![](/img/extlink.gif)
George Monbiot has written an editorial for the Guardian (Tuesday 24th June) in which he endorses the continued existence of the World Trade Organization under the mild provision that they reform. For complete details see
![](/img/extlink.gif)
News Analysis:
3 simple points
1.Abolish the WTO
The World Trade Organization (WTO) is the tip of the global elite iceberg. They are actively involved in commodifying our lives, stealing the world, and very often killing people who get in their way. They cannot be reformed. If Monbiot told you to let your children be babysat by a murderer or a rapist would you allow that? Certainly not. But now it would be ok if he (or she) were reformed? In our interpersonal conflicts we work to criticise the behaviour and not the person; but in this global conflict we need to remove the people in order to stop the behaviour.
2.Fuck off George Monbiot
This guy is the left wing of capitalism (attempting to position himself to be in control of the power generated by resistance to corporate takeover). We are going to have to learn to be more effective at dealing with these let's-build-a-hierarchy-&-put-me-at-the-top types. We're going to see more and more of them as things heat up. (The WTO wants all the General Agreement on Trade in Service (GATS) negotiated and ready to start by end of next year!)
3.WTO-Replacement will be the same.
We should be very sceptical about placing another government agency between big corporations and the people who are being f*cked over by them. Often times this simply serves as a layer of protection for trans-national corporations from direct democracy. The WTO (and any likely replacement for it) is about regulating the protests against big corporations and yet it pretends to be about regulating the corporations and their trade. Putting ourselves- people who are being violated by the corporate oligarchy- into direct contact with that oligarchy (without giving them any layers of bureaucratic protection) will be the quickest ways to topple these very dangerous (but not always clever) M-Fs.
Solidarity & Oxygen
Michael Sceptic ;)
P.S. Below is text of one Green Party response. It is a bit wishy-washy but at least they are now coming to recognize what George Monbiot is about!
Subject: FW: [GP-MediaNet] Monbiot's attack on localisation
This is a response by the Green Party Press officer to George Monbiot.
Dear George,
I'm writing this as someone who has always had tremendous respect for you
and your work.
I feel your latest Guardian article severely misrepresents the Green Party
and its views on localisation. In effect, the article gives a fundamentally
flawed description of the localisation concept, which portrays it as
obviously stupid, and on that unreasonable basis criticises it.
This seems completely against the grain of just about everything I thought
you'd ever stood for.
Your article starts to be misleading from the subheading onwards. You say:
"Our aim should not be to abolish the World Trade Organisation, but to
transform it". In the process of arguing this you condemn the concept of
localisation, attack Colin Hines and single out the Green Party - yet the
Green Party's report Time To Replace Globalisation - co-authored by Colin
Hines - "challenges head on the idea that the choice before us is between
WTO rules on one hand, or the chaos of no rules on the other".
Effectively, you've taken the idea that WE'VE been promoting for years, and
used that idea to attack us.
I just searched our website for "WTO + reform" and it threw up 35
references. The first it found was this:
"24 October 2001
"REFORM OF WTO IS PRECONDITION FOR NEW ROUND, PARLIAMENT TOLD
"At a debate in the European Parliament in Strasbourg today (Weds) Green MEP
Caroline Lucas will insist that fundamental reform of the World Trade
Organisation's processes and rules must be a precondition for any new round
of trade negotiations that will demanded by the EU and US in November at
Doha, Qatar."
And the policy the Green Party took into the 2001 general election included
this:
"S12 In the long term, the WTO should be replaced with a more accountable,
decentralised body, which aims to protect and enhance social and
environmental conditions, and to develop strong self-reliant regions where
individual communities meet more of their own needs.
"S13 In the medium term, WTO rules must take more account of social and
ecological requirements, giving them precedence over the dubious benefits of
free trade." (Global Justice, Not Globalisation,
![](/img/extlink.gif)
So you are not arguing for something new, but you are making false
criticisms of people who said it before you did, as though they hadn't said
it but had said something else.
In other words, having had a road to Damascus conversion, and eager to
recant your sins, you're accusing others of things they haven't done.
