December 15, 2005

You are on the invidual archive page of WTO MC6: Day 4. Click Simon World weblog for the main page.
WTO MC6: Day 4

In short, again nothing happened at the meeting yesterday. The Europeans have dug their heels in, the Americans offered a little and the developing countries are huffing and puffing how unfair it all is while still not contemplating opening any of their own markets. Apparently negotiators are going to come up against an immovable object:
The conference must finish by then to make way for a trade show, a consumer baby products exhibition and carnival expected to attract up to 200,000 visitors. Wilkinson said many delegations have booked hotel rooms for at least some members through Wednesday, assuming last-minute talks will roll into extra hours despite official vows to end the conference on time.
Maybe the negotiators are planning to buy stuff for the kids? You can't mess with conventions in this city. Even the rioting isn't what it seems. Doug Crets in The Standard reports the police strategy is working, containing the protests:
Televised images make the clashes between protesters and local police appear violent and chaotic, but up close the incidents seemed controlled and almost ceremonial.
And the Koreans themselves repay the compliment, according the SCMP:
"Soft, gentle" and "a bit merciful". That was how South Korean protesters described their police rivals after two days of ferocious confrontations that saw injuries as the police used riot shields and pepper spray to keep the raucous protesters at bay.

Today's links and comments

Updated throughout the day. Keep scrolling day for the rest of today's posts.

  • What do the non-Korean Asian protesters want? What are the protesting protesting, exactly? And who is Superman?
  • The WTO may as well give up: the fair trade mob had a fashion show. It's enough to shake the hardiest free trader.
  • ESWN reports on the progress of civilian journalists during this meeting. The SCMP's plea for citizen journalist pictures and reports doesn't seem to have lead to much.
  • From the inside, a report on the maneuvering over agriculture.
  • Sanity is slowly returning to Hong Kong TV: it's all English soccer this morning. And even better news: our Coke machine was refilled last night.
  • It's 11:20, it's 14 degrees Celcius and for a nice change the Koreans have made way for five or six Indonesians, one of whom is not wearing a shirt and must be freezing his nipples off. I think they're protesting about the lack of police brutality, but it's hard to tell as all the media's cameras keep getting in the way.
  • Pascal Lamy's blog is updated: he says the engine is starting to turn, albeit slowly. Don't take too long, the baby convention moves in Monday morning.
  • I had lunch at a place not far from Tamar, and watch a group of protesters march by. By my count there were 20. The TV alternates between assorted marches in and around Victoria Park. There hasn't been any more cops vs. Korean farmers face-offs yet...maybe today is a rest day?
  • Flagrant Harbour went along to today's pro-WTO/free trade rally, with pics and reports.
  • There doesn't seem to have been any pepper spraying yet today. What a shame.
  • For the Chicken Man and other anti-trade protesters, try this game based on the work of Bertil Ohlin. Free trade - it's child's play.
  • So far there hasn't been any Korean suicides, any self-immolation, just a few cuts and bruises to the head. Is it wrong to be disappointed?
  • Tom Grundy, the Chicken Man, has sent the following:
Thought I'd respond to your entry about my recent protesting in Hong Kong as I believe the 'ignorance' and 'confusion' is on your side (though I will try to be less derogatory).
Regarding the WTO being democratically elected - it is a powerful organisation which affects the lives of millions across the world, undermining the governments people elect - so we should get a say and it should be more transparent. I've lived amongst villagers in Uganda and slum-dwellers in India and have seen the effects of these trade policies. (I now live in Hong Kong, as a teacher, I'm not a random demonstrator from the UK). The WTO appears to be on its last legs anyway.

And about the UN - there's a difference between globalisation in the sense of corporate/cultural imperialism or 'coca-colonialism' and the globalisation of government. We are protesting about the collusion of government and corporations.

Though I understand the US and capitalism as a system are the underlying forces at work here, I actually believe the WTO should be reformed and either incorporated into the UN and based around the Convention on Human Rights, rather than corporate profit.

