Slashdot Mirror
WTO + SDMI = NWO
Andy Oram's latest article has a nice analysis of the future of intergovernmental organizations and the internet. He covers the PICS bait-and-switch, DVDs, and ties it all in with the actions of groups like the WTO and WIPO. The intertwining of government and corporations to limit freedoms on the internet is a topic that every internet user should pay attention to, but few do. I personally plan to cover this situation in as great a depth as possible on slashdot in the future - stay tuned.
Intergovernmental organizations do play a significant role nowadays, but we must remember that ultimate power still rests in national governments with their police, their armies, and their popular mandates.
Not quite true, if the national governments (meaning people that comprise them) become dependent (directly or indirectly) on various super-national bodies. One can argue that IMF removed Indonesia's Suharto by forcing him to conduct rather unpopular economic policies.
And, let's face it, there're more pressing problems than CDA - like the right to KNOW if your food was genetically engineered.
On the more sinister (conspiracy theory) note, what about IMF, World Bank and WTO being covertly led by the Trilateral and Bilderberg Commissions that are not elected in any way, but simply ARE OUT THERE?
Plenty of times, a national government has reacted to an intergovernmental organization by ignoring it, stonewalling it in court, or even threatening its continued existence by withdrawing funds. While the United States is the most common rebel, there are others as well. Israel has no intention of obeying U.N. Security Council resolutions regarding the Palestinian Arabs. Russia has told the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe to bug off and let Russia fight its Chechen war the way it wants. As a more trivial example, France refused to lift a ban on British beef when ordered to earlier this month by the European Commission.
I think it's pretty pathetic when an author lumps in trade conflict with military conflict.
They are not even in the same domain when people decide to protest.
When inosent people are being killed, and a governement is asking it's young people to go kill them, then the people should rise up in oposition.
However, when Wingdings Inc. can't sell "New and Improved Coochie-Koos" to the Hoo-too market, I hardly think it's an issue that required the people to rise up and rebel.
Don't lump the loss of life together with the loss of market share.
Of, by, and for, the people. Not Wingdings Inc.
The article contains a bunch of funky character entities like
#8212, #8220, #8221, and #8217, which fail to render in NetPositive, BeOpera, and BeLynx (a rather eccentric collection of browsers, I admit). As I was preparing to flame him, I violated my principles, and did a little research first, and found this at w3c.org, which appears to list them as valid HTML. What gives?
Let me give you a common example - mp3 ripping and software "piracy". With a few exceptions (you may have one or two at work who are well known for it), most geeks don't have an issue with copying software or other information (audio) for personal use. It's a non-issue. So how come the average joe, after watching an SPA commercial is scared that the cops are already on their way to his house to bust him because he borrowed a windows 98 CD from a friend of his at work? Because he doesn't know that isn't going to happen. We have more information that he does. I know atleast 30 people off the top of my head that freely exchange their software with each other. Photoshop 5, ask john. Need Back Office, go to david. You get the idea. Am I a criminal? Yeah, probably. I simply happen to know the probability of the SPA even caring about my meager collection are about as good as MS winning the trial. You'll also note I'm posting with my e-mail address attached. I dare the SPA or RIAA to come over to my house. I know it would cost local law enforcement more in transportation and manpower than they would hope to gain by "busting" me.
This is the reason why the WTO is dangerous - we already have ways to circumvent it. Talks of creating digital havens outside of US or WTO control are already underway and servers are doubtless being setup as we speak. Information does not want to be free - it already is. The problem is getting the non-geeks to understand this. And that, my friends, is the heart of the issue.
It is pretty much accepted that SDMI has been, and always will be, DEAD. Users will never support a format that includes self-destruct "features". In fact, one of the SDMI folks wrote a message on MP3.com, which can be found here.
-Davidu
# Hack the planet, it's important.
Imposing this kind of regulatory laws on the Internet will only harm the law-abiding consumers. They will do nothing at all against the trouble-makers. What, you can stop stuff like pr0n and whatnot on the Internet by monitoring who connects where, and cutting off traffic at routers, etc.? No way! They'll always find a way around it. Then what happens? You've crippled the Internet for the average user -- who has no part in "questionable" things like this. You've deprived the innocent user of his privacy so that ad companies can bombard him with spam and sell his personal info. But you've done absolutely nothing to prevent Internet crime and abuse. Those who abuse the Net will always find ways to work around any kind of "protection" you impose on the Internet.
