RE: Henwood: Collapse in Cancun

["Julio Huato" <juliohuato@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm surprised by the furious response Doug Henwood's piece got.  I don't
have a clear sense of the views Henwood spouses, but what I read in *this*
particular piece can hardly be a reason to hang him off the nearest pole.

First, Henwood's point that the WTO has a governance structure that gives
less leverage to the rich countries in the negotiation process is obvious.
Nowhere Henwood says the WTO has an ideal democratic structure.  He just
says that the U.S. (among others) would rather have something like the IMF
and the World Bank, where they clearly call the shots.  As far as striking
trade deals, the U.S. obviously prefers to arm-twist each country
separately.  A movement seeking to advance the interest of the workers in
the poor countries needs to take this into account and not just have a
knee-jerk reaction approach to everything that smells like "corporate
globalization."  Else the movement plays in the hands of the rich in the
rich countries.  The G22 -- an obviously progressive coalition -- are taking
advantage of the WTO's structure to defend their interests.

Second, because of this decision-making mechanism that gives some clout to
poor countries (it makes their number count), the U.S. government is skewing
the WTO.  In fact, it may be even sabotaging it.  It's not clear to me yet.
But, IMO, what is clear is that the Bush administration has put its
re-election priorities (campaign money and votes in exchange for subsidies)
ahead of the "globalization" agenda.  It is the G22 that is demanding an end
to the subsidies -- i.e. an end to protectionism by the rich countries.
Freer and fairer trade is being demanded -- not rejected -- by the poor
countries.

Third, the point Henwood makes about subordinating the interest of Korean
farmers to those of producers where the conditions of production may be more
favorable responds precisely to the point José Pérez makes about Cuba --
namely that Cuba is in a more favorable position to produce sugar (because
of soil, climate, technology, productive traditions, etc.), but that the
blockade and the attempts of imperialism to strangle the revolution are in
the way of basic economic rationality.  Can anybody think of a more
egregious violation to the rules of free trade than the blockade and other
hostile acts against Cuba by the U.S. and European accomplices?  The
implicit argument here is that, if the international division of labor where
to be based on competitive advantage and the rules of trade (as opposed to
being imposed by imperialism), it'd be best for everyone to have Cuba
produce sugar for others.

Fourth, Henwood implies that if trade were to proceed according to
competitive advantage, undistorted or less distorted by imperialism, still
direct producers would be affected.  For example, Cuba has dismantled a
portion of its sugar industry.  In so doing, it has helped the workers
switch to other activities with full pay and support.  And Henwood just
asked "Why not shift the focus from protecting the job to protecting the
worker?"  What is wrong with that?

Julio

_________________________________________________________________
Las mejores tiendas, los precios mas bajos, entregas en todo el mundo,
YupiMSN Compras: www.yupimsn.com/compras


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.