An excellent concise summary of the true nature of the WTO can be found here.

And might I add, when I 'look around Hong Kong', I don't bask in wonder of the 'widespread prosperity', I wonder at what price Hong Kongers have paid environmentally and socially, and how it affects the majority world (or '3rd world')

Tom Grundy - the "insult to chickens"
Let's go through this in turn. The WTO is exactly like the UN - a multilateral organisation compromising of governments. It is not democratically elected. It is a forum for negotiations. People can have a say - Pascal Lamy goes out of his way to cater to NGOs and dissenting voices - and they can try to influence their national governments to present their views. But to claim the lack of elections makes the WTO somehow "bad" fundamentally misunderstands what such organisations are about. There may be a difference between "cultural imperialism" and the "globalisation of government"...but that's not the point. My comparison between the UN and WTO is not in each organisation's aims, but in their structures. As such they are very similar groups.

What is "cultural imperialism", anyway? People have always have a choice - if they don't want to drink Coke, watch Hollywood movies, eat Big Macs and drive Fords they don't have to. But many people, including the poor, choose to use these goods and services. Don't patronise the poor by telling them what's good for them and restricting their rights to accessing them, just as the rich world should not bar the free trade in goods and services (including labour) from the poor (or each other, for that matter).

How would basing the WTO on the Convention on Human Rights help matters? Trade is precisely about profit, from the biggest multinational to the smallest farmer...everyone gains from a bigger pie. Protecting human rights is the responsibility of national governments, and if those governments fail there is the UN. It is a seperate issue from trade. A most fundamental human right is to let people make a living in peace, without artificial barriers and constraints. Millions in China have been lifted out of poverty thanks to such basic ideas as property rights and free trade, both intra- and inter-national.

Finally, when you look around Hong Kong, you might notice a city of 7 million people, many of whom came here to escape a despotic mass-murderer who was causing economic chaos. The city is one of the richest and most prosperous in the world. Yes there has been pollution and that is now a major issue the government is being forced to address. But those 7 million people know they will have food on their plate, a roof over their heads and the freedom to make a living however they see fit. If you ask most Hong Kongers, they are happy with the "price paid" for their prosperity. Why deny that to the "majority world"?

posted by Simon on 12.15.05 at 05:56 PM in the WTO category.




Trackbacks:

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/137765


Send a manual trackback ping to this post.


Comments:

the closest thing to citizen journalism i saw the post doingwas Post writer Norma Connoly holding her own video camera at the ''riot.'' but i haven't seen everything and shis is just a personal comment.

posted by: doug on 12.15.05 at 10:14 AM [permalink]

One more chicken skinned and boned.

posted by: Flagrant on 12.15.05 at 12:07 PM [permalink]

Regarding your response on 'cultural imperialism', free trade does not offer choice. There are many examples where aggressive Western companies stamp out the 'choice' - for example, there used to be several alternatives to Coca-Cola in India, such as Thumbs Up, but all competitors (locally run) were bought out. Even in Hong Kong, (one of the world's 'freest' economies) there is an oligopoly of only two supermarkets (no-one else can set up and compete mostly because Wellcome and/or Park n Shop tend to own the shopping centres too).

Basing the WTO on the Convention on Human Rights WOULD help matters, as it would mean the WTO would become a regulatory body to protect people - who are actually more important that enriching an already rich circle of executives. Companies must be regulated more, not less - as profit will always be put over people and the environment.

Governments DO try tot protect human rights, but are not allowed to maintain or set up laws to protect workers or the environment as these are 'barriers to trade', and the WTO will override them.

Let's take a look at some of the 'artificial barriers and constraints' the WTO is looking at scrapping in the talks here...
• Energy efficiency labelling on appliances such as washing machines, fridges and irons (challenged by Korea, USA and China).
• A European Union scheme that ensures imports comply with health, safety and environmental protection laws (challenged by China).
• Labels which show whether a product is recyclable or from sustainable sourcing.
• Safety testing on imported foods, like compulsory testing for lethal toxins in shellfish.
How do scrapping these benefit anyone except corporate stock prices?

