Application
Let's look at this nice, light bit of
propaganda from the Wall Street Journal.
Opinion/Editorials
: Monday, November 08, 1999
Crony capitalists will cheer Seattle zanies
by George Melloan
The Wall Street Journal
SEATTLE, once thought to be one of the most hospitable of cities, has prepared
a
bizarre reception for the 5,000 or so dignitaries who will come flying in from
the
150 countries at the end of this month to launch a new "Millennium
Round" of trade
negotiations. City and Metropolitan King County councils have passed
resolutions
telling the visitors they are entering an "MAI Free Zone."
Unlike most everyone else in the world, the delegates to the World Trade
Organization (WTO) conference will actually understand what that injunction
means. A great many will not be amused at hearing that they are expected to
forgo
any discussion of MAI within sight of the Space Needle. Chiefs of state and
government aren't accustomed to taking dictation from local yokels. But that
may be
the least of their worries, of which more later.
MAI, in case you missed the excitement last year, refers to the Multilateral
Agreement on Investment, once described by former WTO Secretary General
Renato Ruggiero as "the constitution for a global economy."
Negotiations among
the 29 nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) were proceeding nicely last year until they attracted the attention of
left-wing radicals, who proceeded to organize an anti-MAI popular front. By the
end of the year, the socialist government of France - home of the OECD and host
to
the MAI delegates - could no longer take the heat and the talks died an
unseemly
death. The left proclaimed a major victory over the evil forces of globalism. Flushed
with that success, sundry groups of Trotskyites, AIDS activists, Greens,
anarchists
and thrill seekers will be in full cry in Seattle on Nov. 30.
Something called the "Ruckus Society" summoned like-minded
hell-raisers to a
strategy session at a camp in the Cascades foothills in September to discuss
ways of
disrupting the WTO gathering. Such urban guerrilla skills as climbing buildings
to
unfurl banners, a favorite Greenpeace tactic, are part of the scenario. There
will be
obscure groups like the "Rainforest Action Network" and "Art and
Revolution"
manning the barricades. But some groups are not at all obscure. Ralph Nader's
Public Citizen lobby takes credit for scragging the MAI negotiations by
mobilizing
an international campaign via the Internet. Never underestimate the
organizational
talents of a man who has managed to indoctrinate millions of college students
with
his wacky ideas over the years, getting support for the effort from college
fees paid
by mostly unsuspecting middle-class parents.
Getting back to the MAI for a moment, what exactly is this particular toxic
terror
that so afrights the left? To non-Naderites, it might seem benign. Countries
choosing to sign such a treaty would agree to admit foreign investment, with
limited
exceptions, and give foreigners legal status equal to that accorded to domestic
investors. Since everyone knows that direct investment in factories and
services
creates jobs and that the rich nations have a lot more capital to invest than
poor
nations, it doesn't sound so bad, does it? If allowed to flow freely, capital
would
often go to where it could do the most good, relieving the misery of people who
toil
for a pittance in places like India or Bangladesh.
But while the international left weeps publicly about the wretched of the
earth, it
isn't much inclined toward practical ways of helping them. Indeed, rather the
contrary. The folks who will descend on Seattle en masse are the types who
plump
for "global warming" measures that would idle marginal factories in
Third World
nations. They fight bio-technology, a science that can provide poor farmers
with
plants and livestock more resistant to disease, particularly in tropical areas.
The reason they totally neglect the interests of the world's poor is very
simple: Most
of them have never been poor themselves and they hate the private,
multinational
corporations that deliver jobs and technology to the nether reaches of the
world.
That hatred shows up in their literature and is also the reason why they will
be in
Seattle to try to trash the next round of trade liberalization.
But whatever they imagine their goals might be or whatever self-image of innate
nobility they possess, they are living in a dream world. After the disastrous
20th
century experience with state ownership of "the means of production,"
privatization
is an unstoppable wave globally. Technological development will have its way no
matter how many Luddites lay down in front of the steamroller. And a lot of
people,
even the romantics of revolution who so frequently inhabit the world's
newsrooms,
are getting wise to their scare politics.
What the Seattle commandos probably don't understand is that they are serving
interests they profess to hate - Third World oligarchies, for example. National
poverty is not ordained by heaven. It is caused - even Karl Marx got this right
- by
ruling classes that take no interest in the problems of the common man. Such
oligarchical classes sit on top of any number of impoverished Third World
countries. Some of them initially sold themselves to their followers as Marxist
populists but learned that power and wealth have their psychic rewards even if
the
ideology didn't work out.