Part of your confession is that "Our problem arises from the fact that,
being a diverse movement, we have hesitated to describe precisely what we
want." But in fact the Green Party has been describing what it wants, and
offering people the chance to vote for it. Indeed the very first words of
Time To Replace Globalisation (November 2001) are:
"For too long the debate surrounding economic globalisation has been
dominated by its fervent apologists and by its equally fervent detractors.
It is now time to move from opposition to proposition by setting out a
detailed alternative to globalisation."
You say "We have called for fair trade" as though that's all we've called
for. In fact the Green Party has been calling for far more than fair trade -
for a holistic concept of Green economics based on social justice and
ecological sustainability. Fair trade alone couldn't hope to bring either of
those. As a briefing we published last year says:
"Localisation is about moving economies onto a sustainable footing, and the
first step is to re-localise the production of staples, both North and
South. That way, the South will not have to be exploited by the North when
we want carrots, and exploited again when buying corn with the money that
they got from selling us the carrots! When we localise a globalised food
distribution system and assist the poor to achieve their own independence,
then they will no longer need to try and flog us their food, because they'll
be able to afford to keep it to eat themselves." (Matthew Wootton,
Internationalism and Localisation - Not Globalisation,
![](/img/extlink.gif)
We simply do NOT argue for "a global cessation of most kinds of trade". We
do envisage a kind of world economy in which there is less trade, simply
because there is less pressure to trade. As our economics spokesperson Dr
Molly Scott Cato says, "the real problem with trade is the loss of control
over product. The further the distance between producer and consumer the
more profits can be made - this is the explanation for globalisation. If you
reunite producer and consumer through cooperatives organised at the local
level you increase the value of the product going to the producer by cutting
out the middle man. This is the real benefit of localisation."
To say that Green economics is comparable to the sanctions against Iraq is
both highly inaccurate and, frankly, outrageous. Inaccurate because in a
world of localised economies those sanctions could not have wreaked such
havoc, because most of the things which were subject to the sanctions could
have been produced locally (assuming a localised, sustainable economy to
start with). Outrageous because you've just compared people who are strongly
motivated by internationalism and social justice with the perpetrators of a
more or less genocidal form of siege warfare which is merely euphemised
"economic sanctions".
You describe the policy of economic localisation as "coercive, destructive
and unjust".
How can it be "coercive" when it's based on the idea of empowering nations
to be economically self-reliant in a fundamentally cooperative world? What
on earth could be wrong with that?
Consider "destructive" in the context of climate change. You more or less
acknowledge in your article that trade has massive external costs, not least
the cost of climate change. But you go on to say that under localisation,
poorer countries would have to export even more. Now this really is
inexplicable. We are advocating a world of relatively balanced, relatively
self-reliant economies. That ultimately means the poorer country
manufacturing its own frying pans and computers and pencils, not selling
corn to earn money to buy them from the rich countries. In other words, it
means precisely the opposite of what you describe.
Perhaps you overlook the fact that in a Green economy there would be far
less demand for raw materials anyway.
The other major factor here is economies of scale. Whether one considers
these just or unjust or merely a normal factor of capitalist economics,
surely it's beyond dispute that production tends to centralise, and capital
tends to flow to wherever costs are lowest. Hence globalisation's "race to
the bottom". Even allowing for fair trade rules covering everything,
companies will still want to move production to wherever it's cheapest - and
this will still mean that goods tend to travel unnecessarily long distances
(with all the resulting environmental impacts and external costs), and
factories will keep shutting down in one place and reopening somewhere else
(which means perpetual economic instability and, in practice, a requirement
on at least a significant proportion of the workforce to be prepared to move
anywhere to accept any job on offer, regardless of any ethical or
environmental considerations - this is NOT freedom).
I'm amazed at your approach to "choosing their own path to development".
Surely now we recognise that we all have responsibilities and that these
must influence our choices? Surely it's not a good thing that people or
nations could "choose" to make climate change worse? Yet the localisation
concept would impose rules only to the extent that these were founded on
solid arguments regarding minimising harm - which is surely the very basis
of libertarian concepts of rules.