Why does US allow citizens to have guns? Because by outlawing guns you only cause normal people to be more vulnerable. It doesn't matter whether guns are legal or not; criminals will always find ways to get them. The same goes for the Internet.
mikre he sophia he tou Mikrosophou.
Of course, the downside of this view is in recognizing that many people and ideas will get crushed by the system, unfairly and brutally, before things improve. Things may not get better for a long time either (a new Dark Ages, where wealth and access to tools of knowledge are increasingly restricted to a proportionally smaller slice of the population, is a distinct possibility - see tightening of IP protections, restrictions on "heretical" communications (e.g. encryption)), but ultimately, this too shall pass.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
This article was meant to raise our awareness of real-world threats to our security, but the response of the slashdot community seems to be a little myopic. Don't focus on the fact that the author calls linux trendy (albeit many arguments can be raised as linux gains in popularity and moves in that direction), and don't discount it as conspiracy theory just because it mentions the NWO. The old guard sees the power of the Internet staring them in the face, and to them this digital manifestation takes the form of all the commies under the bed, the blacks being let into their schools, and the 'demoralization' of america that they have faced in the past century. All of these things were social and political changes that marked an era. People like Strom Thurmond, who continue to exist in our political structure, and people like all the liberals shouting protect the children, are struggling to control what they see to be the beast of revelations. To them the letter W = 6 and www is the mark of the beast. The government is being pushed by them as they strap on to pending legislation and continue to press their own laws through that would make every aspect of the Internet some Orwellian parody. They are trying to save their Old World Order if you will, by trying to chain change with laws in the name of safety, morality, and all those things we hold as right and reactionary. With the media's downplay of the political tensions in Seattle that resulted in the protests/riots that ensued, as well as the general spread of ignorance (along with AOL and Windows, sort of like a bundle...) most people don't pull the threads together and see whats going on. I think the author was extremely insightful and hope his article opened some eyes. One more reason for free strong-crypto, elimination of backdoors for the gov't., and why we should distance ourselves from things such as the EU, NATO, WTO, etc.
-just my two cents.
--Ks9
Funny, this time last week, we'd have been kvetching about how $GOVERNMENTAGENCY was the problem.
Then a few yahoos trash Seattle yelling "help, help, I'm bein' repressed!" - and all of a sudden, old 60s-era journalists remember their drug-filled youths and decide that violent protest is trendy.
(Yes, violent protest. Were it not for the yahoos trashing downtown, the peaceful protesters would have been politely ignored as they always are. An ex-hippie journalist who grew up in the 60s can't write lines comparing Seattle to the Democratic Convention and Kent State incidents of his or her youth without the tear gas, pepper spray, and bullets to go with it. Violence == ratings, and if violence can be made trendy, the folks running the news organizations (obviously pawns of the WTO :-) can assure themselves of more violence in the future.)
And now that the smoke has cleared, those same journalists have realized that it's trendy to bash capitalism, so everyone with a left-leaning cause decides to do a s/$OLDBADGUY/WTO/g in their articles.
Don't like SDMI? Blame the WTO! Someone cuts you off in traffic? Blame the WTO! Now that's what I call trendy.
Someone questions knee-jerk WTO-bashing? Blame the WTO and accuse them of being part of the Conspiracy. Betcha that's trendy too.
Y'know what I wanna see being trendy? Geeks getting jobs, making money, maybe a few more millionaires through the stock option lottery, and then - if they still persist in believing the hype against global capital even after having benefitted so immensely from it - putting some of those dollars back into their communities and making a difference.
But success is never trendy, is it?
One interesting ramification of forcing nations into codependency is the resulting immunity of institutionalized power to popular revolution.
Revolutions are local affairs, instigated by people on the streets and swept along by physical proximity, excitement, and charisma. Revolutions are generally also mob actions. Even the most widely spread revolutions in history, such as those in the 1840's and the 1960's could be regarded as a series of "brush fires" rather than one giant, ongoing conflagration.
