** RickJay**:
“Are you talking about the WTO, the IMF, or both? I can’t reply until you clarify which you’re discussing. You seem confused between the two.”

I just went back and read my last two posts and I think the distinction is crystal clear. Let me give you a hint as you re-read them. When I say W-T-O I am talking about the WTO and only the WTO. When I say I-M-F, I am talking about the IMF and only the IMF.

“If you think the U.S. has control over the WTO you’re rather sadly mistaken…”
I do think so. Or, to be more precise, as I said in my second post: I think that the US and Europe together effectively dominate the WTO.
“And so the IMF is set up with taxpayer money. So what? Aren’t all international organizations set up with tax dollars?”
No. Some are set up by private money: either corporate or individual. The UN is an example of an international organization set up with taxpayer money. That’s why I like the fact that its deliberations are open to the public and a free press.
“The WTO is nothing on its own; it wields influence by virtue of the trade treaty it exists to enforce.”
Precisely. That’s almost exactly what I said after the letters W-T-0 in my first post.
Now here’s Stiglitz on the subject (and again I want to emphasize that Stiglitz writes much less about the WTO than he does about the IMF and World Bank–the main objects of his critique).
“At the WTO, the negotations that lead up to agreements are all done behind closed doors, making it difficult–until it is too late–to see the influence of corporate and other special interests. The deliberations of the WTO panels that rule on whether there has been a violaton of the WTO agreements occur in secret. …By bringing the deliberations more out into the open, public scrutiny would either make the panels more sensitive to public conerns [such as the envirionment] or force a reform in the adjudication process.” (227-8).
“…It’s the treaty, Mandlestam, it ain’t the cubicles.”
I don’t disagree. Nor did I disagree with your attempt to straighten out what looked to be misleading in the excerpt posted by zeva. The author should have made clear how the WTO functions. (Perhaps the author does elsewhere in the book; I don’t know and I don’t really care since I prefer Stiglitz).
"If a member of the WTO doesn’t like its rulings, they can ignore them, or leave the WTO, or try to get the rules changed or whatever it pleases. There would be consequences, to be sure; you’d get tariffed all to hell, if you don’t mind me using “tariff” as a verb. That’s the nature of international relations; you agree to cooperate or you don’t and take what comes either way. The existence of the WTO doesn’t change that. "
But this assumes that countries struggling to develop can manage without taking part in international trade and getting a seat at the table; attempting a kind of autarky perhaps. They can’t. In theory participation is voluntary. In practice it isn’t.
Globalization is here to stay: we are all “one world” as the saying goes. Those of us who are criticizing the status quo want to see more accountable deliberative and enforcement bodies. They want to enable concerned citizens to take part in the process leading up to treaty-signing. That’s what democracy should mean. To say that those who don’t like the unaccountable institutions that thus far have developed–institutions that are all about serving corporate interests–can opt out of globalization is a Hobson’s choice.
“Gosh, thanks, M, but I did know that powerful and weak countries tend to sign unequal treaties.”
I don’t doubt it. And that really is the point. In a situation where there are vast inequalities of power, there needs to be full public accountability. Simple, no?
“Would you mind explaining, then, how I’m wrong in stating the WTO cannot “overrule” U.S. law? Or are you retreating on your claim the USA controls the WTO?”
I never said that you were wrong about not overruling US law. That said, I repeat that I believe (based on Stiglitz and other sources) that the US and Europe excercise effective control over what goes in and through the WTO. What I mean by “effective” is something like the difference between de juro and defacto. Hope that helps.
“I have seen and heard many people claim the WTO is a supra-sovereign power.”
It is my understanding, as you well know, that NAFTA can, via Chapter 11, hold secretive tribunals that end up penalizing countries for trade violations the tune of millions of dollars for doing what is legal within their own borders. That said, I would not define that as “supra-sovereign power,” a term that really makes no sense. (I would not even call the EC a “supra-sovereign” power.)
The main protesters’ claim, as I understand it, is at the level of the citizen. Trade delegations are sent by poorer countries, sometimes under-qualified to even understand the terms of these agreements. They negotiate in secret and with vast inequalities of power. Citizens bear the brunt of whatever decisions are made. Western citizens must also bear the brunt: in terms of their environmental and humanitarian concerns. That’s not a good system in my view.
In a democracy the citizenry is supposed to be sovereign. Insofar as trade agreements and their enforcement aren’t accountable to the public, citizens’ sovereignty is reduced. That strikes me as a valid if lofty argument. (Personally, I wouldn’t make the argument since I think there are a lot of ways in which citizens are disempowered here in the US that have nothing to do with the WTO.)
"I did not write “the systematic negotiation and enforcement of treaties is nothing at all” nor did I claim it was “not a concern for citizens” anywhere in the world. Where the heck did that come from? "
I know you didn’t write it. I wrote it. It seemed to me and still seems to me, for the most part, that because membership is in the WTO is voluntary it doesn’t, as you see it, pose a problem for citizens. I’m glad to hear I was (and am) mistaken but I’d like to hear more about what you think the concern for citizens should be.
“The signing and enforcement of treaties should certainly be a matter of public debate, but public debate in not well served by alarmist baloney like “the WTO can overrule US law.””
I agree. I never thought otherwise, actually. So let’s see some debate.
"Actually, I’ve read Stiglitz. He makes some really interesting points, and some really dumb ones, like anyone else. "
Ah–here’s the debate! Or should have been… So what are the really dumb points that Stiglitz makes “like anyone else”?
“The fact remains that “the WTO can overrule US law” is not a valid criticism, it’s a lie.”
Yeah Rick. Gotcha the first four times. Sorry if I got your back up. Thing is, I don’t care about arguing with you about why you said I said she said they said. We’ve both got better things to do.
What are these “really dumb points” made by Joseph Stiglitz? I’ve got the book next to me and I’d like to hear all about it. That’s what I meant when I first chimed in. It’s what I think the OP wants to know too.
“But don’t tell us to “go read this book and this article from The Nation and get back to me with a thesis.” That’s patronizing, and it’s BS argumentation, and it’s the third or fourth time you’ve tried it on this subject; “I think you are wrong. Now go read Smith/Wesson/Brown and get back to me with a rebuttal against them.” Go read them yourself, professor, and get back to us. If Stiglitz wants me to argue with him he can post here. Or choose something in Stiglitz and raise it as a debate.”
I thought the whole point of the Straight Dope was that we posted links. I fail to see how that’s patronizing. It’s how one makes a debate more than an exercise in rhetorical skills and off-the-cuff knowledge. Naturally, people don’t always have the time; I often don’t have the time. But it’s funny how often people are willing to write a long post slamming some manifestly incompetent poster, rather than cut to the quick and really debate. (I’m sure I’ve done it too, so don’t take this personally).
I asked that people at least look at jshore’s links if they were interested in earnest debate. I took the time to directly quote form Stiglitz’s book. I have read the book in question (and most of jshore’s links on a previous occasion). Is there something you’ve posted that you’d like me to respond to that I haven’t read?
(I should add that I may have to duck out of this debate something fast; but I’ll try very hard not to leave you hanging as, despite it all, it’s always a pleasure Rick, and you know I don’t think you’re a guy with something to say.)