What do you think of GATS?

[anomie]

Originally posted by Moridin: Sure And it's not always the most 'pro-America' ruler...but rather 'pro-Democracy'!

I trust you are joking about the difference between 'pro-Democracy' and 'pro-America'. I initially felt like something of a troll by joining this discussion, now I'm not sure who is the troll.

As for a list of American 'colonies', a quick Internet search on 'US Imperialism' yields an interesting site Let the Bloody Truth Be Told: A Chronology of U.S. Imperialism This site lists > 100 military actions initiated by the US on both foreign ground AND against its own citizens.

I will do some more searching for information regarding how America has influenced other countries' internal politics by non-military means (money, trade sanctions, weapons trades, training military), but I think the point is made.

I apologize for turning this discussion into an anti-America rant, but I feel that the door was opened, and I was pushed through.


Peace,

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

[anomie]

Originally posted by Moridin: I am all for trying to help the developing countries, but I am also well aware that to do so is going to cause problems along the way. We can give money to build better sanitation, we can supply the technology to build better sanitation, we can educate the citizens on better sanitation, but when this is all accomplished then what? Where do these countries come up with the money to sustain this improved sanitation? These countries are poor, the people are poor, and the governments are poor...we can give them all the technology and know-how that we have, we can give them money, but eventually they are going to have (pardon the phrase) learn to walk on their own. [/B]

You don't seem to get the point. The beginning of this thread expressed concern over the corporate-profit driven nature of the GAT treaty. Policies such as these are not geared toward helping anyone, except the wealthy. Beneficiaries include corporations and government beaurucrats (of whatever country), but not you, and certainly not the local citizens of the foreign countries.

Unlike the beautiful picture of global prosperity painted by the WTO and other such organizations, many people object to the environmental destruction, cultural homogenization, and other negative consequences of profit-driven global initiatives.

Peace,




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

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by anomie: You don't seem to get the point. The beginning of this thread expressed concern over the corporate-profit driven nature of the GAT treaty. Policies such as these are not geared toward helping anyone, except the wealthy. Beneficiaries include corporations and government beaurucrats (of whatever country), but not you, and certainly not the local citizens of the foreign countries. Unlike the beautiful picture of global prosperity painted by the WTO and other such organizations, many people object to the environmental destruction, cultural homogenization, and other negative consequences of profit-driven global initiatives. Peace,

Anomie, thank you for making that point. In replying to individual points made, I have felt as though I was beginning to get a little lost and bogged down. Your clarity is much appreciated.

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

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by anomie: As for a list of American 'colonies', a quick Internet search on 'US Imperialism' yields an interesting site Let the Bloody Truth Be Told: A Chronology of U.S. Imperialism This site lists > 100 military actions initiated by the US on both foreign ground AND against its own citizens. I will do some more searching for information regarding how America has influenced other countries' internal politics by non-military means (money, trade sanctions, weapons trades, training military), but I think the point is made.

Would be very interested to have the links you mention.


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

[Moridin]

Originally posted by anomie: You don't seem to get the point. The beginning of this thread expressed concern over the corporate-profit driven nature of the GAT treaty. Policies such as these are not geared toward helping anyone, except the wealthy. Beneficiaries include corporations and government beaurucrats (of whatever country), but not you, and certainly not the local citizens of the foreign countries. Unlike the beautiful picture of global prosperity painted by the WTO and other such organizations, many people object to the environmental destruction, cultural homogenization, and other negative consequences of profit-driven global initiatives. Peace,

Did you read any other part of my post? If the developing countries don't like the GATS agreement, then they can get out! If they do not want to open their borders for trade, then fine, we will not be hurt by that, and obviously according to you, they won't either!

Do you believe everything that is beneficial doesn't have any costs involved. We CANNOT just have the things we want, without any of the things we don't want...unfortunately that is the way things work. If these countries want to agree to trade then they have to be willing to accept all of the things that come with it!



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


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
Bossman of Better Funny Stuff.....of the Laughing Hyenas!

[Moridin]

Originally posted by anomie: I initially felt like something of a troll by joining this discussion, now I'm not sure who is the troll. I apologize for turning this discussion into an anti-America rant, but I feel that the door was opened, and I was pushed through. Peace,

Troll eh? Is that an attempt to poke fun...how clever

And I don't think the door was ever open for you, it seems like you battered your way in!

