Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jun 18, 2007 12:59:22 GMT -6
Below is an excerpt from an article written by Public Citizen's Lori Wallach, titled Commanding Heights. It describes how the WTO and NAFTA came into effect, and how Bill Clinton and his rich Corporatist friends pushed this through Congress. It further describes what a complete disaster NAFTA & the WTO have been, and how the true goal of both has been an attempt by the rich Corporations to circumvent local and national laws, as well as removing tariffs on goods made by American-owned companies on foreign soil.
"Trade lawyer and author Lori Wallach is the director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, an organization founded in 1995 (as a division of Ralph Nader's consumer advocacy group Public Citizen) to promote government and corporate accountability in issues involving trade and globalization. Wallach herself was an early entrant into the anti-globalization arena, founding the Citizens Trade Campaign in 1993.
A long-time advocate of accountability in trade offers a colorful assessment of the similar positions on trade espoused by the Clinton and Bush administrations, challenges the argument that globalization in its present form is inevitable, and talks about the impact of the September 11 on the anti-globalization protest movement. This interview was conducted in late 2001, prior to the U.S. Senate's passing of the Fast Track legislation put forth by President Bush.
Wallach's Road to Activism: Trade Agreements and Consumer Protection
INTERVIEWER: You started off working as a lobbyist, trying to work within this system, trying to make the system work to adapt to what you believed. But on a personal level, how did you become an activist against globalization? From your own background, how did that come about?
LORI WALLACH: Well, I'm a trade lawyer by training, but an activist by necessity. What ended up happening is I was actually not wanting to do traditional law, so I came to a consumer group and started working on food safety. As I was working on food safety, pesticide bills, meat inspection, lobbyists from different corporations would be testifying at hearings, and they would say things like: "You can't improve those pesticide laws, not under the GATT [General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade] or NAFTA [North American Free Trade Agreement]. And Codex Alimentarius isn't going to allow that beef-inspection bill." And I'd think, what are they talking about? I'm a trade lawyer GATT is supposed to be about tariffs and quotas. What are they talking about pesticides and meat inspection? So I heard this over and over enough times, and it didn't seem like the corporations who should be fighting us on the food-safety bills were fighting us face to face. I started to get this feeling ... that there was another door; I was guarding only one door to the bank, and someone was ripping off the loot through another door. So I started snooping around, and after I'd heard "GATT" and "NAFTA" a couple of times, I started thinking, there's some international negotiation going on that's going to undo all this food-safety stuff I'm trying to do here in the Congress, and where the heck could it be going on?
So the long and short of it is, as I was snooping around, I bumped into perhaps one of the 10 or so people [doing this] at this point, and we all had the same light-bulb situation: Ding! Something I've been working on domestically for my whole life is suddenly... The game is changing, but where has it gone? Someone had gotten a copy of a very early draft of the World Trade Organization agreement—at that point it was the GATT and word was going round. So someone had this draft, but they didn't read GATTese. Now, having been trained as a trade lawyer, I was fluent in GATTese, so someone hooked me up with that text, and I started looking at it. It wasn't about tariffs and quotas anymore; it was hundreds of pages that effectively put handcuffs on domestic governments' decisions about their social priorities, the level of food safety or environmental protection. The kinds of development policies that, for instance, made the U.S. and Japan and Europe powers, were now being taken away from the developing countries. The more I kept paging through it I thought: "Oh, my God, it's like Reagan and Thatcher gave up on the their own capitals and went to Geneva. Look at this—it's the whole kit and caboodle."
Well, the food-safety stuff was what I obviously knew best at that point, because in reading it I knew what it would do to the bills we were working on. Not immediately, but after some work, I convinced this organization that we'd better open up a front of our advocacy in these trade agreements, so I spent a gruesome amount of time in Geneva, speaking only GATTese, removing the comma and adding "and/or," removing "this," adding "that," to different drafts of what was just the food text of the WTO. To say that it was dismissed would be a gentle description of the treatment that I received, I or any labor or human rights or environmental activist or scholar or lawyer. There were just a few at this point who were there who got any response. So after two years of smashing my head against the wall, with very technical GATTese descriptions of "If you don't want to entirely sack the very basis of the public interest in food safety, please change these 20 things," and once I was chucked onto Lake Geneva one time too many, I realized this is not a legal problem; this is a power problem: They actually want to do this bad stuff ... they being the WTO and the countries and companies who are really in the driver's seats of their organization. They are not making a mistake; this is intentional. In fact, this is a way to move an agenda we have beat and tied into knots in the U.S. Congress, and this is something we have to get activist about. It's not just fixing the language.