I feel you are taking the WTO's mantra at face-value, looking beyond the WTO website will reveal the true nature of this powerful and oppressive organisation. I also feel that just by spending a few weeks living amongst the people these policies worse affect would change your outlook. If we’re going to have capitalism – which of course I have reservations about too - it must at least be a level playing field.

For those interested in my activism, and why I'm in a 'flap' over the WTO, I'm collecting some articles here on my website... http://www.globalcitizen.co.uk/rants/activism.html and will be making a tit of myself across the province over the next week.

Apologies for any typos or if I missed anything – this was written in a bit of a rush!

Cheers....
Tom - HK chicken man.

posted by: Tom - HK chicken man. on 12.15.05 at 12:14 PM [permalink]

Again, Korean peasants dominate local Chinese newspapers.

posted by: LfC on 12.15.05 at 01:35 PM [permalink]

Your first sentence betrays you, chickman. Free trade only offers choice. It does not force consumers to buy. It does not force companies to close. It just allows people choices. If you don't like capitalism, that's another debate. But Coke coming to dominate in India is about Indians liking Coke. Don't blame the company - they play by India's national laws and consumer choose. That's the system working.

I don't understand why you want to turn the WTO into a regulatory body, given your first arguement said it wasn't democratically elected (true) and that was a bad thing (false). What do you mean by "protect" people? What kind of company regulations are required? Give me examples that we can talk about, not generalities.

What WTO treaties do is prevent governments from hiding trade protection measures behind "environmental" or "workers" standards.

I'm happy to take the WTO at face value - it's proved exceptionally beneficial to millions so far.

posted by: Simon on 12.15.05 at 02:43 PM [permalink]

I entirely agree with Simon on this one. Why set up committees to try to legislate how to help everyone in every single market? History has shown that is unlikely to work.

No, the best thing the WTO can do for consumers worldwide is to bring down the prices of goods by cutting tariffs - which then end up with governments that waste it by going to meetings like these.

posted by: HK Dave on 12.15.05 at 02:55 PM [permalink]

I'm pretty cool with capitalism and free trade, but the chicken does have some points on problems with the WTO's potential vision of free trade. In particular, I'm thinking of the examples of challenges to labelling (eg energy labelling on products) as a barrier to free trade. In both cases, absence of such labelling reduces consumer choice.

Sure, consumers could do their own research, but let's be realistic. Compulsory labelling empowers consumers and lets them make more informed decisions about issues that their (in the West, at least) democratically elected government deems to be a health, environment or other relevant issue. However, these requirements are being increasingly challenged on the basis that they are artificial barriers to trade which are prohibited under WTO obligations.

Another downside of the current WTO arrangements is that countries (eg China) are able to challenge another countries imposition of health checks on food. In the time of SARS and bird flu, this is quite worrying. As an example of where the WTO framework (? may have be another multilateral treaty) has been used to challenge such things in the past, see the US's challenge to the EU's ban on sale of meat containing growth hormones (if I recall correctly, they were found to be in breach of trade obligations and have maintained the ban and just paid the monetary penalties).

This doesn't mean I'm anti-WTO in general eg I think the Korean farmers are contemptible. However, it's a bit easy to oversimplify the argument to pro-free trade vs anti-WTO. There's a lot of nuances which are lost on both sides of the debate, which lets some real concerning issues slip through.

There's also a lot of dumbing down, particularly on the anti-WTO side. I read a booklet earlier this week claiming that the WTO was the cause of increasing rural poverty and suicide in the PRC, which completely misses the reality of the situation. From discussions with anti-WTO protestors (and I know a fair few), I suspect that some of them go to developing nations and, through a process of selective education, lead garment workers et al to believe that the WTO is responsible for all economic-related suffering. I base this suspicion on discussions with some protestors over various meals, attendance at some of their seminars (which varied in coherency and relevancy from poor to good) and their materials.