You've accused Colin of self-contradiction, but your own article contradicts
itself too. You say that developing nations must be allowed "to follow the
routes to development taken by the rich" - yet you would impose rules on
them to ensure their "contractors were not employing slaves, using banned
pesticides or exposing their workers to asbestos". That is, NOT following
the way the rich countries made their money.
This leads me to think that (entirely uncharasterically) you haven't thought
this one through. But you weren't merely airing doubts and challenging your
own or other people's preconceptions here - on the basis that you've seen
the light, you've attacked a lot of people who are on your side, not only
implying that they're stupid but likening them to Bush in advocating
"coercive, destructive and unjust" policies.
I think that you have probably damaged the anti-globalisation movement
considerably. Because you have greater access to the national media than we
do, your argument has been heard and our counter-argument hasn't. Therefore
you may well have knocked people's confidence in the Green Party. In fact
you've given ammunition to the neoliberal spindoctors who talk about "making
globalisation work for the poor" when their mission is really to make it
work for the rich. I can just imagine their line: "Even the highly respected
radical George Monbiot now admits the Green Party's policies are 'coercive,
destructive and unjust'."
I think we deserve better treatment than that.
Best wishes
Spencer
*** from the announcements list for the Green Party Media Network ***
managed by Spencer Fitz-Gibbon at
![](/img/maillink.gif)
technical support by John Norris at
![](/img/maillink.gif)
to unsubscribe from this list, send an email to
![](/img/maillink.gif)
p.p.s.
4.What is the green party talking about?
I hope someone from the green party is reading this. Your reply sounds very wishy washy to me. Are u simply saying "hey we wanted to sell out first but you stole our idea"? Probably not but the message being given is not very clear.
Green Party's report Time To Replace Globalisation - co-authored by Colin
Hines - "challenges head on the idea that the choice before us is between
WTO rules on one hand, or the chaos of no rules on the other".
Effectively, you've taken the idea that WE'VE been promoting for years, and
used that idea to attack us.
Grassroots level green people should get in touch with your leaders and tell them that you won't be walking voting precincts for them if they don't get this wishy washyness fixed. These WTO people are really quite dangerous.
Comments
Hide the following 4 comments
Why the surprise?
27.06.2003 07:33
john.
Reformist?
27.06.2003 10:14
Calling for reform of the global trading system is hardly the same level of sell-out (indeed, it isn't a sell-out at all since its always been their policy) as cutting social programmes in Germany!
If that is a sell-out, then I guess people like Chomsky, who sees the neccesity for immediate reforms now which help people in the short-term while preparing for radical change in the long-term, are also sell-outs. Keep building that 'more-radical-than-thou'
ghetto...
Matt
Matt S
Reform joke.Been tried before.
27.06.2003 11:11
John
Monbiot's response
14.09.2003 20:31
By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 9th September 2003
Outside the world trade talks beginning in Cancun in Mexico tomorrow, two battles will be fought. The first will be the battle between the campaigners demanding fair trade and the rich-nation delegates demanding unfair trade. The second will be the dispute now brewing within the ranks of those who claim to be helping the poor.
The problem all those who want a fairer deal face is that there has seldom, if ever, been a trade treaty struck between rich and poor which does not amount to legalised theft. The draft agreement the members of the World Trade Organisation will discuss this week is no exception. While it permits the rich nations to continue protecting their markets, it seeks to force the poor nations to open their economies to several novel forms of institutional piracy.
Yet the poorer countries desperately want an effective trade treaty. Their negotiators know that the rich world is trying to rob them, and they are loathe to approve an agreement which allows its corporations to run off with everything but their kidneys (that comes later). But they are also aware that both the US and the European Union appear to be doing all they can to force them to walk out. As any trades unionist knows, when the poor cannot bargain collectively, the rich can impose whatever rules they please.
The response of some of those in the rich world who are disgusted with their governments' proposals is to suggest that poor nations should withdraw from most kinds of international trade. But this introduces another problem. The poor countries need money and, in particular, hard money. They have few means of obtaining it. Piracy worked well for the nations which are rich today, but the poor are in no position to reciprocate. Aid locks its recipients into patronage and dependency. The only remaining option appears to be trade. The three million people from the poorer nations who have so far signed Oxfam's petition are calling not to "make trade go away", but to "make trade fair". And this is where they part company from some of those who claim to support them.