Free Trade: Help or Hindrance to World Peace and Stability?
INTERVIEWER: When we interviewed Bill Clinton, he said that during his time in office he thought, because of lots of geopolitical changes, the end of the Cold War, and emerging democracies, that the best way of securing the markets in a lot of these former communist developing countries was to integrate them into a global economy through trade. Trade, he said, is the leading edge to creating a more secure, peaceful world.
LORI WALLACH: Well, the reality has proved that actually, in many of the countries that are the great trade successes, that are the most integrated into the global economy, not only has democracy not flourished, but in fact, it's [succeeded the most in] places where democracy has been suffocated to death, like Singapore, which on any rating is the world's most globalized county, and is [also] a repressive place, where among other things you have no right to any demonstration, and if you say boo about the government you end up in jail, if you're lucky. There's a whole set of different countries which have more or less followed the prescription of liberalization, free trade, deregulation, and certainly there's no example of someone suddenly becoming a blooming democracy. There are some examples of either corrupt or undemocratic governments being able to get richer and richer and, as a result, suppress more and more of an opposition movement.
In a way, the irony is that, particularly in the developing world, so much of the outcome of following this prescription that people were told would be the path to salvation—deregulation, free trade, liberalization—actually caused increasing social instability and upset. The basic structures of society in agrarian countries were ripped up, but there were no safety nets; there was nothing like a welfare state. Your village and the basis of that agricultural community, which may or may not be the way you want to live your life, but is [the way you live it], and there's nothing between here and there, when suddenly boom! rice is free trade, and guess what? It's being dumped from Thailand into whatever this country is, and your whole village suddenly has nothing to do, and you can either buy it with cash—but you have no job—or you can go hungry. ... And the uprooting, the "let's head to the city," the lack of social services, the privatization of the few government social services that existed, so that there are now suddenly fees for services, and poor people can't get any medical service, can't go to school—those kind of disruptions in many countries are actually at the root of the disruptions, and for that matter the anti-American feeling, because we're seen as the symbol of it, the U.S. Because it was our government, our corporations, our military, we have the IMF in Washington, D.C., we're the symbol of that whole thing. It was politically advantageous for many very powerful U.S. interests to make the rest of the world suck it up, and they could claim it was democracy, claim it was for peace [when in fact] it was for their special interests, and now all these downsides are coming out, which is why there's this growing movement against that model.
Clinton and the Shift in the Democratic Agenda
INTERVIEWER: We're focusing on the Clinton administration for much of the film. You're here working in Washington; it was a Democratic administration. The president was elected to deal with the economy in '91, '92. I presume that some of your personal views would coincide with the Democratic Party's. Watching this happen, what was your sense of why it happened, and how did you feel about it?
