What do you think of GATS?

[Fljotsdale]

LOL! You don't seem to need much encouragement Silver Cheetah! You are doing pretty good on your own!



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

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by John D Harris: I'm kinda lost on this is G.A.T.S. a free trade treaty, or enviromental treaty? I think both can co-exist (no Miss Fljotsdale this capitalist pig is not going green ) Resources, what do we do with them? To one person they are to be used, another they are to be protected. Who gets to set the rules? Why do they get to set the rules? I'm honestly not trying to push one side or the other, just make us all think. We can't go back, so where does that leave us? Now you see why I'm rooting for an allien invasion, not an allien invitation. A full scale kick in the colectvive human, seat of the pants.

Hiya John D

GATS stands for General Agreement on Trade in Services, and yes, basically we're talking free trade in services here (e.g. health, education, water, etc), rather than goods. And no, it is no way an environmental treaty. As for free trade and a healthy environment having a long, happy and fruitful life together, its most unlikely, the way things are at present. (See previous posts for more on this.) My view is that globalisation bears a large part of the responsiblity for the degredation of our environment, (although some of the things that have come about as a result of the move towards globalisation (the internet, for example) can work as part of the solution. Rarely is anything ALL bad!! )

You're right - we can't go back, not to pre-technology, life in a village days. However, what we can do is start making some informed decisions, both individually and collectively, on how we go forward. That's one of the reasons I started this thread - because I think not enough people are aware of what is happening behind closed doors. Government and big business take momentous decisions that affect the lives of everyone and everything on the planet (GATS being a case in point) and most of us know very little about what is really going on. Misinformation abounds.

Your point on setting rules, - well, that's a moot point, and something else that this thread is about. In my view, it's more and more the big corporates, the transnational coporations who set the rules. These are the companies that use power and influence to sway government to work in their favour, often at the expense of ordinary citizens and the environment.

So, whaddya think?

[Fljotsdale]

Hey! Why is this on page 2 again? It's one of the most interesting threads we've had in ages!
Bumping for Silver Cheetah! (Well - she DID pay me a compliment in the Netiquet thread, lol! )

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

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by Fljotsdale: Hey! Why is this on page 2 again? It's one of the most interesting threads we've had in ages!

Hey, thanks Fljotsdale! Stead of just bumping though, would love to hear from you again on this topic. I do seem to remember you talking about your 'vague fears' with respect to globalisation - how's about you spill some of them onto this page, girl!!! We wanna hear Fljotsdale!!!

[Fljotsdale]

Well, ok, Silver Cheetah, but its going to sound a bit pathetic, because I’m pretty ignorant on this topic. All I am expressing are FEELINGS, and irrational fears.

Ok. Globalisation of ANY kind scares me. Start with one thing, and you almost inevitably finish up with EVERYTHING globalised. Even disease. Even food crops. Even people. Even social mores and traditions. Eventually, even religion (or lack of it). What does that mean?
IMHO, it means a form of homogenisation. Like homogenised milk, bland.
If you mix everything up in a global economy it means standardisation. When everything is standardised, homogenised, bland – you get stagnation.
Stagnation leads to death.
Look at all the great civilisations of the past. Where are they? Dead. It didn’t matter that much, because there were lots of small nations ready to come forward with new notions, new ways of doing things, life went on, civilisations flourished – BECAUSE OF THE VARIETY AVAILABLE TO FILL THE EMPTY PLACES.
If we are globalised, homogenised, standardised – who will be left to carry on when the GLOBAL civilisation we are aiming for fails? As it will. As civilisations always have.

We NEED variety to survive as a species, just as ANY species does. A variety of people, a variety of ways of doing things, a variety of belief, a variety of farming methods, a variety environments, a variety of shops, foods, EVERY DAMN thing!!

Without it we are dead.

But that is the way we are going. Genetic engineering even threatens to homogenise the natural world with its stupid introduction of GM foods and cloning, and introducing the genes of one species into another... rant, rant, rant....

Ok, Silver Cheetah? Passionate, uninformed, over the top - but that’s what I feel.


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






[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 09-02-2001).]

[Diogenes Of Pumpkintown]

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah: I am most concerned about the impact that GATS will have on the way we live, both in the West, and in developing countries. It will cede more and more power to big business, whilst removing that power from government. Essentially, democracy, where elected government takes decisions on what is best for citizens (ok, it doesn’t always work that way, but it’s the best we’ve got) will be replaced by the GATS Dispute Panel, which will determine whether a law or regulation is ‘more burdensome than necessary’ (to business, that is.) GATS is business oriented, not people oriented, and no, they are NOT necessarily the same thing!

