You need to know about this, so read on below. By the way, do you know anyone who wants to receive this? They should drop me a mail asking to subscribe. Include "Andy's Update" in the subject.
Do you want to stop receiving these? You can drop me an email asking to be taken off the list. Include "Andy's Update" in the subject.
[From Chapter 12, Adjusting the Poor]
In the flurry of global institution building that followed World War II, the spotlight of public attention was focused on the United Nations (UN), which was to be inclusive of all countries, each with an equal voice -- at least in its General Assembly. Delegates to the UN are public figures, and debates are open to public view and often heated. Yet the General Assembly has little real power. The real ability to act is vested in the Security Council, in which each of the major powers maintains the right of veto. Judging from its governance structures, it must be concluded that the UN was created primarily to function as a forum for debate.
In contrast, three other multilateral institutions were created with relatively little fanfare to operate outside the public eye -- the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (commonly known as the World Bank), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). These three agencies are commonly referred to as the Bretton Woods institutions, in tribute to a meeting of representatives of forty-four nations who gathered in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, July 1-22, 1944, to reach agreement on an institutional framework for the post-World War II global economy. The public purpose of what became known as the Bretton Woods system was to unite the world in a web of economic prosperity and interdependence that would preclude nations' taking up arms. Another purpose in the eyes of its architects was to create an open world economy unified under U.S. leadership that would ensure unchallenged U.S. access to the world's markets and raw materials. Two of the Bretton Woods institutions -- the IMF and the World Bank -- were actually created at the Bretton Woods meeting. The GATT was created at a subsequent international meeting.
Although formally designated as "special agencies" of the UN, the Bretton Woods institutions function nearly autonomously from it. Their governance and administrative processes are secret -- carefully shielded from public scrutiny and democratic debate. Indeed, the internal operating processes of the World Bank are so secretive that access to many of its most important documents relating to country plans, strategies, and priorities is denied even to its own governing directors.
[From Chapter 13, Ensuring Corporate Rights]
The framework for a post-World War II economy, which had been worked out largely between the United States and Britain, called for the creation of three multilateral institutions: the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and an international trade organization. The latter organization was stillborn because of concerns in the U.S. Congress that its powers would infringe on U.S. sovereignty. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) served in its stead, with a somewhat ambiguous status, as the body through which multilateral trade agreements were fashioned and enforced. It was not until January 1, 1995, that the triumvirate was finally completed. A new global organization, the World Trade Organization (WTO), was quietly born during the Uruguay round of GATT. It was a landmark triumph for corporate libertarianism. A trade body with an independent legal identity and staff similar to that of the World Bank and the IMF is now in place, with a mandate to press forward and eliminate barriers to the free movement of goods and capital. The needs of the world's largest corporations are now represented by a global body with legislative and judicial powers that is committed to ensuring their rights against the intrusions of democratic governments and the people to whom those governments are accountable. What the World Bank and the IMF had accomplished in institutionalizing the doctrines of corporate libertarianism in low-income countries, the WTO now has a mandate and enforcement powers to carry forward in the industrial countries.
Conservation measures that restrict the export of a country's own resources -- such as forestry products, minerals, and fish products -- could be ruled unfair trade practices, as could requirements that locally harvested timber or other resources be processed locally to provide local employment. Cases may also be brought against countries that attempt to give preferential treatment to local over foreign investment or that fail to protect the intellectual property rights (patents and copyrights) of foreign companies. Local interests are no longer a valid basis for local laws under the new WTO regime. The interests of international trade, which are primarily the interests of transnational corporations, take precedence.
Challenges may also be brought against the laws of state and local governments located within the jurisdiction of a member country, even though these governments are not signatories to the new agreement. The national government under whose jurisdiction they fall becomes obligated to take all reasonable measures to ensure the compliance of these state or local administrations. Such "reasonable measures" include preemptive legislation, litigation, and withdrawal of financial support.
. . .
When a challenge to a national or local law is brought before the WTO, the contending parties present their case in a secret hearing before a panel of three trade experts -- generally lawyers who have made careers of representing corporate clients on trade issues. There is no provision for the presentation of alternative perspectives, such as amicus briefs from nongovernmental organizations, unless a given panel chooses to solicit them. Documents presented to the panels are secret except that a government may choose to release its own documents. The identification of the panelists who supported a position or conclusion is explicitly forbidden. The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that the law in question is not a restriction of trade as defined by the GATT.
When a panel decides that a domestic law is in violation of WTO rules, it may recommend that the offending country change its law. Countries that fail to make the recommended change within a prescribed period face financial penalties, trade sanctions, or both.
Under the proposed rules, the recommendations of the review panel are automatically adopted by the WTO sixty days after presentation unless there is a -_unanimous_ vote of WTO members to reject them. This means that over 100 countries, including the country that won the decision, must vote against a panel to overturn it -- rendering the appeals process virtually meaningless.
As was GATT, the WTO is a trade organization, and its mandate is to eliminate barriers to international trade and investment. The national representatives who vote in its councils are specialized trade representatives whose primary mandate is to open other markets for exports from their own countries. Responsibilities for maintaining foreign exchange balances; full employment; health, safety, and environmental standards; and protecting the democratic rights of its citizens fall under the jurisdictions of other bureaucracies. It may reasonably be anticipated that the WTO will follow the patterns of GATT in giving trade goals precedence over all other public policy concerns.
The WTO has legislative as well as judicial powers. GATT allows the WTO to change certain trade rules by a two-thirds vote of WTO member representatives. The new rules become binding on all members. The WTO is, in effect, a global parliament composed of unelected bureaucrats with the power to amend its own charter without referral to national legislative bodies.
Because economic activities have assumed such a large role in modern societies, control of economic rules is one of the most important powers in the world today. Under the WTO, a group of unelected trade representatives will become the world's highest court and most powerful legislative body, to which the judgments and authority of all other courts and legislatures will be subordinated.
David Korten's comments on September 11:
http://www.futurenet.org/19technology/kortenletter.htm
Strength and Honor,
Andy