However, the dumbing down of the opposition doesn't free the "I like free trade in general"-minded proponents from thinking hard about what the WTO regime actually does and where its downsides are.

posted by: Tiu Fu Fong on 12.15.05 at 07:23 PM [permalink]

Just to add one note - I support limited violence against protestors if they are behaving idiotically. If Chicken Man is the guy who was standing behind the HK TV presenter who was wearing a hard hat - I'm fine with the crew forcibly turfing you out of the way. Whatever the validity of your point re: the hard hat being unnecessary, you demonstrated a fundamental lack of comprehension of the Cantonese audience who would take your behaviour as justifying the reporters attire.

Some of the arguments you raised in your post are quite valid, but it's all lost in the presentation of a big loud gwailo wearing a chicken suit.

posted by: Tiu Fu Fong on 12.15.05 at 07:35 PM [permalink]

Are you familiar with the Bruce Springsteen classic, "Atlantic City"?

Opening Line: "Well they blew up the chicken man in Philly last night // now they blew up his house too//Down on the boardwalk they're gettin' ready for a fight // gonna see what them racket boys can do"

Not that I'm suggesting anything! Just free association at work. Even though I don't agree with much anything of what the anti-WTO people have to say, I do support their right to peaceful protest, because if nothing else, it reminds us all that behind words like 'corporate restructuring' and 'mid-career re-training' are real people with families to feed.

posted by: HK Dave on 12.15.05 at 08:44 PM [permalink]

I'll try and respond quickly to all comments; I'm a busy chicken this week. I've never partaken in a debate online like this before, but it's fulfilling as usually I preach to the converted…

SIMON:
The example of Coke dominating in India may partly be due to Indians liking Coke, but they've also bought out all competitors. This is no good for India and certainly doesn't create choice, if they stamp out the competition. My point also stands on supermarkets in Hong Kong - an example on our doorstep - there's little choice there. I also believe there are only 1-2 choices for power in HK. More regulation is required, not less - as the polices of 'free trade' demand.

Regarding what regulations are required: Laws on child labour, slave wages, working hours and conditions are all irrelevant under the 'free trade' idea. The WTO could reform and incorporate minimal standards for countries and companies to follow on each of these issues. And I've already given examples of some of the environmental regulations they're trying to scrap at this meeting - do you agree with them being overridden?

Regarding its undemocratic nature - I may have been misunderstood. I don't expect elections to be held in each country to decide who represents them at the meetings - rather, the organisation needs to allow working people, perhaps unions, to have a say in proceedings. I'm no economist, but when something has this much power, it is absurd that we don't have any input. Plus, the whole thing should be more transparent so we know what is being decided on our behalf.

And the WTO has done more harm than good - sure, the glossy website and such all looks great on paper (as does communism, capitalism etc...)

TIU FU FONG:
You've got the wrong idea about my TVB / ATV run-in. And it happened tonight too, live on Pearl. I was totally peaceful; the hard-hat only became 'justified' when the crew attacked me. I may file a complaint with the Journalist's Association - but I've got hold of the video (which I'll have a link on my website to soon), and it seems I did more harm than good for our side. In reality, I may have made the scene more dramatic and the reporter said, in Cantonese, that I was trying to stop the broadcast. Over the next few days, I'm toning it down to a Cantonese sign and will be filming the crew so I have evidence of their ridiculously violent behaviour.

As I said, it was peaceful direct action - subverting/hijacking a live broadcast on a station that is blurring the facts - and if you were there, I think even you guys would agree.

posted by: tom grundy on 12.15.05 at 11:08 PM [permalink]

Doktor: I have never said the WTO is perfect. Far from it. Most free trade advocates have beefs (pardon the pun) with the WTO, and I've said elsewhere there is actually significant common ground between the anti-WTO protesters on the streets and us free-traders. I don't know the arcana of the labelling debate, but I know that more regulation and rules often act as artificial barriers to trade as much as they are about enhancing consumer choice. The same applies to health checks - Japan has only just allowed American beef back into the country, after a 3 or 4 year ban sparked by the Mad cow disease fear. Previously America exported more than US$1 billion of beef to Japan each year. Often the science does not support these "health checks", and that's when there are challenges under WTO rules. That is the case in the EU/US battle.