Ok, I finally have a chance to jump in here. Has been a busy week. I must say that I am very impressed with the level of discourse in this thread. Silver Cheetah, I most emphatically welcome you to the forum and hope you will continue to contribute here. I tend to agree with your views as expressed throughout this thread. (That I agree with your views isn't the sole reason I welcome you here, but the level of knowledge and thoughtfulness you demonstrate )

I quoted the above section in Silver Cheetah's post which started this thread. While other areas of her first post were followed up on in the later posts, this issue wasn't really, but I think it is extremely important.

Silver Cheetah is quite correct in saying that GATS and similar treaties are being worked behind the scenes, with provisions which aren't receiving much publicity but are potentially incredibly powerful. For example, under GATS, potentially the ability of nations to enforce their own environmental laws is threatened as being a detriment to international trade.

Under GATS, such laws could be ruled to be unduly burdensome to trade and stricken down. Considering that GATS itself exists to promote trade and will surely be interpreted by appointed people sympathetic to the interests of large trading corporations, this alone is reason enough to be concerned.

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by Fljotsdale: Ok. Globalisation of ANY kind scares me. Start with one thing, and you almost inevitably finish up with EVERYTHING globalised. Even disease. Even food crops. Even people. Even social mores and traditions. Eventually, even religion (or lack of it). What does that mean? IMHO, it means a form of homogenisation. Like homogenised milk, bland. If you mix everything up in a global economy it means standardisation. When everything is standardised, homogenised, bland – you get stagnation. Stagnation leads to death. [/B]

Oh YES Fljotsdale! This is common sense, as far as I’m concerned, and I’ll be happy to take issue (in the nicest possible way!) with anyone who suggests otherwise. Has anyone out there read Babbit? by Sinclair Lewis? It was first published in America just prior to the 1920s, I do believe, and contained this passage.....

‘I tell you, Zenith and her sister cities are producing a new type of civilisation. There are many resemblences between Zenith and these other burgs, and I’m darned glad of it! The extraordinary, growing and sane stanardisation of stores, offices, streets, hotels, clothes, and newspapers throughout the United States shows how strong and enduring a type is ours.’

‘But when I get that lonely spell, I simply seek the best hotel, no matter in what town I be – St Paul, Toledo or KC in Washington, Schenectady, in Louisville or Albany. And at that inn it hits my dome that I again am right at home. If I should stand a lengthy spell in front of that first-class hotel, that to the drummers loves to cater, across from some big film theayter, that I could never tell!! For all the crowd would be so swell, in just the same fine sort of jeans they wear at home, and all the queens, with spiffy bonnets on their beans, and all the fellows standing round a-talking always, I’ll be bound, the same good jolly kind of guff, ‘bout politics and stuff and baseball players of renown, that Nice Guys talk in my home town!

Then when I enter that hotel, I’d look around, and say, well!, well! For there would be the same newstand, same magazines and candies grand, same smokes of famous standard brand, I’d find at home, I’ll tell! And when I saw the jolly bunch, come walzing in for eats at lunch, and squaring up in natty duds, to platters large of french fried spuds, why then I’d stand right up and bawl,
I’ve never left my home at all!'

Sounds like hell on earth to me. Imagine this, spread to the furthest corners of the earth. You don't have to imagine too hard - McD's can be found in the unlikeliest spots, and it's only one of many...

So, a strong and enduring type, yes.... Do we want it to take over the whole world? I don't, what about you? Comments, please!!!!

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown: Silver Cheetah is quite correct in saying that GATS and similar treaties are being worked behind the scenes, with provisions which aren't receiving much publicity but are potentially incredibly powerful. For example, under GATS, potentially the ability of nations to enforce their own environmental laws is threatened as being a detriment to international trade. Under GATS, such laws could be ruled to be unduly burdensome to trade and stricken down. Considering that GATS itself exists to promote trade and will surely be interpreted by appointed people sympathetic to the interests of large trading corporations, this alone is reason enough to be concerned. [/B]

Diogenes, thanks VERY much for your warm welcome. It is much appreciated! I’m glad you brought GATS back to the forefront – it got a bit lost there, - my fault.

The point you make re nations ability to enforce their own environmental laws (not to mention human life and health) is valid. This comes under the General Exceptions article in GATS, which, it is argued by the WTO and its defendents, is designed to protect ‘human, plant or animal life or health’ (against who? That one easy peasy......)

At first sight, this sounds ok........ however.....

first of all, note that the burden of proof is on GOVERNMENT to show why they need to take such protective action. (Forget the precautionary principle!) rather than on companies to act in a manner which is socially and environmentally responsible. Bad.....

Second, protective action by government will only be deemed acceptable by the GATS dispute panel IF certain criteria are fufilled, i.e. exceptions are based on science (i.e. provable beyond doubt, always a dodgy one!!), exceptions take the least trade restrictive route (this to be decided by the dispute panel...)...Bad.....