Popular revolt is dangerous to elites (that is to say the wealthy and the government) because they may not have sufficiently well organized propaganda to subvert them. Or, failing that, they may lack enough brute might to suppress them physically. Once a hierarchy topples, there is no failsafe for the elites. Their last card has been played and they wind up disgraced or occasionally dead. These local successes can inspire further uprisings in other nations with similar social structures. One excellent example of this is the French revolution as a reflection of the success of the American revolution.
However, with the introduction of a so-called "world economy" and "world government", local elites do have a second tier of defense. Namely, that a region that has become dependent upon interactions with other regions can be starved and ostracized into submission. For example, consider the remarkable conformity among third-world nations to austerity policies established by the IMF. Austerity may or may not work, but it certainly is not a popular economic path for locals, involving as it generally does the elimination of goods subsidies and social programs, and the granting of special privileges to large international businesses. Yet local potentates comply with the IMF because without the goodwill of the world community, upon which they are dependent, their countries would collapse.
Such co-dependent nations face only disgrace and economic disaster if a revolution occurs. Ultimately, the revolutionaries either toe the "international-friendly" line as will probably be the case in Pakistan, or they submit. Would-be revolutionaries in other regions observe this failure, and some of the fire goes out of them for their own uprising.
The elites, who are essentially fluid in the absence of international boundaries, retreat as they have always done to an amenable nation and agitate for harsher punitive measures against the now "rogue" state. This is precisely what has occurred in southern Florida, which is settled by many very wealthy Cubans.
This trend is certainly in the best interests of entrenched power.
-konstant
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
This article brings about some good points..
The heavy-handed pronouncements of the WTO and the International Monetary Fund excite warnings about their vast power from many critics, some speaking sinisterly from the left and others righteously from the right.
Yes, but who is listening? We can see how much the Seattle riots are making a difference to the WTO summit. The people who are speaking out against these groups seem to be portrayed fairly often as lunatic commies who dont seem to know that a global economy run by a select few organizations with mammoth political power is the way things should be.
Intergovernmental organizations do play a significant role nowadays, but we must remember that ultimate power still rests in national governments with their police, their armies, and their popular mandates.
While I agree with this in principle, I dont see how these organizations can be stopped from doing things that the people dont want, but the governments do. For the WTO or another super-governmental body to reflect the wishes of its member countries, it has to reflect the needs of the PEOPLE in those countries, not just the party platforms and presidential programs. We can see that the PEOPLE in Seattle are speaking out against the WTO and are unhappy with its programs, and they are being portrayed as criminals and looters, not agents of change. I believe that when a group of people speaks out against one of these supergovernments, their government should listen and not bring in Riot Police and the National Guard, or there will be no way to stop these multinational groups from becoming merely another abstraction of government to transform the wants of the people into the wants of the megacorps.
-End Of Rant-
//Phizzy
"Most European technology just isn't worth our stealing," -- Former CIA chief James Woolsey, referring to Echelon
One is worth fighting for, and the other is worth working for.
Warning: Excessive Ranting.
I have mixed feelings on this subject - on one hand, there's not much that joe blow can do about a government that he/she doesn't like - and every day, more guns get taken out of the hands of the people, which is what all policical power defaults to. Don't think so? Have a look at Seattle. You US guys should know that the bit about guns in the consitution wasn't about hunting. One of my favorite quotes goes something along the lines "a good government should be afraid of it's people".
Don't like the laws? Start protesting them. But, most aren't willing too, because when it comes right down to it, most people want to come home from their crappy job, drink there beer, sit in front of their cable TV, eat their dinner, and pass out. Until something interferes with that nothing will change.
The protests with the WTO are directly related to governments conspiring (at least from Joe Blow's perspective) to interfere with the "crappy job" bit. People, we all can't be programmers, and the average joe understands this completely. The middle-class medium-skilled jobs are the ones that get transferred to the third world, and those are also the ones most people work!
Software laws will largely become a side point if the current trends in open-source development keep doing. Linux has come a long way in 5 years - imagine what will happen in 15.
On other policical fronts, until the masses get connected in such a way that they can freely work together - something you need strong crypto for - not much is going to change. I know that personally, as long as the man doesn't bother me too much, my bank account remains intact, and I can buy a NSX when I want one, I'm not too concerned.
Kudos!
..don't panic
Anybody who doubts that the citizenry can unilaterally take something back from government control need only tune their HF receivers to 27 MHz, then look up the history of that stretch of radio spectrum.
