OT: WTO~~Why the Fuss in Seattle?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

The Freepers are all over this. Play by play; minute by minute. I'm surprised to see no comment so far. So I guess I'll kick it off with this subtle backgrounder.

http://www.gristmagazine.com

The Battle in Seattle~~~

by Donella H. Meadows~~~ 11.29.99

Last month The Economist ran a frustrated editorial wondering why environmental groups would picket the upcoming World Trade Organization (WTO) meeting in Seattle. The headline read "Why Greens Should Love Trade."

Actually greens see no particular reason either to love or hate trade. They don't share the religious beliefs of economists, who love trade as indiscriminately as they love growth. Greens are inclined to ask questions. What is being traded? For whose benefit? At whose expense? What are the full costs to workers, local communities, nature? When those questions are answered, some trade looks lovable, and some we would be better off without.

What enviros, along with human rights advocates, labor organizations, and many other citizen groups, emphatically do not love is the World Trade Organization. That's because they've had four years now to watch it work. Here are some examples of what they've seen:

The European Union banned its own farmers from injecting meat animals with hormones (which make animals bulk up faster, but are suspected of causing cancer and hormone disruption) and forbade the import of hormone-treated meats. The U.S. and Canada, whose feedlots are riddled with hormones, challenged this ban in the WTO. The WTO ordered the Europeans to drop the import ban or suffer retaliatory tariffs. The U.S. has chosen to impose those tariffs on cheeses, mustards, wines, and other profitable European exports -- that's why angry French farmers are smashing their tractors into McDonald's restaurants.

The U.S. Endangered Species Act requires shrimp trawlers to install turtle exclusion devices in their nets, so they will not catch and drown endangered sea turtles. To protect its shrimpers from cheaper imports caught without turtle protectors, the U.S. forbids shrimp imports from countries that do not have a similar law. India, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Thailand challenged that ban in the WTO, which ruled that the U.S. measure violates free trade rules.

When the EPA decreed that gasoline sold in the U.S. had to be formulated in a way that reduces air pollution, Venezuela and Brazil sued and won under the WTO. The EPA weakened its standards.

Japan had stricter limits on pesticide residues in agricultural products than did other countries. The U.S. challenged Japan in the WTO and won, forcing Japanese consumers to ingest more pesticides than their own government considers safe.

Guatemala passed a law recommended by the World Health Organization forbidding makers of baby formula to claim that expensive formula (rather than free mother's milk) is necessary for fat, healthy babies. Gerber Products convinced the U.S. to challenge that law in the WTO. The WTO didn't even have to decide; the threat of a trade challenge caused Guatemala to drop its law.

The citizens of Massachusetts, upset by the brutal human rights abuses of the military rulers of Burma, passed a law forbidding their state government from doing business with any contractor that does business with Burma. Some of the affected companies persuaded Europe and Japan to challenge this boycott in the WTO. The case is still pending; meanwhile the Clinton Administration uses it as an argument to dissuade other states from similar sanctions.

The WTO is not the only free-trade body that works to weaken environmental and human rights laws. Under NAFTA (the trade agreement linking the U.S., Canada, and Mexico), the Ethyl Corporation forced Canada to withdraw its ban on Ethyl's new gasoline additive MMT, which is suspected to cause brain damage. The Metalclad Corporation is suing a Mexican state for shutting down one of its hazardous plants. A Vancouver corporation is suing the state of California for banning yet another gasoline additive (MTBE), which has polluted the state's groundwater.

The rationale for decisions like these is that no nation should have the power through trade sanctions to reach into any other nation and dictate its laws. The U.S. shouldn't force other nations to protect turtles. Europeans shouldn't forbid U.S. feedlots from using hormones. What the free-traders are astonishingly slow at perceiving is that the WTO does allow violations of sovereignty and self-determination, but only in one direction -- toward weakening social and environmental protections. Other nations can pressure the U.S. not to protect turtles. The U.S. can punish Europeans for not wanting meat laced with hormones. A U.S. company can strike down a Canadian health law. Corporations can lean on a U.S. state's commitment to human rights.

