the damn tree-huggers, knee-jerk.

This is one area in which I find the left and the right in agreement. This is the point I was trying to make by posting this article. I thought everyone here would agree.

Trot out this so-called info you have. I'd love to pass it around and display your ignorance and naivette to my friends.

-- (dsj@webvt.net), November 05, 1999.

Okay djs, since I value my spare time and this is a y2k oriented board, we're going to set some definitions here to restrict what I will be posting. This is a huge issue so let's narrow it down.

I have brought up the issue of the green movement as it relates to a globalized free trade organization. You have brought up the issue of the Washington state environmentalists as it pertains to Washington state.

Let's meet on common ground. What are the conflicting issues of the WA state environmentalists vs the WTO?

Remember, my issue is with the WTO pushers being the same as the green movement pushers on a global basis. Before I put in the time and effort, I want to know we are debating apples versus apples. If we are on the same page, then I will put in the time to make my case. Otherwise, I have more important things to attend to. Unfortunately, although this knowledge is socially critical, much of what I can document will go to waste on this board.

-- OR (orwelliator@biosys.net), November 06, 1999.

OR: "You have brought up the issue of the Washington state environmentalists as it pertains to Washington state.

Let's meet on common ground. What are the conflicting issues of the WA state environmentalists vs the WTO?"

WA state enviros have nothing to do with this. Major multinationals, through the WTO, are working to overturn national environmental, labor and financial protections of all national governments. The WTO is meeting in conference in Seattle this month and next to tighten their grip on national governance and international finance.

Environmental orgs, international labor unions and NGOs from all over the world are flocking to Seattle to protest the proceedings. If you don't even know that, it is not worth my wasting MY time discussing this with YOU.

Go back to your silly little Y2K chat. This thread is ended.

-- (dsj@webvt.net), November 06, 1999.

Where do you think the majority of money given to the organizations like the Sierra Club, Earth First and other large environmental organizations comes from?

Try the Ford Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation, The Pew Charitable Trust, etc etc. From where does this foundation money come from? Multinational corporate profits. What is their goal? To espouse the global warming gambit, a gambit that has been rejected by 18,000 scientists as pseudo science, unsupported by what is commonly accepted to be the key indicator of global warming, a gradual upward global temperature increase. In actuality, our global temperatures have slightly decreased in the last 2 decades. Fingers pointing to unusual and violent weather patterns and localized temperature fluctuations need look no further than solar cycles, which have been recorded since the late 1700's as being the culprit.

Who is pushing for WTO and who brought GATT and NAFTA to us? Our current administration..."Both major political parties are dominated by global free trade advocates -- Al Gore, Bill Bradley, George W. Bush, and Steve Forbes are all avid believers in global free trade. No choice here." Read it again. NO CHOICE. We are having the Kyoto protocol, Agenda 21, and aspects of the global biodiversity assessement shoved down our collective throats by recent and current administrations as well. Why that's insane! you say. They giveth with the one hand and taketh away with the other. There are plenty of good people out there working to protect our environment, not even understanding the game that is being played at the top. By the way, the WTO is just picking up the agenda of the now dormant MAI or multilateral agreement on investment.

What is the goal?

http://www.sovereignty.net/p/ngo/iucn.htm

The IUCN: From the UN to Your Back Yard )1998, Sovereignty International Why is it that Biosphere Reserves, World Heritage Sites, Sustainable Development Programs, The Wildlands Project, and Convention on Biological Diversity all call for greenways, protected areas, wilderness reserves and natural corridors surrounded by regulated "buffer zones"? And why do federal agencies, the Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, and other environmental groups strongly promote the same "sustainable" development agenda?

It is no coincidence. All of these programs, treaties, and organizations have one thing in common; the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

First accredited by the United Nations in 1946 as a scientific advisor of the General Assembly, the IUCN presently has more than 880 state, government agency and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) members in 133 countries. Its mission is "to influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable." (Italics added)

Despite the IUCN's pretense of being a scientific body, the Spring 1996 issue of the IUCN's Ethics Working Group's affiliate publication, Earth Ethics, suggests otherwise. The IUCN, admits Earth Ethics, "promotes alternative models for sustainable communities and lifestyles, based in ecospiritual practices and principles... [To solve] the problems that face the world today, humanity must undergo a radical change in its attitudes, values, and behavior.... In response to this situation, a new global ethics is taking form, and it is finding expression in international law." (Italics added) Likewise, the IUCN's Commission on Environmental Strategy and Planning seems to be proud that they "change human behavior" by using a strategy "based less on facts...than on the values they hold." (Italics added)