LORI WALLACH: Okay, let me think about how to say it passionately without using every foul word I know. ... The first thing I would say about the Clinton administration is that there would have never been any crazed NAFTA agreement passed through the U.S. Congress if it hadn't been for the Clinton administration. Democrats in Congress wouldn't have trusted [the first President] Bush, and they would have stood up, knowing what they knew from the paper, and not bought into the promises that Clinton gave and then reneged on, and there would have been no NAFTA. If there'd been no NAFTA, they probably wouldn't have finished the WTO agreement, because that was the power, the leverage, the momentum that was used to push that. This is a practicality matter. Ironically, perversely, a whole array of what would be considered the opposite of the Democrats' core agenda of economic justice, human rights, pro-environment, pro-food safety, that whole agenda got clobbered through these instruments of globalization, like NAFTA and WTO, because of the Clinton administration. Now, no doubt the Bush folks would have done plenty of bad stuff if Daddy Bush had gotten reelected, but on this front of globalization, it was like Nixon going to China. Clinton was going to have to be a Democratic president to try and use the Democratic Congress that would otherwise stand up for all the things and these agreements would tank, and if they hadn't had a Democratic president promising them, "Oh, no, don't worry—it's not really going to do blah, blah, blah," we would have sacked NAFTA, and there never would have been a WTO. Now, what's happened is in 10 years of living with the results of these agreements, the whole majority of Democrats are back where they were before Clinton tried to seduce them, because there's a real-life record, and they're all saying: "Ach! Why wasn't Clinton right? NAFTA what a disaster. It sacked this environmental law, this food safety problem." They're living with it. There's no one to rely on. They've seen the writing on the wall. But they all went through a period where they thought: "Hey, he's a Democrat; we must just be misunderstanding. This can't be as bad as it looks...."
INTERVIEWER: Why did he do it?
LORI WALLACH: I have been asked that question over and over, and there are a variety of answers. I go between the really, really, really, really rotten and cynical to the fairly rotten and cynical, because the range of possibilities does not allow for any neutral interpretation. Clinton and his whole crew are smart people. You could say there is always a sort of idiocy factor where you believe in a theory, and there's a gap between [the theory and the practice]: "I'm for free trade, but what does this set of rules actually mean for the following values I support?" With those guys you don't have to worry about that. They had enough smart people where it wasn't sort of clumsy; it wasn't a mistake. ... I think the clearest understanding of what happened was that Clinton saw himself as having as his constituency not the working people and the environmentalists and the small farmers who'd elected him, who were the core of the Democratic Party, but rather he really did the bidding of a handful of very big corporations, Wall Street, and the bond world. He was extremely eager personally to be accepted by this sort of political and intellectual foreign-policy elite, and you take those financial things, and add that psychology, and you have the catastrophe of Clinton basically seducing the congressional wing of the Democratic Party into buying into a set of policies that if anyone else—a Republican, for instance—had brought up, there would have been hell to pay. They would never have gone for this. They would have looked at it as an attack on the entire core of their values, which it was...."
The full article can be found at:
www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/pdf/int_loriwallach.pdf
"Trade lawyer and author Lori Wallach is the director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, an organization founded in 1995 (as a division of Ralph Nader's consumer advocacy group Public Citizen) to promote government and corporate accountability in issues involving trade and globalization. Wallach herself was an early entrant into the anti-globalization arena, founding the Citizens Trade Campaign in 1993.
A long-time advocate of accountability in trade offers a colorful assessment of the similar positions on trade espoused by the Clinton and Bush administrations, challenges the argument that globalization in its present form is inevitable, and talks about the impact of the September 11 on the anti-globalization protest movement. This interview was conducted in late 2001, prior to the U.S. Senate's passing of the Fast Track legislation put forth by President Bush.
Wallach's Road to Activism: Trade Agreements and Consumer Protection
INTERVIEWER: You started off working as a lobbyist, trying to work within this system, trying to make the system work to adapt to what you believed. But on a personal level, how did you become an activist against globalization? From your own background, how did that come about?
LORI WALLACH: Well, I'm a trade lawyer by training, but an activist by necessity. What ended up happening is I was actually not wanting to do traditional law, so I came to a consumer group and started working on food safety. As I was working on food safety, pesticide bills, meat inspection, lobbyists from different corporations would be testifying at hearings, and they would say things like: "You can't improve those pesticide laws, not under the GATT [General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade] or NAFTA [North American Free Trade Agreement]. And Codex Alimentarius isn't going to allow that beef-inspection bill." And I'd think, what are they talking about? I'm a trade lawyer GATT is supposed to be about tariffs and quotas. What are they talking about pesticides and meat inspection? So I heard this over and over enough times, and it didn't seem like the corporations who should be fighting us on the food-safety bills were fighting us face to face. I started to get this feeling ... that there was another door; I was guarding only one door to the bank, and someone was ripping off the loot through another door. So I started snooping around, and after I'd heard "GATT" and "NAFTA" a couple of times, I started thinking, there's some international negotiation going on that's going to undo all this food-safety stuff I'm trying to do here in the Congress, and where the heck could it be going on?