When over 10% of the American public owned CB radios, enforcement of the extant ill-advised rules for Part 95 CB Radio (ill-advised because the rules were appropriate for a VHF or UHF service with no over-the horizon propagation, not for the most interesting global propagation ham band at sunspot maxima) became impossible.
The result is a jungle in this case, but the impact on a government body of the stubborn mass refusal of a populace to comply with onerous regulations is so-far permanent: faced with the impossibility of obtaining funding for effective enforcement, the FCC backed off and effectively told CBers "don't bother other radio services." This, without a shot being fired, without any boxes of tea being dumped in the harbor.
To me this article is really lacking. Certainly organizations like the WTO can do a lot of harm, but the fact of the matter is that globalization cuts both ways, both good and bad. Authors like this may have some pet ox gored, but the long term effects of globalization contain too many positive effects to ignore.
/. realize very well that the Internet is already beyond the regulatory capacity of any one nation. Even in China the government has found that it's goals of trade with the west are inconsistent with their desire to censor news. They are finding that their only choice is to favor openness because the alternative is the gulag and stagnation.
Global trade clearly benefits consumers in a lot of ways by making the marketplace more competitive. If a country is a low cost producer, or the goods they produce are of higher quality they should not be excluded from a market for nationalistic reasons. Consumers in Japan pay far more for food than in the US, and it is only because of government interference with trade that they do so. Surely there would be dislocation in the Japanese farm community if Japan imported more food - BUT the same money that is spent on subsidies not could be spent to restructure the Japanese economy, and the labor that is inefficiently spent on food production could be applied to far better value added activities that would ultimately result in improving the standard of living in Japan.
Concerns about WTO creating a more stable system of government are interesting - but what is the alternative? The 20th Century has been marked by the two greatest wars in human history. One of the great hopes of globalization is that it will make war obsolete. Nations will become interdependent and have far more to lose by going to war. The ultimate hope is that the productive capacities used to maintain armies at large fractions of GDPs in third world countries will be turned towards production of consumer necessities.
Many third world countries are concerned about globalization resulting in massive cultural changes. Certain globalization will result in cultural change. But what ways of life are worth maintaining at the expense of illiteracy, poverty and disease?
Globalization is often cited as a powerful force towards democratization and rule of law rather than law of ruler. It appears now that any totalitarian regime that engages in open competition will have powerful forces towards openness directed at it. Rampant inefficiencies due to corruption will be forced out of existence. Stong man governments (the Phillipines and Indonesia are powerful recent examples) will be forced out of power.
What are the downsides? Certainly in an interdependent global society some lack of local soveriegnty is lost. Is this a bad thing? In my opinion xenophobia and nationalism have been the two greatest forces for destruction over the history of mankind.
Losing the old growth forests of the Pacific Northwest is painful, and should be avoided, but we should also work to prevent mass murder at the hands of despots. Is the sacrifice of a few trees to prevent a world war worthwhile?
I think so.
The fact is that we have an unusual opportunity to positively influence future history by globalization. The key is not whether we want to globalize, but to understand the reasons for it, and to manage our institutions to take advantage of the benefits.
One thing that people everywhere will have to get used to is that world organizations will have some unusual powers. It is impossible to manage a global economy with national level institutions. There will probably be a lot of problems at the start, and some xenophobic reaction to these problems. But the potential is worth it.
People on
The future of mankind is with transparency at the world level, not with petty xenophobic nationistic views. The goals we need to be working for are making the international organizations needed for globalization transparent and open, while not being blind to the ultimate benefits of globalization.
with that is globalisation and a shift towards a kind of world government.
i would say NWO (the shift towards some kind world government) is more or
less inevitable. we will have that in some form or another anyway. the
question is not if we want that kind of thing but how we want
it to look like.
scale (and the most important problems are usually global problems) then no
one will solve those problems. instead big corporations will more or less
rule the world. small countries can not afford to object those big
corporations.. "if you do not give us the right to pollute your environment
we will take our $$$ elsewhere.." etc.. only very big countries could afford
to object here.. the USA comes to mind. but unfortunately the USA is mostly
in the hand of big $$$ corporations anyway because the political system
allows bribery (lobbying, donating money to senators etc..) and is not
really democratic.. so i guess big corporations are not unhappy with the
status quo of competing national government. as long as there is no real
international political power which could stand up against big corporations
then they are the king of the hill...
