Re: Re: WTO-conspiracy theories

["J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>]

Ken,
      This "lack of organization" has been
noticed by many and is a reason why Washington
is rife with rumors that Clinton wanted it to fail.
      I would also note that just because the US
said that anti-dumping was not to be on the agenda
did not mean that it would not ultimately be.  After all,
as far as the EU was concerned, their ag subsidies
were not to be on the agenda either.  That is how
trade negotiations work.  Two sides start out taking
positions that are declared to be absolute.  Then
each side gives a little to get something out of the other.
If new negotiations had started, that is probably how
it would have gone.  The US was supporting the Cairns
Group on the EU ag subsidies and also wanted openings
on telecoms, e-commerce, etc.  What it had to give up
that the others wanted was the anti-dumping stuff.
         But, hey, nobody in the streets gave a blank
about any of this anyway.  They were all too busy with
much bigger issues, much more important things.  Whether
those big things really had much to do with the WTO is
a rather big question.  Frankly, I have been saying all along
that all those issues are dealt with better in other fora.  But,
hey, if all you want to do is lead chants for excited students,
who cares?
Barkley Rosser
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Hanly <khanly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, December 09, 1999 3:35 PM
>Subject: [PEN-L:14566] Re: WTO-conspiracy theories


>Well the US insisted that anti-dumping was not on the
>agenda. If anything that was a cause for
>trashing the meeting for countries such as Japan. So it was
>not to be discussed anyway.
>The Manitoba Co-operator's article on the failure quotes a
>number of delegates as blaming the organisation by the US,
>as a prime cause of failure although the one day delay by
>protestors was also a factor. Some delegates were very angry
>that Barshevsky seemed to be busy with Clinto instead of
>chairing meetings.Many claimed it was the worst organised
>meeting they had ever attended. To be fair, the whole
>meeting started out with no agreement even on what the
>agenda should be. That probably didn't help.
>   Cheers, Ken Hanly
>
>J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. wrote:
>
>>       Another thing I ran across while surfing Louie's
>> archives were some moderately credible stories
>> claiming the presence of agents provocateurs in
>> Seattle.  A related report argued that the police
>> acted in a deliberately provocative and violent
>> way themselves (btw, if I had been there I would
>> probably have rioted in the streets to protest the
>> police actions, if nothing else).
>>        The guy posing the conspiracy theory argued
>> that it was Clinton trying to save the conference
>> by giving the police the provocation to beat up on
>> the demonstraters.  I think this is possible except that
>> I think the motive may have been just the opposite.
>> It is not just Bhagwati in Washington who thinks Clinton
>> deliberately sandbagged the conference himself
>> to please the AFL-CIO while he proposes China
>> joining.  The more I look, the more it seems plausible
>> that the agents provocateurs were to make the demo
>> "more violent" so as to guarantee its failure (and
>> guarantee no attacks on US anti-dumping suits).
>> Barkley Rosser
>
>
>