As often as not, they protect their privileged status by keeping out great
multinational corporations that might come into their countries and mobilize
people
and resources for efficient commercial endeavors that would drive the local
cronies
out of business. MAI is a distinct threat to such people, as is any measure
that
opens up the world to trade and investment.
Public Citizen started life with grand ideas for bringing American
multinational
corporations to heel. It may indeed have accomplished some good results by
forcing
corporations to justify themselves publicly. But it didn't topple capitalism,
and now
finds itself allied with plaintiff lawyers who are less interested in justice
than in
enriching themselves. Such is the law of unintended consequences, perhaps.
What about Bill Clinton? Is he going to let a major international event turn
into a
fiasco? He in fact opened the door to the fiasco by demanding, at the behest of
two
powerful constituencies, that national labor and environmental policies must
meet
certain standards set in trade negotiations. His minions now are trying to
appease
NGOs (non-governmental organizations) like Ruckus, by saying that indeed the
NGOs should have a place at the trade table. Most significant, he is trying to
keep
MAI off the agenda. Does Al Gore have influence in this lame-duck
administration,
or what?
There is good reason to doubt that appeasement will do the trick. Once you
learn to
scale a building, or bend a city council to your will, compromise is not an
interesting option. Above all, you would miss all the fun.
(Copyright, 1999, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All rights reserved.)
Let's try and get at the underlying
argument. First, we need to operate on the article and remove all the
'emotional' words.
There
will be a demonstration in Seattle during the meeting of the WTO this month.
Unlike most everyone else in the world, the delegates to the World Trade
Organization (WTO) conference will actually understand what that injunction
means. A great many will not be amused at hearing that they are expected to
forgo
any discussion of MAI within sight of the Space Needle. Chiefs of state and
government aren't accustomed to taking dictation from local yokels. But that
may be
the least of their worries, of which more later.
The
delegates of the WTO are not used to having demonstrations accompany their
meetings.
MAI, in case you missed the excitement last year, refers to the Multilateral
Agreement on Investment, once described by former WTO Secretary General
Renato Ruggiero as "the constitution for a global economy."
Negotiations among
the 29 nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) were proceeding nicely last year until they attracted the attention of
left-wing radicals, who proceeded to organize an anti-MAI popular front. By the
end of the year, the socialist government of France - home of the OECD and host
to
the MAI delegates - could no longer take the heat and the talks died an
unseemly
death. The left proclaimed a major victory over the evil forces of globalism.
Flushed
with that success, sundry groups of Trotskyites, AIDS activists, Greens,
anarchists
and thrill seekers will be in full cry in Seattle on Nov. 30.
The
MAI was derailed by France's withdrawal, which was forced by activism. The
derailment of the MAI has encouraged activists.
Something called the "Ruckus Society" summoned like-minded
hell-raisers to a
strategy session at a camp in the Cascades foothills in September to discuss
ways of
disrupting the WTO gathering. Such urban guerrilla skills as climbing buildings
to
unfurl banners, a favorite Greenpeace tactic, are part of the scenario. There
will be
obscure groups like the "Rainforest Action Network" and "Art and
Revolution"
manning the barricades. But some groups are not at all obscure. Ralph Nader's
Public Citizen lobby takes credit for scragging the MAI negotiations by
mobilizing
an international campaign via the Internet. Never underestimate the
organizational
talents of a man who has managed to indoctrinate millions of college students
with
his wacky ideas over the years, getting support for the effort from college
fees paid
by mostly unsuspecting middle-class parents.
Activists
have been planning demonstrations since September. Opposition comes from
diverse quarters, some better known than others, including Ralph Nader, who is
very visible in organization particularly at colleges and universities.
Getting back to the MAI for a moment, what exactly is this particular toxic
terror
that so afrights the left? To non-Naderites, it might seem benign. Countries
choosing to sign such a treaty would agree to admit foreign investment, with
limited
exceptions, and give foreigners legal status equal to that accorded to domestic
investors. Since everyone knows that direct investment in factories and
services
creates jobs and that the rich nations have a lot more capital to invest than
poor
nations, it doesn't sound so bad, does it? If allowed to flow freely, capital
would
often go to where it could do the most good, relieving the misery of people who
toil
for a pittance in places like India or Bangladesh.