that can operate on a global scale. we need institutions where these
problems are discussed but moreover we also need institutions which have the
legal power to do something about the problems. so international
organisations are necessary. but we want them to be democratically
controlled. until we have world wide voting this could be achieved if the
national governments send representatives there and each one has votes..
so when arguing against international organisations like WTO etc: it is
important that people argue against the politics this organisation makes in
case it is too much oriented towards the interest of corporations but not
against the institution as a place where there would be power to do
something to control international corporations
an example: international corporation wants to produce something very cheap
and the cheapest way to produce it is in a way that pollutes our atmosphere.
now they say ask: "which country has no laws to prohibit the pollution about
the atmosphere" of course they will find one somewhere.. (bribing a senator
in the USA or going 3rd world country..etc.). now each sovereign small
country can say: oh but we will not buy these goods from this company
because they pollute the environment... but will they really do it? after all
it gives them competitive disadvantage compared to the other nations which
do not hesitate to buy that goods.. when it is a small country then they can
not do but buy.. (maybe they have a little bit more tax on it so they can
tell the environmentalists among the voters that they are doing something
but most of the time they will just buy it). would there be a powerful
organisation then they could just say "producing with this kind of
environmental is not allowed."
somehow the reason why we want supernational organisations is the same as
the one why we want workers unions => so that the people together are strong
against too much capitalism. and i guess most of the resortiments against
NWO is actually promoted by big corporations and right wing parties.
(together with a few left who are just to stupid to grasp it).
greetings from vienna, austria.
der mond.
I foudn the quote from this comment hard to believe, so I did a search, and sure enough: he really said it.
Boggle.
--
Xenu loves you!
"See how easily the 'powerful' upper middle class was turned against the Seattle protests by a simple bandying of the term 'violent'." Nevermind the millions of dollars this cost Seattle. Nevermind the fact that the protestors blocked the downtown area off for several days. Nevermind the fact that there are sound economic arguments for free trade. Nevermind the fact that many stores were looted and vandalized. Nevermind the fact that Seattle has never been a very entrenched city (it is a largely middle class and diverse city). Because you disagree with the WTO, obviously it is the upper middle class who're the fools. Right? Give me a break. Though I don't agree with the previous poster, the "middle class" and the "upper middle class" are largely different groups--you are confusing the two. You are forgetting your history if you believe it is the lower classes that are the politically active ones; the lower middle class have carried many more significant revolutions and political shifts. America's middle class fears change because they lead a relatively comfortable existance, and the marginal costs of revolution far outweigh the marginal benefits revolution could bring. Thus no revolution.
Do you really believe that the bulk of the upper class (or even the upper-middle class) would have elected Bill Clinton, or any other democrat, president? How many lobbies / interest groups represent upper class constituencies? Do you believe the upper class would have opted to be taxed at steeper effective rates? (e.g., income, capital gains, estate taxes, luxary taxes, etc.)
Furthermore, who do you believe most of protestors were? They were largely middle and upper middle class (college aged/long hair types). Not many "poor" or "upper class" people there, I assure you. Does the WTO represent the status quo (static)? Not exactly. The WTO wants to drastically step up "free trade". The only coherant (arguably) and unified voice against WTO was labor vs. exportation of jobs. What you saw was, in fact, a somewhat violent (and blind in my opinion) back-lash to change by mostly middle class individuals (e.g.: Unions).
Somewhat off the subject, it strikes me that most of the cries for "human rights" are some what hypcritical. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of these 3rd world countries don't need to use slavery (it costs more!) to support industry; their people want to put food on the table. Though 50 cents may be dirt by American standards, the people of these countries have no other options. They work at these "low" wages of their own volition, because it's the best choice they've got. Who are these liberals (and Union ploys under liberal* causes) to say they can't work them? [empirically there is a lot of evidence that these manufacturing positions ultimately bring greatly increased mobility] I've yet to see these same activists provide them with more palatable alternatives. Nor do they protest for lack of industry, only when Union jobs are at stake do they voice "concern". These Unions fear losing their jobs/salaries--change; it is as simple as that (well almost).