So the long and short of it is, as I was snooping around, I bumped into perhaps one of the 10 or so people [doing this] at this point, and we all had the same light-bulb situation: Ding! Something I've been working on domestically for my whole life is suddenly... The game is changing, but where has it gone? Someone had gotten a copy of a very early draft of the World Trade Organization agreement—at that point it was the GATT and word was going round. So someone had this draft, but they didn't read GATTese. Now, having been trained as a trade lawyer, I was fluent in GATTese, so someone hooked me up with that text, and I started looking at it. It wasn't about tariffs and quotas anymore; it was hundreds of pages that effectively put handcuffs on domestic governments' decisions about their social priorities, the level of food safety or environmental protection. The kinds of development policies that, for instance, made the U.S. and Japan and Europe powers, were now being taken away from the developing countries. The more I kept paging through it I thought: "Oh, my God, it's like Reagan and Thatcher gave up on the their own capitals and went to Geneva. Look at this—it's the whole kit and caboodle."
Well, the food-safety stuff was what I obviously knew best at that point, because in reading it I knew what it would do to the bills we were working on. Not immediately, but after some work, I convinced this organization that we'd better open up a front of our advocacy in these trade agreements, so I spent a gruesome amount of time in Geneva, speaking only GATTese, removing the comma and adding "and/or," removing "this," adding "that," to different drafts of what was just the food text of the WTO. To say that it was dismissed would be a gentle description of the treatment that I received, I or any labor or human rights or environmental activist or scholar or lawyer. There were just a few at this point who were there who got any response. So after two years of smashing my head against the wall, with very technical GATTese descriptions of "If you don't want to entirely sack the very basis of the public interest in food safety, please change these 20 things," and once I was chucked onto Lake Geneva one time too many, I realized this is not a legal problem; this is a power problem: They actually want to do this bad stuff ... they being the WTO and the countries and companies who are really in the driver's seats of their organization. They are not making a mistake; this is intentional. In fact, this is a way to move an agenda we have beat and tied into knots in the U.S. Congress, and this is something we have to get activist about. It's not just fixing the language.
Free Trade: Help or Hindrance to World Peace and Stability?
INTERVIEWER: When we interviewed Bill Clinton, he said that during his time in office he thought, because of lots of geopolitical changes, the end of the Cold War, and emerging democracies, that the best way of securing the markets in a lot of these former communist developing countries was to integrate them into a global economy through trade. Trade, he said, is the leading edge to creating a more secure, peaceful world.
LORI WALLACH: Well, the reality has proved that actually, in many of the countries that are the great trade successes, that are the most integrated into the global economy, not only has democracy not flourished, but in fact, it's [succeeded the most in] places where democracy has been suffocated to death, like Singapore, which on any rating is the world's most globalized county, and is [also] a repressive place, where among other things you have no right to any demonstration, and if you say boo about the government you end up in jail, if you're lucky. There's a whole set of different countries which have more or less followed the prescription of liberalization, free trade, deregulation, and certainly there's no example of someone suddenly becoming a blooming democracy. There are some examples of either corrupt or undemocratic governments being able to get richer and richer and, as a result, suppress more and more of an opposition movement.
In a way, the irony is that, particularly in the developing world, so much of the outcome of following this prescription that people were told would be the path to salvation—deregulation, free trade, liberalization—actually caused increasing social instability and upset. The basic structures of society in agrarian countries were ripped up, but there were no safety nets; there was nothing like a welfare state. Your village and the basis of that agricultural community, which may or may not be the way you want to live your life, but is [the way you live it], and there's nothing between here and there, when suddenly boom! rice is free trade, and guess what? It's being dumped from Thailand into whatever this country is, and your whole village suddenly has nothing to do, and you can either buy it with cash—but you have no job—or you can go hungry. ... And the uprooting, the "let's head to the city," the lack of social services, the privatization of the few government social services that existed, so that there are now suddenly fees for services, and poor people can't get any medical service, can't go to school—those kind of disruptions in many countries are actually at the root of the disruptions, and for that matter the anti-American feeling, because we're seen as the symbol of it, the U.S. Because it was our government, our corporations, our military, we have the IMF in Washington, D.C., we're the symbol of that whole thing. It was politically advantageous for many very powerful U.S. interests to make the rest of the world suck it up, and they could claim it was democracy, claim it was for peace [when in fact] it was for their special interests, and now all these downsides are coming out, which is why there's this growing movement against that model.
