[Moridin]

First of all, your point that ‘GATS IS NOT business oriented!’. What is it then? Some quotes on the subject, from some of the people involved in making GATS happen, as follows: David Hartridge:, director of the WTO Services Division ‘Without the enormous pressure generated by the American financial services secor, particularly companies like American Express and Citicorp, there would have been no GATS. Department of Trade and Industry: ‘As a major global exporter of services, second only to the US, the UK strongly supports the GATS negotiations’. The European Commission: ‘GATS is not just something that exists between governments. It is first and foremost an instrument for the benefit of business’. Peter Mandelson: ‘Negotiatiating positions on GATS must reflect business priorities’. ESF – The European Commission represents all EU members at the WTO. It is in regular consultation with the European Services Forum, a business lobby group which supports and encourages the movement to liberalise service sector markets throughout the world, and to remove trade and investment barriers for the European services sector. Members include BT, Barclarys Bank, M&S, Price Waterhouse Cooper. ESF head Andrew Buxton says the membership comes ‘from those companies where the CEO has realised that the WTO process is one in which they should take a close interest.

First of all, I think I did not phrase that properly. I meant to say that GATS is not just an issue for businesses, it also represents an opportunity for the governments and individuals of member nations.

As to the above quotes, it is hard to argue against these. It is easy to pull five quotes, that support your argument, for any hot issue. I could just as easily pull five quotes that support the idea that GATS will benefit government and individuals too.

GATS will benefit businesses, since businesses will be supplying and demanding the resulting trade. But it is not just about large TNC’s reaping profits from underdeveloped nations. Your first quote about AmEx and Citicorp pushing for a GATS agreement is simply b/c their main business lines are services, not goods. There is a GATT agreement, and therefore they thought that there should be an agreement made for services also. They are not pushing for GATS b/c they want to drive up profits, they are pushing for GATS so they can be competitive in foreign markets. Why should a company be punished because they reside in the US, UK, Germany, or Japan. And why should the people of underdeveloped countries be punished, by not having the same goods and services that we enjoy in our industrialized nations?


------------------


Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig
I've got to admit it's getting better, it's getting better all the time