If you want to start an Anti-America thread then do so, but please keep it out of here!

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


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
Bossman of Better Funny Stuff.....of the Laughing Hyenas!

[Moridin]

Silver Cheetah, Anomie, and any other opposers of the GATS...since GATS is new and not a lot of data exists for it, perhaps we can use the GATT, it's predessor to determine a few things. Since you are saying that GATS hurts developing countries and that only corporations gain, can you provide for me:

1)A list of countries 'hurt' by GATT and how they have been hurt
&
2)A list of corporations that have benefitted from GATT and how they have benefitted

Thank you

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


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
Bossman of Better Funny Stuff.....of the Laughing Hyenas!

[Silver Cheetah]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Moridin:
Is that GAT, GATT, or GATS? **sorry just being a smart-ass**

The WTO has 142 members, I am wagering a guess that they are not all western countries ...and please don't start in on "Well it was the western countries that started it...." I am well aware of that...but if the developing countries don't like what is going on in the WTO then why don't they just resign their membership? The western countries are not forcing them to remain members.

[QUOTE]

Moridin, as you know, my own personal view is that globalisation is not the way forward, either for the developing countries, or for the rich Northern hemisphere. Let's leave that aside for the moment. I'm talking here about what is actually HAPPENING in the WTO with regard to the developing countries.

In response to your post - what do you mean - if they don't like what is going on they should just resign their membership? Do you mean if they don't like the imbalances which favour the richer countries, they should just give up and leave the table? What's wrong with them fighting their corner? Rather than walking off, they want to see imbalances redressed! (Do you not accept that there are imbalances?)

Developing countries joined the WTO because it was, and is, 'marketed' as a means for them to raise substantially raise living standards for their citizenry, including the eradication of poverty. However, there is increasing, dissatisfaction amongst many as to the rate at which developed countries are opening their markets (veeeeeeerrrrrryyyyyy ssssssssssslowly, - compared with the rate at which developed countries are asking for developing countries to liberalise.

What the developing countries want is to be treated fairly. THEY WANT A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, WHICH THEY DON'T HAVE. Those who don't accept that this is the case - please read the quotes further below).

In addition, let's not forget that the WTO was supposedly established to ' facilitate international trade, economic growth and development. The preamble of the GATT 1947 states that ‘trade and economic endeavour should be conducted with a view to raising standards of living , ensuring full employment and a large and steadily growing volume of real income...’.

These first two seemed to have been sidelined somehow. Standards of living and full employment, and real income. STANDARDS OF LIVING AND FULL EMPLOYMENT! For all countries taking part, I assume? Then let's conduct the negotiations towards these ends, not to ensuring massive profits for those who are already living on the fat of the land!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (I come back yet again to the Exxon Mobile $17.9b of profit last year. Plain obscene when so many are starving and dying.)

Some quotes........


The quote below is from a statement by Martin Khor, the director of Third World Network (May 2001):

'The developing countries' main expectation of benefit from the Uruguay Round was that at last these two sectors (agriculture and textiles) would be opened to their products. However they both remain closed six years after the Round ended.

In agriculture, tariffs of many agriculture items of interest to developing countries are prohibitively high (some are over 200 and over 300 per cent). Domestic subsidies in OECD countries have risen from US$275 billion (annual average for base period 1986-88) to US$326 billion in 1999 (according to OECD data) instead of declining as expected as the increase in permitted subsidies more than offset the decrease in subsidy categories that are under discipline in the Agriculture Agreement.

******** In textiles, only very few items which the developing countries export have been taken off the quota list, even though more than half the implementation period has passed. According to the International Textiles and Clothing Bureau IN JUNE 2000, ONLY A FEW QUOTA RESTRICTIONS (13 OUT OF 750 by the US; 14 OUT OF 219 by the EU;29 OUT OF 295 by Canada) HAD BEEN ELMINATED, THIS RAISES DOUBTS WHETHER ALL OR MOST OF THE QUOTAS WILL REALLY BE REMOVED BY 2005.