Thirdly, exceptions musn’t ‘discriminate’ against foreign service suppliers, (hmm... like a lot of other statements in GATS, that one is open to interpretation... He/She who has the best lawyers, negotiators, knowledgeable exploiters of loopholes, WINS!!). Bad........

So, what price exceptions? I’d like to point any interested parties to the following article published in the Observer newspaper earlier this year (April), discussing the above. It’s called ‘Necessity test is mother of GATS invention’.... and begins ‘The WTO has plans to replace that outmoded political idea – democracy’.... Over the top? Read it and see. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4170472,00.html (if it doesn’t come up, do a search at the guardian site for it....)

At time of writing, the writer had access to leaked confidential documents from the WTO secretariat relating to proposals for the newer, stronger version of GATS, - one of which relates to ‘the creation of an ‘international agency with veto power over parliamentary and regulatory decisions’.

Scary huh? The document began by considering ‘how to punish nations that ‘violate a balance between two potentially conflicting priorities: promoting trade expansion versus protecting the regulatory rights of governments’. The article goes on to say that ‘Final authority will rest with the GATS Disputes Panel to determine whether a law or regulation is ‘more burdensome than necessary.

What this means in effect that government’s right to decide what does and doesn’t need to be done in the public and environmental interest will be, in effect, taken over by the GATS Disputes Panel. This begins to look like a SERIOUS threat to democracy.

The article also mentions another leaked document entitled Domestic Regulation: Necessity and Transparency. This document is drafted by the EC working party, which contains ‘attacks on nations claiming ‘legitimate objectives’ as potential ‘disguised barriers’ to trade liberalisation.’ This document also ‘reject’s a nation’s right to remove its rules from GATS jurisdiction once a service industry is joined to the treaty.

So it looks like there’s two agendas here – the one that is being waved around in the face of developing countries worried about their right to regulate and NGOs worried about the same thing, and the underlying agenda that is geared to the wants and needs of the big transnationals, who lets face it, are the ones that are going to benefit most from opening up trades in services.

[John D Harris]

Silver Cheetah,
Interesting reading, as I said earlier a one world govt. is the logical conculsion to this little journey that we started on. (setting up of leaders and govts.) Don't get me wrong I'm a capitalist PIG, while I believe in free trade. I don't like the international treaties that are coming out GATS, WTO, and Kyoto, all for the same type of reasons, loss of local control. I may be a trow-back to the old times, I'm the undisputed head, ruler (I forgot to add when my wife lets me ),and little "g" god of security of my family. They can do what they want behind the scenes, I'll live my life and my death in the open. Each and every group is out for power, wether it is businesses or the enviromentalists. Each group is trying to get the advantage for themselves, be the ones to call the shots, and will succede only if the masses allow it. Which is a high probability since most people only desire to feed themselves and their families and live their lives in peace, so they will go along with what is easy.
Now I'll get off my soap box and let someone else get on theirs.

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

"the memories of a man in his old age,
are deeds of a man in his prime"

[This message has been edited by John D Harris (edited 09-03-2001).]

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by John D Harris: Each group is trying to get the advantage for themselves, be the ones to call the shots, and will succede only if the masses allow it. Which is a high probability since most people only desire to feed themselves and their families and live their lives in peace, so they will go along with what is easy. [/B]

Now you listen up John D ......

When you say ‘each and every group is out for power’ – congratulations, you just managed to piss me off big time.

Look. You say, most people only desire to feed themselves and their families and live their lives in peace..... Well, that’s a lovely ideal..... The reason environmentalists do what they do is precisely to that end.

It’s the most utter crap to say that people who are concerned about the health of the environment they live in are out for power. What we want is a functioning, beautiful planet to live on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I want to be able to BREATHE the air around me, drink CLEAN water, eat food that isn’t POLLUTED to hell with pesticides and crammed full of ADDITIVES, etc etc etc. I’d like to see some rainforest still around in 20 years time..... And so on. Not to mention having a few species of animals left.....

So, that makes me a control freak, does it??

I forgot to mention that I’d like our children – not mine, I don’t have any! – but children in general to have something to inherit. The way we’re going, the earth is going to be in such a mess in 30 years time that today’s kids are not going to have a very nice time of it at all. At best, they’re going to be spending an awful lot of time trying to clean up our mess. At worst – well, I don’t even want to think about it.

I really don’t understand how being concerned for the environment means that a person wants to be in control, or call the shots.

I really would appreciate a response from you on this, as I don’t at all understand where you’re coming from.

PS. Kyoto has nothing to do with free trade. It’s a different issue.