Clinton and the Shift in the Democratic Agenda
INTERVIEWER: We're focusing on the Clinton administration for much of the film. You're here working in Washington; it was a Democratic administration. The president was elected to deal with the economy in '91, '92. I presume that some of your personal views would coincide with the Democratic Party's. Watching this happen, what was your sense of why it happened, and how did you feel about it?
LORI WALLACH: Okay, let me think about how to say it passionately without using every foul word I know. ... The first thing I would say about the Clinton administration is that there would have never been any crazed NAFTA agreement passed through the U.S. Congress if it hadn't been for the Clinton administration. Democrats in Congress wouldn't have trusted [the first President] Bush, and they would have stood up, knowing what they knew from the paper, and not bought into the promises that Clinton gave and then reneged on, and there would have been no NAFTA. If there'd been no NAFTA, they probably wouldn't have finished the WTO agreement, because that was the power, the leverage, the momentum that was used to push that. This is a practicality matter. Ironically, perversely, a whole array of what would be considered the opposite of the Democrats' core agenda of economic justice, human rights, pro-environment, pro-food safety, that whole agenda got clobbered through these instruments of globalization, like NAFTA and WTO, because of the Clinton administration. Now, no doubt the Bush folks would have done plenty of bad stuff if Daddy Bush had gotten reelected, but on this front of globalization, it was like Nixon going to China. Clinton was going to have to be a Democratic president to try and use the Democratic Congress that would otherwise stand up for all the things and these agreements would tank, and if they hadn't had a Democratic president promising them, "Oh, no, don't worry—it's not really going to do blah, blah, blah," we would have sacked NAFTA, and there never would have been a WTO. Now, what's happened is in 10 years of living with the results of these agreements, the whole majority of Democrats are back where they were before Clinton tried to seduce them, because there's a real-life record, and they're all saying: "Ach! Why wasn't Clinton right? NAFTA what a disaster. It sacked this environmental law, this food safety problem." They're living with it. There's no one to rely on. They've seen the writing on the wall. But they all went through a period where they thought: "Hey, he's a Democrat; we must just be misunderstanding. This can't be as bad as it looks...."
INTERVIEWER: Why did he do it?
LORI WALLACH: I have been asked that question over and over, and there are a variety of answers. I go between the really, really, really, really rotten and cynical to the fairly rotten and cynical, because the range of possibilities does not allow for any neutral interpretation. Clinton and his whole crew are smart people. You could say there is always a sort of idiocy factor where you believe in a theory, and there's a gap between [the theory and the practice]: "I'm for free trade, but what does this set of rules actually mean for the following values I support?" With those guys you don't have to worry about that. They had enough smart people where it wasn't sort of clumsy; it wasn't a mistake. ... I think the clearest understanding of what happened was that Clinton saw himself as having as his constituency not the working people and the environmentalists and the small farmers who'd elected him, who were the core of the Democratic Party, but rather he really did the bidding of a handful of very big corporations, Wall Street, and the bond world. He was extremely eager personally to be accepted by this sort of political and intellectual foreign-policy elite, and you take those financial things, and add that psychology, and you have the catastrophe of Clinton basically seducing the congressional wing of the Democratic Party into buying into a set of policies that if anyone else—a Republican, for instance—had brought up, there would have been hell to pay. They would never have gone for this. They would have looked at it as an attack on the entire core of their values, which it was...."
The full article can be found at:
www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/pdf/int_loriwallach.pdf