You underestimate the middle class. Though there is a certain amount of apathy in the middle class and the upper/upper-middle classes are disproportinately more powerfull, the reigns of control rest largely in the hands of the middle class. The government hardly makes any significant sustained actions (atleast those under political purview) that runs significantly afoul of the middle class. This has been demonstrated numerous times. Though I suspect the "globalization" initiatives will not be entirely scuttled, it will not happen if there is wide disapproval amongst the middle class. No amount of "media control" [I think this is mostly bullshit] by the "social elite" will change this. If, for example, the middle class learned (or came to believe) that they lost 20% of their salaries to 3rd world nations in the next year, the WTO and all its corresponding laws would vanish, for all intents and purposes.
The first difference is that in a conventional democracy, we are voting for a national government which will affect ourselves (the body of voters in an election) and not, to any large degree, the body of people not entitled to vote - that is, the inhabitants of the rest of the world. Unless our government chooses to go to war, or something.
However, a group of shareholders is voting on the actions of a company which can affect the non-voting rest of the world, and is very likely to vote in the financial interest of the company over the general well-being of everyone. Whilst national democracy is clearly flawed in practice, it was at least designed to produce the best possible outcome for the greatest number. The company-with-shareholders model is designed only to make money for the company and screw everyone else. Even if the directors want to play nice, they are still at the mercy of the shareholders.
The second major difference is that of block voting. Even those fortunate enough to own shares in a company are likely to have little power since many more shares will be owned by the banks and pension plans you mention. Many times in the UK we have seen shareholder revolts over environmental concerns, directors' pay and so on, come to naught simply because the balance of power is held by a few large businesses.
Seconded. But however much an 'alternative' economy can be realised, based around low-control, the internet, free software and freedom of digital information, there are still things the transnats can do to get in the way. Patents is the obvious one, which has rightly received a great deal of attention here. By patenting enough obvious and necessary computing ideas and coercing national governments into recognising the patents, they can prevent software outside their sphere of influence being distributed. Lawyers can be used to frighten individuals and ISPs into effective censorship. Encryption outlawed. The whole YRO gamut.
Me, I'd like to be optimistic, but it's doesn't suit me. :-)
--
This comment was brought to you by And Clover.
You have mighty selective hearing. Most of the WTO protestors were middle class. Furthermore, even if the WTO ultimately succeeds, that does not necessarily mean the middle class is being manipulated. What ever happened to self-interest as a motivator? I have friends and family who work in downtown Seattle. Frankly, they were pissed at the demonstrators because they blocked off their buildings and the like. They taunted and assaulted some as well. Plenty of reason to be pissed off, no the media did not force their thinking.
You give these lobbies far too much credit in terms of the influence they exert. The elite themselves don't have any signifigant lobbies. Yes there are corporate lobbies, but these represent middle and upper-middle class interests as well. Meanwhile, you totally ignore programs such as welfare, the disproportinately high tax programs against the wealthy, OSHA, environmental laws, etc.
Who are you to stand on this imaginary intellectual pedastool and judge all others simply because you disagree with them. Perhaps it is your psuedo-intellectual highschool/college aged middle class thinking that is cloudy. Perhaps Green Peace or some other longhair group has your ear bent. You're not even making an intellectual argument against free trade. You simply don't like it, and you assume that all who disagree with you are either "elite" or being manipulated...anyways, you're hopeless. bye
In fact, if a country joins a body such as the WTO, one agrees to accept all their rulings, not just the ones you agree to.
All treaties or contracts require you to give something in order to get something.
Canada disagreed with the similar forced importation of MMT (a gasoline additive which hasn't been proved safe yet) but had to not only allow it, but also pay a significant penalty to the manufacturer for trying to prevent it's import.
To begin with the case was a NAFTA, not a WTO issue. Canada was in fact on very thin ice because they were unable to ban the use of MMT under their own environmental laws. They only recourse they had was to try to ban importation and interprovincial sale. This put them in an extremely bad position under NAFTA. Rather than try their case under NAFTA they agreed to a settlement with Ethyl and in fact the case was never really adjudicated under NAFTA.
The U.S. disgarees with the WTO overturning the ban on tuna-containing-dolphins, but was forced to submit, on pain of substantial fines.
