siste fra Clinton om "globaliseringen".
Knut Rognes
**********************
X-Authentication-Warning: tao.ca: znet set sender to
owner-znetcommentary@tao.ca using -f
From: "Michael Albert" <sysop@zmag.org>
To: <znetcommentary@tao.ca>
Subject: ZNet Commentary July 12 Robin Hahnel
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 23:33:33 +0100
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Sender: owner-znetcommentary@tao.ca
Here is today's ZNet Commentary Delivery from Robin Hahnel. ...
To pass this comment along to friends, relatives, etc. please note that the
Commentaries are a premium sent to monthly donors to Z/ZNet and that to
learn more about the project folks can consult ZNet (http://www.zmag.org)
and specifically the Commentary Page
(http://www.zmag.org/Commentaries/donorform.htm).
Here then is today's ZNet Commentary...
------------------------------------------
Slick Willy Goes After Fast Track Authority on Trade Again
By Robin Hahnel
On June 12, 1999, flush from victories over House Republicans intent on coup
via impeachment, and over Slobodan Milosevic, Europe's "new Hitler,"
President Clinton launched a new attempt to win "fast track" authority to
negotiate new international trade and investment agreements - without
further congressional interference - in his speech to graduating students
at the University of Chicago. Washington Post staff writer William Claiborne
reported in "Lauding Trade, Clinton Urges 'Fast Track'" (6/13/99 A5) that
"presidential aides said Clinton's speech was one of several intended to
promote a consensus on more open trade," and that "the University of Chicago
was an especially appropriate venue because of its strong advocacy of free
markets." The Clinton administration sure got that right!
What is particularly annoying about Clinton is that he has refined the
practice of dressing reactionary policies in humane garb to an art form.
Slick Willy promised to negotiate "free and fair trade that will expand
global commercial exchanges that benefit all people... that will lift
everybody up, not pull everyone down... that will spread the benefits of
global growth more widely... that will widen the cradle of opportunity since
growth widely shared is better sustained." In a stellar contribution not
only to economic theory but to environmental science and English literature
as well, he proclaimed: "It is not true anymore that you can't grow the
economy without destroying the environment." It's almost enough to make one
wish for a Republican in the White House who just comes out and tells it
like it is: "I'm doing everything I can to promote more global
liberalization because it strengthens American business at home and abroad."
But forthrightness is not Slick Willy's shtick, and the truth holds no value
whatsoever for the Slime Meister.
The crowning moment of the speech was Clinton's announcement that he had
signed an executive order prohibiting federal agencies from buying products
made with "forced or abusive child labor." Claiborne reports that Clinton
"said he was appalled by the conditions in which 8 and 9 year-old children
work in many countries," and that "White House economic advisor Gene
Sperling said that the Labor Department will have four months to compile a
list of products with a history of child labor and that any time a federal
agency buys a product on the list it will have to ascertain that the
contractor did not purchase it from a plant engaging in abusive child labor,
even if it is the low bidder."
Inquiring minds who wanted to know exactly how the Labor Department would go
about distinguishing between "forced or abusive" child labor from "free,
non-abusive" child labor did not have long to wait for an answer. In his
Washington Post article "Clinton Advocates Child Labor Crackdown" (6/17/99)
Charles Babington tells us that Sperling "said the compact should face
minimal opposition in the Senate and even in developing countries that rely
substantially on child labor, because it targets only 'the most abusive
forms of child labor.'" Since any restrictions that would easily pass the US
Senate and win the approval of third world governments that rely heavily on
child labor will certainly be literally meaningless, it turns out the
Department of Labor's task will be quite easy: Child labor will be "forced
or abusive" only in countries whose governments do not meet Washington's
approval. Child labor in countries whose governments are amenable to
Washington's agenda will invariably be judged "free and non-abusive."
But what kind of international agreements does Slick Willy want a blank
check to negotiate in return for his rhetorical but meaningless campaign to
"wipe from the earth the most vicious forms of abusive child labor in which
tens of millions of children work in conditions that shock the conscience?"