Indeed, IUCN "science" is based not on facts, but on "ecospiritual" theories of pantheism (nature is God) expressed in the "biocentric" (earth centered) philosophy that all species have equal intrinsic value--humans are merely one strand in natures fragile web. The IUCN has advanced these ecospiritual principles into the pseudoscience of "conservation biology." Conservation biology holds that "natural" systems are best because they are the result of a millennia of fine- tuning by mother earth. Therefore, the only acceptable management practices for earth's fragile ecosystems are those that follow "natural" patterns. Likewise, biodiversity can only be fully protected by setting aside entire ecosystems in wilderness preserves.

The IUCN's strategy is brilliant. First, the IUCN helped create both the "science" of conservation biology and the Society of Conservation Biology. The leadership of the Society, along with David Foreman (co- founder of Earth First! and Director of the Sierra Club), then dreamed up the granddaddy of all earth protection schemes--The Wildlands Project, which demands that up to one-half of America be put into wilderness reserves and corridors, with the remaining land as buffer zones. Second, credibility for the pseudoscience of conservation biology was bought with foundation funding of conservation curricula within universities, and by strong acceptance by federal agencies belonging to the IUCN. Finally, the IUCN wrote or helped write Agenda 21, the Conventions on Biological Diversity, Desertification, Sustainable Development as well as the President's Council on Sustainable Development's (PCSD) report in which, surprise, surprise, supporting documents like the UN Global Biodiversity Assessment name The Wildlands Project as the template for protecting biological diversity! What seem to be totally independent programs and activities are in reality a masterpiece orchestrated by the IUCN.

Through the IUCN, government agencies such as the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the US Forest Service, the EPA and other federal agencies can huddle in private with the Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, National Wildlife Federation, National Audubon Society, Society of Conservation Biology, UNEP, UNDP, UNESCO and many others to develop strategies to implement their "ecospiritual" agenda on the ground by changing US policy -- without any knowledge of Congress or the people who will be affected.

Making US policy is constitutionally the exclusive right of Congress, by the consent of the people, and not federal bureaucrats. Nonetheless, an August, 1993 EPA Internal Working Document states, "Natural resource and environmental agencies... should...develop a joint strategy to help the United States fulfill its existing international obligations (e.g. Convention on Biological Diversity, Agenda 21).... The executive branch should direct federal agencies to evaluate national policies...in light of international policies and obligations, and to amend national policies to achieve international objectives." (Bold and italics added)

IUCN members also dominate the President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD), which has spawned a host of ecospiritually based programs like the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, the Clean Water Initiative, the Sustainable Communities Program and ecosystem management. Not only do IUCN members essentially control the PCSD, the same organizations dominate the various stakeholder and partnership councils that develop the programs locally--guaranteeing IUCN control or influence at every level, from the UN to our backyards. In the process, our IUCN-member federal agencies have forgotten that we are a government 'by the people,' not federal bureaucrats. A March 1994 Bureau of Land Management Internal Working Document for ecosystem management, proclaimed that federal bureaucrats should "consider human beings as a biological resource."

Given that UN Secretary Kofi Annan is restructuring the UN to allow environmental NGOs direct involvement in policy formulation and enforcement through the "People's Assembly" and the revamped "Trusteeship Council," things are likely to get very dicey since the IUCN is at the head of the NGO list. The crowning piece to this strategy may have come on January 18, 1996, when president Clinton signed Executive Order 12986, which states, in part: "I hereby extend to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources [IUCN] the privileges and immunities that provide or pertain to immunity from suit..." Although it is yet to be tested in court, the IUCN and its US members, now have diplomatic immunity from lawsuit by any American citizen. Since the Sierra Club, EPA and other earth saviors are IUCN members, does this mean they can freely enter private property with impunity, looking for violations of outrageous and contrived international laws that they also originally wrote?

In short, the IUCN through its US members--not Congress nor American citizens--controls or heavily influences almost all US environmental law. The only missing piece to make this a living reality is the naming of the IUCN as the NGO in charge of the UN Trusteeship Council. Something to think about.

Michael S. Coffman, Ph.D.

-- OR (orwelliator@biosys.net), November 06, 1999.