Few people in the rich world now admit that they wish drastically to reduce the value of exports from the poor nations, but several prominent campaigners are promoting policies which lead to this outcome. When, in June, I suggested that "localisation" (the proposal that everything which can be produced locally should be produced locally) would damage the interests of poorer nations, Dr Spencer Fitz-Gibbon, the press officer of the Green Party, sent me a furious letter of complaint.1 Localisation, he insisted, would help the poor by permitting them to be self-reliant and by reducing trade's contribution to climate change. "We are advocating a world of relatively balanced, relatively self-reliant economies. That ultimately means the poorer country manufacturing its own frying pans and computers and pencils". It sounds sensible and obvious, until you take a moment to examine the implications.
If every country is to manufacture its own frying pans and computers and pencils, then every country would require bauxite, iron ore, copper, silicon, feedstock, graphite, softwood and all the other raw materials required for their manufacture. If the country does not possess them, it must import them. Because raw materials are heavier, importing raw materials rather than finished products means that more fossil fuel must be used in transport. "Self-reliance" of this kind thus increases, rather than reduces, trade's contribution to climate change.
Just as dangerously, while self-reliance may be feasible for the richer nations, most of the poorer countries simply do not possess a domestic market of sufficient size to make the manufacturing of complex products worthwhile. Suggest to an Ethiopian economist that her nation should have a computing industry of its own, serving only its own market, and she would laugh in your face. Because the market is small, as the Ethiopians are poor, each computer would cost many times as much as those produced in the rich world. Their comparative purchasing power would then become even weaker, and the technology they wanted would fall still further out of reach. If Ethiopian businesses, hospitals and universities were to be viable, they would have to import their computers from abroad, as they do today.
For this they would require foreign exchange. But, under the Green Party's system, they would find it even harder to obtain than they do at present, for the rich world will also have been striving for (and will be far likelier to obtain) self-reliance in manufacturing. The blindingly obvious result is that the only products the poor countries can then sell to the rich ones are raw materials. I put these points to Dr Fitz-Gibbon two months ago. I have yet to receive a response.
Global justice surely requires that the people of the rich world, whatever their governments might want, campaign to help the poor nations reclaim as much of our ill-gotten wealth as possible. Just policies have been proposed by groups such as Oxfam, Christian Aid and the World Development Movement, which call, for example, for the democratisation of the World Trade Organisation; an agreement which permits the poorest countries to defend their infant export industries from direct competition; and binding international rules to force all corporations to trade fairly. Most of the localists, who appear determined to have their cake and eat it, also claim to support these positions. They have yet to address or even to acknowledge the glaring contradictions in which they have become entangled.
To these just measures we can add another, recently developed by the man who designed the "contraction and convergence" plan for tackling climate change, Aubrey Meyer. Contraction and convergence, which the African governments have now adopted as their official position on climate change, first establishes how much carbon dioxide humans can produce each year without cooking the planet. It then divides that sum between all the people of the world, and allocates to each nation, on the basis of its population, a quota for gas production. It proposes a steady contraction of the total production of climate-changing gases and a convergence, to equality, of national production per head of population. To produce more than its share a nation must first buy unused quota from another one.2
Meyer points out that by accelerating convergence we would grant the poor world a massive trade advantage. Those nations using the least fossil fuel would possess a near-monopoly over the trade in emissions. This would help redress the economic balance between rich and poor and compensate the poor for the damage inflicted by the rich nations' pollution.3
We have the opportunity to fight for something unprecedented: a trade treaty stacked against the rich. But if we are serious about campaigning for fair rules, we must also cease campaigning for unfair ones. The localists must confront their contradictions and decide whose side they are on.
Next week: Picking up the pieces from Cancun.
www.monbiot.com
References:
1. Open letter from Spencer Fitz-Gibbon to George Monbiot, 25th June 2003. This letter can be read online at
2. See Aubrey Meyer, 2000. Contraction and Convergence: The Global Solution to Climate Change. Green Books, on behalf of The Schumacher Society.
3. Aubrey Meyer, pers comm
An admirer of Mr. Monbiot
Homepage:
http://www.unidadepopular.org