Re: Quebec Protests

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

James,
       You are correct that in general tariffs have
largely disappeared as a main tool of protectionism,
to be replaced by quotas and all kinds of regulations.
       However, not to bore people too much, I must
note that the US anti-dumping statutes involve the
highly selective use of tariffs as the main punitive
mechanism for those naughty foreigners who dare to
sell products in the US at prices below the costs of
production of US producers.  This point is very much
on the minds of the leaders of the poorer Latin
American countries, and certainly of President Cardoso
of Brazil.  But, of course they do not remotely come
close to representing the interests of the poor in their
countries as do those in the streets of la ville de Quebec.
Barkley Rosser
----- Original Message -----
From: "schulte-baeuminghaus" <cresscourt@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Steve Rosenthal" <smrose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<PSN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 6:27 AM
Subject: Re: Quebec Protests


> Steve,
>
> There is a great deal of validity in what you say.
> The idea of a free-trade area is itself deceptive. Whether those who -
> like George W. Bush - advocate it so strongly, really understand what
> it is all about, must be questioned.
> At least some of them must be aware that the idea - in the simple
> terms in which it is put forward - is a farce.
> In the days when the tariff was the or certainly a principal regulator
> of world trade, a free-trade area involving the removel of tariffs had
> some meaning and significance.
> However, tariffs in today's - globalised? - world economy  mean
> comparatively little. A whole host of other features of macroeconomic
> policies, exchange-rate policies, convertibility and free or unfree
> movement of capital, market, health, safety, environment, labour and
> other regulations,  are the factors that determine most of world
> trade, its components and its direction.
> When we speak of a free-trade area, we must - today - be speaking of
> an area where it is open slather for the stronger members of the area
> to make such inroads into the economies of others as their strength
> allows.
> We must also assume that those who are in a strong position will use
> their strength to prevent inroads into their own economies.
> In this context, the record appears to show that the United States has
> used its economic power to exploit its position, whether within a
> free-trade area or not, in other countries but to defend its own
> economy against inconvenient imports from or other economic activity
> by other countries, again whether those other countries are members of
> the free-trade area or not.
> This is not to point the finger at an immoral, "imperialistic" United
> States.
> It is just that powerful countries protect and promote their own
> interests powerfully.
> The European Union began in the 1950s as a free-trade area with a
> common external tariff which was alleged to convert it into a customs
> union.
> But there has never been free trade within the European Economic
> Community, as it was originally, or in any of its several
> manifestations right up to the present-day European Union.
> The agricultural sector, through the Common Agricultural Policy, does
> not merely protect EU countries against outsiders; it also protects
> national agriculture against competition from within the EU. There is
> national protection and then EU protection - a splendidly watertight
> system which is a reflection of the determination of the more powerful
> members of the EU to defend their national interests powerfully and
> the smaller units to protect their national interests to the full
> extent they can.
> This protection goes - or can go - far beyond agriculture. The ways in
> which, for example, the French motor industry has been protected and
> promoted is more obscure but that it has been accomplished is
> undoubted.
> Much the same - with differing complexities - applies to the European
> aircraft and air transport industries.
> And so it goes on.
> The policymakers at Quebec - those who kept the protesters at bay -
> must have been aware, in some cases, of the exploitation they were
> seeking to perfect or, in other cases, the exploitation they must try
> to avoid while of course, getting some cut for key elements in their
> economies and/or societies.
> Some sectors of both groups would suffer loss and perhaps severe
> distress - most likely those in the lower income and wealth sectors,
> not represented effectively by the Quebec politicians but given some
> voice, however poorly articulated, by the protesters outside the
> conference rooms.
> To suggest, as Bush was trying to do, that everyone must benefit, is a
> nonsense.
> Of course, things may not work out as the policymakers intend.
> In the last couple of weeks, we have been made acutely aware of the
> strategic rivalry between China and the United States.
> But, for decades, United States policies have - in complete
> inadvertence - enabled China to make more dramatic economic progress
> than was possible even in the greatest periods of Chinese history down
> the centuries.
> It has been as though the United States has been a great and selfless
> benefactor determined to lift another great people to a point of
> economic development where that other is able to challenge the United
> States itself - strategically and politically to an ever greater
> degree as its economic performance continues to provide it with the
> strength that is the basis of all material - not necessarily moral -
> power.
> So we come back to the point that the powerful advocacy of "free
> trade" and the formation of "free-trade areas" by the United States
> may, on the one hand, be a deliberate confidence trick or, on the
> other hand, it may be that the United States has again failed to
> appreciate, if not the strength, then the craft of those who are
> sitting down at the poker table with them - or who are watching from
> the sidelines.
>
>
> James Cumes
> The Bookshelf of James Cumes
> http:/members.chello.at/schulte-baeuminghaus
>
>
>
>
> ----------
> >From: "Steve Rosenthal" <smrose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >To: PSN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: Quebec Protests
> >Date: Sun, Apr 22, 2001, 7:44 pm
> >
>
> > I generally agree with the points stephen Block made in response to
> > TR Young.  What is called globalizing capitalism is bringing
> > deepening misery to a large majority of humanity.  I support the
> > determined protests in Quebec against summit leaders' efforts to
> > create a "Free Trade Area of the Americas."
> >
> > Since we discussed the "Battle in Seattle" on PSN, certain global
> > developments have helped to clarify the meaning of "globalization"
> > and "anti-globalization" protest.  George W. today bluntly stated in
> > Quebec that the Americas must unite in order to compete with an
> > increasingly united Europe.  Even though W often has great difficulty
> > in making himself clear, on this occasion his intentions are pretty
> > obvious.
> >
> > The US is trying to strengthen its imperialist position in the
> > Western hemisphere, where it has faced increasing competiton from
> > European and Asian capitalist rivals.  The economic downturn in the
> > US probably lends greater urgency to this US aim.
> >
> > The rulers meeting in Quebec have announced that they are going to
> > proceed to set up a free trade zone, but there will be many
> > obstacles to the implementation of an FTAA.  Many Latin American
> > rulers are reluctant to accept the US plans.  Brazil's rulers, for
> > example, are dealing with their own economic crisis and have ties to
> > Mercosur and to Asian and European capital.  It doesn't necessarily
> > serve their capitalist interests to accept the US plans, although
> > they will probably be careful not to oppose them to openly or
> > aggressively.
> >
> > The term "globalization" obscures what is actually taking place in
> > the world today.  As James Petras wrote recently in an article in Z
> > magazine, we should stop using words that were invented to obfuscate
> > reality.  Globalization is imperialism.  Structural adjustment is
> > wealth concentration and plunder.
> >
> > The formation of regional blocs is a symptom of the sharpening of
> > inter-imperialist rivalry.  The main danger facing workers everywhere
> > is not that capitalists of all countries will unite.  It is that
> > different blocs of capitalists will compete economically and
> > politically and eventually militarily, as they did on two notable
> > occasions during the last century.
> >
> > Meanwhile, it is important for anti-globalization forces not to ally
> > with one imperialist against another.
> >
> > Steve Rosenthal
>