The Economist, in trying to fathom why greens don't love free trade, expressed perfectly, if inadvertently, the problem at the foundation of free trade fanaticism. "Protecting the environment," it grudgingly admitted, "is as legitimate a goal as free trade."

No. Not even close. Breath and life and health are infinitely more legitimate goals than corporate expansion. Human freedom and dignity can't be valued on the same scale as stock portfolios. Making deals, shipping stuff, globalizing the economy is a sometimes useful, often destructive preoccupation of a small, self-important minority of the human race. The environment is our life support system. There is just no comparison.

Thinking there is, thinking that trade is an end, not a means, not even thinking about what the ends might be, that is the fatal lunacy of the WTO. Sane people will be standing outside the Seattle meeting, protesting.

- - - - - - - - -

Donella H. Meadows is director of the Sustainability Institute and an adjunct professor of environmental studies at Dartmouth College. ---------------------------------------------

Then there's the labor perspective which I'll leave to someone else. ~~ DF

-- (Donella_Fan@WTO.=NWO), November 30, 1999

Answers

Excellent Donella Fan! This is a serious issue and very few people know about it - multi-national corporations controlling the world and it has to stop! If y2k isn't serious enough, it will go on and on unless people wake up. It isn't just about waking up to Y2K and the computer glitch, but about the interdependencies on the planet and the use of might over right. Sheri http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin

-- Sheri (wncy2k@nccn.net), November 30, 1999.

My burning questions about the tee vee scenes is "What is all that smoke about?' Is it tear gas, or really just smoke to hide any physical abuse the cops inflict on the non-violent protesters. Saw one scene on an aggresstive cop, with billy stick, advancing on an unarmed protester, she, having to advance backwards all the time. Scene was lost by cover of trees. Wish some of those folks were on this forum tonight.

-- Smoke Screen (saw@cnn.com), November 30, 1999.

Donella,

Excellent post.

The good people demonstrating in Seattle need everyone's support.

Of course, if you happen to be a multi-million/billion dollar corporate executive, you'd be angry...and a little scared...right about now.

Good.

We, the working people, are fed up with being treated like slaves by corporations who are only interested in maximizing profits, at the expense of humans and the environment. And yes, this has EVERYTHING to do with Y2K. 99% of big corporations chose to ignore the Y2K problem for years because they didn't want spend the "profits" in order to upgrade. Now, with 31 days to go, they are reporting everything is A-OK. Well, think again.

Physical reality is about to take center stage come January 1, 2000. I bet people will notice when the power is off, the phones are not working, and the chemical plants are spewing toxic gasses. Is this what TPTB are counting on? We won't notice?

Never Never Land never really existed. Corporations are in for a rude awakening. It's starting now, in Seattle. The sleeping GIANT is awakening. "We The People" are the Sleeping Giant.

-- GoldReal (GoldReal@aol.com), November 30, 1999.


Ah! This is no good! You're right. If Y2K doesn't take them down, someone/something has to.

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), November 30, 1999.

Mara,

I would rather have corporations treat "We The People" and the environment with as much "concern" as they treat their "profit margins". If they had been doing this, there wouldn't be any protestors in Seattle.

You have nothing to lose, and everything to gain by supporting the peaceful protestors in Seattle. You have nothing to gain, and everything to lose, if you don't.

-- GoldReal (GoldReal@aol.com), November 30, 1999.



I'm from the Chicago '68 generation, know what a police riot is. I walked through the riot areas last night and this morning, listened to it all day and watched it when I could. The Seattle police showed great restraint under terrific pressure, and 98% of the demonstrators were peaceful and well-intentioned. It's a shame that the film you'll see (over and over) will be that one guy getting jabbed with clubs.

Y2k is the biggest risk WTO faces. If supply lines break down, as I expect them to, then countries will realize that independence and self-sufficiency are worth more than the profits of their corporations. When that dawns, countries will pull out of WTO real quickly.

-- bw (home@puget.sound), December 01, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