The
MAI gives foreigners legal status equal to domestic investors. Countries
choosing to sign such a treaty agree to admit foreign investment. Direct
investment creates jobs. Rich countries have more capital to invest than the
poor countries. So the rich countries will send their capital to the poor
countries. This capital will create wealth and make the poor nations wealthier.
But while the international left weeps publicly about the wretched of the
earth, it
isn't much inclined toward practical ways of helping them. Indeed, rather the
contrary. The folks who will descend on Seattle en masse are the types who
plump
for "global warming" measures that would idle marginal factories in
Third World
nations. They fight bio-technology, a science that can provide poor farmers
with
plants and livestock more resistant to disease, particularly in tropical areas.
The
activists who are protesting the WTO press for controls on pollution emissions.
Reducing pollution emissions would close factories in the Third World and harm
the poor. The activists who are protesting the WTO are against biotechnology.
Biotechnology is good for poor farmers. Therefore the activists who are
protesting the WTO are harming the poor.
The reason they totally neglect the interests of the world's poor is very
simple: Most
of them have never been poor themselves and they hate the private,
multinational
corporations that deliver jobs and technology to the nether reaches of the
world.
That hatred shows up in their literature and is also the reason why they will
be in
Seattle to try to trash the next round of trade liberalization.
The
activists protest the WTO because they have never been poor. They cannot
understand the poor. They hate the rich corporations that deliver wealth to the
poor.
But whatever they imagine their goals might be or whatever self-image of innate
nobility they possess, they are living in a dream world. After the disastrous
20th
century experience with state ownership of "the means of production,"
privatization
is an unstoppable wave globally. Technological development will have its way no
matter how many Luddites lay down in front of the steamroller. And a lot of
people,
even the romantics of revolution who so frequently inhabit the world's
newsrooms,
are getting wise to their scare politics.
Privatization
is unstoppable. Increasing numbers of people are beginning to recognize
privatization is unstoppable.
What the Seattle commandos probably don't understand is that they are serving
interests they profess to hate - Third World oligarchies, for example. National
poverty is not ordained by heaven. It is caused - even Karl Marx got this right
- by
ruling classes that take no interest in the problems of the common man. Such
oligarchical classes sit on top of any number of impoverished Third World
countries. Some of them initially sold themselves to their followers as Marxist
populists but learned that power and wealth have their psychic rewards even if
the
ideology didn't work out.
Poverty
is caused by third world elites.
As often as not, they protect their privileged status by keeping out great
multinational corporations that might come into their countries and mobilize
people
and resources for efficient commercial endeavors that would drive the local
cronies
out of business. MAI is a distinct threat to such people, as is any measure
that
opens up the world to trade and investment.
Third
World elites retain power by keeping out multinational corporations. The MAI
and liberalization of trade favors multinational corporations. It therefore
hurts third world elites' ability to retain power.
Public Citizen started life with grand ideas for bringing American
multinational
corporations to heel. It may indeed have accomplished some good results by
forcing
corporations to justify themselves publicly. But it didn't topple capitalism,
and now
finds itself allied with plaintiff lawyers who are less interested in justice
than in
enriching themselves. Such is the law of unintended consequences, perhaps.
The
activist groups seek to reduce the power of multinational corporations. They
have forced corporations to justify themselves. But corporations remain in
power.
What about Bill Clinton? Is he going to let a major international event turn
into a
fiasco? He in fact opened the door to the fiasco by demanding, at the behest of
two
powerful constituencies, that national labor and environmental policies must
meet
certain standards set in trade negotiations. His minions now are trying to
appease
NGOs (non-governmental organizations) like Ruckus, by saying that indeed the
NGOs should have a place at the trade table. Most significant, he is trying to
keep
MAI off the agenda. Does Al Gore have influence in this lame-duck
administration,
or what?
Clinton
demanded that labor and environmental policies be in the trade agreements. He
is trying to keep the MAI from being discussed. He is therefore a weak leader
and the activism is partly his fault.
There is good reason to doubt that appeasement will do the trick. Once you
learn to
scale a building, or bend a city council to your will, compromise is not an
interesting option. Above all, you would miss all the fun.
The
activists will not be stopped from demonstrating even if their demands are met
because they are doing it for fun.