The US had to SLIGHTLY modify the zero tolerance dolphin by-catch law it had to accept a 0.1% bycatch percentage. The modified law was supported by many major environmental groups including Greenpeace and the WWF. As part of this almost all Latin American countries have adopted 0.1% by-catch limits.
Here is a statement regarding the legislation:
Teresa Platt of the US Fishermens Coalition is still optimistic: "It is higly likely that the legislation will pass as it is supported by the tuna fishing interests in twelve countries, five major environmental groups, several unions, over a hundred resource and property rights groups, the Clinton administration, key Democrats and the Republican leadership in Congress.
To me this tuna bycatch agreement seems like a real step forward.
First Point, the person I was replying to indicated that the middle class doesn't have a mind of its own, that the mere mention of 'violence' turned the tide against the protestors. I have friends and family there [mostly upper-middle class], most of whom have damn little respect for the media, and they despised the protestors from the get go.
Secondly, I study economics and finance, I'm not talking out of my ass [though I don't think the world of academics]. There IS a strong empirical argument for free trade, as well as theoretical arguments. Yes, "free trade" can be painfull [It can even be harmfull. Especially if it is perverted and one way], particularly in the short run. Yes, I can see why the Unions might find it distasteful. However, none of this invalidates the opinions of "middle class" Seattlelites agaisnt the protestors.
Thirdly, the protestors concerns [legitimate or not] do not excuse their actions. Put simply, the people of Seattle and the WTO have certain rights; the protestors stepped on these rights and abused the law. You have a right to assemble in the US, but you must do it in accordance with the law. Neither MLK Jr, Thoreau, Ghandi, rebels during the Boston Tea Party,or other recognized authorities on civil disobedience argued for this kind of action. Seattle's laws are promulugated democratically, exist for good of the people, and are reasonable; in other words, they are just [moral]. The protestors, by stepping on these just laws to strike [something else] at what they dislike [or maybe even percieve as "un-just"], strike at democracy itself [they could try voting, gasp]. As I have said in other threads, a relatively small group, by breaking these laws, can throw a wrench in the works of democracy. Perhaps these protestors are representetive of the majority. But it was not voted on. Until that time, the city of Seattle not only has the right to enforce their laws regarding assembly, but an obligation to do so. Turn this problem over, replace the WTO with the NAACP, and the longhairs/unions with the KKK. Would you still argue the KKK has the right? [Not to mention what happened when the schools were de-segregated, pro-lifers blocking abortion clinics, et. al] Or that Seattle isn't allowed to use force? What is a right if you can't use reasonable means to protect it?
Fourthly, Thank you for agreeing with my point of view on 3rd world labor. There is something of a paradox in labor's complaints about it. Yes, in an ideal world they would be allowed to organize unions, collect higher salaries, etc. For the time being however, they are desperate and would be better off with a job, any job. I don't see the Unions doing anything to help them in lieu of the loss of potential jobs ["substandard" conditions]. Additionally, short of a totalitarian government, the odds are, that, these countries' standards would advance, without us imposing it on them [Imposing total "equality" strikes me as an improbable means of helping them. You've got to learn to crawl before you can walk. If these people behaved as most American unions do, they'd NEVER see these manufacturing jobs. The marginal costs of putting factories in third world countries would be far too high, which is what the union leaders are probably banking on]. Empirically, certain Asian countries (e.g., Singapore) have followed that path, and have done rather well. But I digress....
I basically agree with you. I'm not 100% free trade by any means. The complexity that you see in many ways strengthen's my arguments in support of leaving the WTO unmolested. Pardon me if I sound like a snob, but the union meetings are hardly the place to discuss the finer points of economics or trade. These are best handled on a representitive basis [within a democracy]. Most people are a bit misinformed, in that, the WTO alone does not overrule US law. Congress still must vote it all into law before it comes to fruition; there is democratic oversight. The conclusions reached within the WTO are essentially proposals, which can be argued in Congress. The WTO should be allowed to discuss the real issues, free of union propaganda. I'm even somewhat sympathatic [to both parties actually] on the "openess" argument. On one hand, there are benefits to not having to watch what you say for fear of offending someone....On the other hand, having open discussions can moderate certain behaviors [e.g., blind corporatism].....anyhow, I've got another lecture to attend, sorry to rush out. Bye ;)