And what would be the predictable effects of these international economic
agreements?
Whether it be negotiations leading up to the World Trade Organization (WTO)
meetings in Seattle this December, negotiations over including other Latin
American countries in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), or
negotiations to revive the stalled Multinational Agreement on Investment
(MAI), the Clinton Administration is pressing for further liberalization of
international trade, investment, and foreign ownership. Since the US
delegation to the recently concluded G-8 meetings in Germany virtually wrote
the final communique we need go no further than that document to discover
the Administration's current thinking about globalization. In paragraph 2
the communique states: "Globalization, a complex process involving rapid and
increasing flows of ideas, capital, technology, goods and services around
the world, has already brought widespread improvement of living standards
and a significant reduction in poverty. Integration has helped to create
jobs by stimulating efficiency, opportunity and growth." What's great about
communiques is there is no need to back up sweeping generalizations with any
supportive evidence. Of course the truth is that the kind of corporate
sponsored globalization that has been accelerating since 1980 has reduced
the rate of growth of per capita GDP in the world by roughly 50% as compared
to the Bretton Woods era that preceded it. The truth is only a hand full of
East Asian economies enjoyed significantly higher rates of growth during the
neoliberal era than the Bretton Woods era, and when the flood of
international investment that swept into those economies in the late 1980s
and early 1990s swept out again in 1997 every one of the East Asian dream
economies turned into a nightmare. The truth is that even in countries that
have done better than most, corporate sponsored globalization has unleashed
a wave of down sizing, unemployment, and job insecurity. The truth is that
corporate sponsored globalization has dramatically increased the pace of
environmental destruction. The truth is that the dramatic increase in wealth
and income inequality within countries and between countries that has
occurred during the era of corporate sponsored globalization has been so
overwhelming that not even mainstream economists bother to deny it. And the
truth is that elected governments have less control over their economies
than at any time during the past 50 years. But what's a little hyperbole
among friends? Why should the Heads of State and Government of the eight
major democracies and the President of the European Commission -- as they
referred to themselves in their communique -- not assure the world that
globalization "has already brought widespread improvement of living
standards and a significant reduction in poverty," and "helped create jobs?"
The international press covering the 25th Economic Summit certainly did not
bother to question the rosy picture our leaders painted at its conclusion,
or ask for corroborating evidence.
Slick Willy's job is to claim on the one hand that globalization has already
been great for almost everyone, and to claim on the other hand that while
this may not have been the case in the past, it will certainly be the case
in the future provided American leadership is preserved and he is given a
free hand to negotiate. In other words, he needs to keep lying and to keep
asking everyone to trust him. His chief liabilities are: (1) All evidence
indicates that corporate sponsored globalization has, in fact, retarded
growth, hastened environmental destruction, increased inequality, and
undermined economic democracy. (2) All evidence indicates that Clinton (and
Gore) are more in the pockets of the tiny minority who have benefitted from
globalization, and less responsive to the majority constituencies who have
been hurt by globalization than every before. And (3) Clinton has reneged on
promises to modify globalization so as to "lift everybody up, not pull
everyone down" every single time he has made them. His chief assets are: (1)
Both the major media and most of the economics profession are supportive of
corporate sponsored globalization, and are therefore unlikely to question
Clinton's unsupported paeans of praise to the globalization gods. (2) There
is no electable opponent whose position on globalization is significantly
different from Clinton's (and Gore's) despite continuing evidence that a
substantial majority of the US electorate opposes further globalization. And
(3) Slick Willy is a practiced liar and master manipulator.
And lest you think that liberals in Congress would never fall for the Slime
Meister's latest ploy, Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) who Claiborne describes
as "a strident opponent of child labor," was quoted in the same article
covering Clinton's University of Chicago speech saying that Clinton's
executive order sends a "strong signal at home and abroad that the US
government is serious about eradicating abusive and exploitative child
labor." It makes one wonder if the fix between the White House and liberal
Democrats in Congress is already in.
***********************************