Another one…

http://www.urfig.org/sup-wto-khor-pt.htm

'African and other developing countries governments also sought redress for the imbalances and inequities of the existing WTO agreements, which have damaged their economies and threatened the livelihoods of their peoples. At the same time, they opposed the introduction of new issues in the WTO, and demanded an end to the undemocratic processes of the WTO that marginalized them. Since Seattle, these governments have continued to exert strenuous efforts to keep their demands alive in the WTO.

However, the concerns of civil society and the demands by developing country governments have been ignored by the major powers in the WTO. Negotiations on the concrete proposals put forward by developing countries for the review of the agreements in such areas as Agriculture, TRIPS, TRIMs and services have been frustrated by the developed countries. At the same time, the latter have used negotiations in areas such as services to exert pressure for further liberalisation, ignoring the concerns of civil society for the protection of social services and needs.

http://www.urfig.org/sup-doc-omc-twn-pt.htm

Although purportedly a democratic institution, the WTO is dominated by the leading industrialized countries and by the corporations of these countries. The logic of commercial trade pervades the WTO. The development goals articulated when GATT was first formed have been put aside—or are wrongly assumed to be the natural consequence of increased trade. Developing countries have little power within the WTO framework for the following reasons:

1. Although developing countries make up three-fourths of WTO membership and by their vote can in theory influence the agenda and outcome of trade negotiations, they have never used this to their advantage. Most developing country economies are in one way or another dependent on the U.S., the EU, or Japan in terms of imports, exports, aid, security, etc. Any obstruction of a consensus at the WTO might threaten the overall well-being and security of dissenting developing nations.
2. Trade negotiations are based on the principle of reciprocity or "trade-offs." That is, one country gives a concession in an area, such as the lowering of tariffs for a certain product, in return for another country acceding to a certain agreement. This type of bartering benefits the large and diversified economies, because they can get more by giving more. For the most part, negotiations and trade-offs take place among the developed countries and some of the richer or larger developing countries.
3. Developing countries have fewer human and technical resources. Many cannot cope with the 40-50 meetings held in Geneva each week. Hence they often enter negotiations less prepared than their developed country counterparts.
4. Developing countries have discovered that seeking recourse in the dispute settlement system is costly and requires a level of legal expertise that they may not have. Furthermore, the basis on which the system is run—whether a country is violating free trade rules—is not the most appropriate for their development needs.

Nelson Mandela, commenting on the Uruguay Round, said: "The developing countries were not able to ensure that the rules accommodated their realities... it was mainly the preoccupations and problems of the advanced industrial economies that shaped the agreement." He added that rules applied uniformly are not necessarily fair because of the different circumstances of members.

http://www.focusweb.org/publications...0Countries.htm



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

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by Moridin: Troll eh? Is that an attempt to poke fun...how clever And I don't think the door was ever open for you, it seems like you battered your way in! If you want to start an Anti-America thread then do so, but please keep it out of here!

Moridin, hold on a second there please! I welcomed anomie in, and invited her to post on this topic.



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

[Diogenes Of Pumpkintown]

Originally posted by Moridin: I am going to get picky, but that is NOT colonization, it is expansion...does it make it right? NO, but it is different! It was the EUROPEANS who originally came and displaced/destroyed the American Indians...it was the US that continued it. What I meant by the US not participating in colonization is that we did not actively invade other countries (i.e. India, Australia, South Africa) and set up our own government to exploit the native peoples! I am really getting disgusted by this turning into a "US is the worst" thread...if we are going to start talking about atrocities against other peoples...I think the US would be pretty far down on the list of perpetrating countries!

Regarding your "getting disgusted":

You are, huh? Well, I am annoyed at your tendency to label any criticism of the US as "America Bashing." The US is far from perfect and could use some constructive criticism. Deal with it.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make by quibbling over the term "colonizing", when in fact the pattern in the territory that became the US was, if anything, WORSE than the more usual pattern of colonization followed in other parts of the world. At least the other peoples weren't permanently conquered and virtually wiped out through genocide.

By saying that the US did not usually invade other countries, you are treating the US as it exists today as always having existed. Remember that the territory of the US started out much smaller than it has become today. All of that additional territory added after the American Revolution WAS another country which the US invaded and colonized, repeatedly. Again, the chief difference in America was that the colonists nearly wiped out and almost totally replaced the native peoples, a situation which in turn made it easy for the colonies/territories to eventually be absorbed back into the home country as fully integrated parts.