The crux is the battle is not pro-free trade vs anti-WTO. It is pro- and anti-free trade; and seperately pro- and anti-WTO. There are many subtleties to consider in every issue, and trade issues are particularly nuanced. I agree there are plenty of shades of gray. Your anecdotes about anti-WTO activities in developing countries are particularly worrying; but you are right that those of us on the other side also are responsible for pushing our side, rather than sit smugly knowing we're right.

posted by: Simon on 12.16.05 at 09:46 AM [permalink]

Chicken man:

I'm happy to continue this debate in public, whenever you like. In the interim...

Coke is a big company with lots of money. That is because many people like what they sell. It also means they can buy smaller companies from the owners of those smaller companies. This is capitalism. Many countries (not HK) have competition laws to prevent dominant companies from abusing market power, to curb any excesses. But I don't see the problem in India having fewer Coke brands. As for your HK examples, you are right, the city is dominated by oligopolies, especially in capital intensive industries such as power or logistical ones such as supermarkets. Hong Kong is a small market and even with a competition law such oligopolies would exist - the same happens in Australia. Are consumers worse off? Hard to prove, but not demonstrably so. At times the goverment may regulate the industry (such as power in HK), but that leads to perverse incentives (such as over-investment in HK's case).

In short, usually more regulation is the problem, not the solution. Who would you rather sort out problems? Government bureaucrats or the market place? I suggest reading Wisdom of Crowds if you want the answer.

As for your proposed regulations, these are the very misguided policies that developing countries hate. Child labour laws make Westerners feel good while leaving poor workers in developing countries without any means to support themselves. One man's "slave" wages are another's pay packet. I'm not saying it's fair. The world isn't a fair place. But imposing such policies harms those you are patronisingly trying to "protect". People in developing countries know the potential that schooling offers, but sometimes having enough to eat matters more. Minimum wages destroy jobs by creating an artificially high price of labour. To give an example, if the government said Coke must cost $10 a can, fewer people would buy Coke and less Coke would be made. That's a sub-optimal result, beacuse there are people that would buy Coke for less and there are people who would sell it for less. Generally messing with markets makes a mess of things.

The WTO does allow NGOs and unions a say. Pascal Lamy has gone out of his way to canvas opinions from outside the governmental framework. But the WTO is, in the end, a Governmental body. What's the absurdity?

The case you fail to prove is "the WTO has done more harm than good", and that the WTO has so much power. The WTO only has the power that governments agree to give it, and that is only for dispute resolution. Otherwise it is only a platform for negotiating a multilateral treaty, which individual countries then agree to and ratify. Part of the WTO's problem is it has no power - it's power comes from that which its members give it.

posted by: Simon on 12.16.05 at 10:06 AM [permalink]

The other thing you could mention Simon is that child labour laws drive very large numbers of children into prostitution and slavery because that is the only option left to earn money.

posted by: Flagrant on 12.16.05 at 12:54 PM [permalink]

Simon, I'd think more deeply about how "minimum wages destroy jobs by creating an artificially high cost of labour".

As you must have seen from various sources, particularly in textiles and shoes, for example, manufacturing labour is an incredibly small part of the overall cost base of most fashion good companies with international supply chains. (I believe we generally hear about figures like under $1 for shoes costing $150.)

As shoe manufacturing has moved to cheaper countries (not under the control of the brand owners, but their subcontractors) the savings made would have shown up in the subcontractors and brand owners' shareholder returns.

If (say) labour prices doubled overnight, while shareholder returns would be affected, I'm quite confident that *demand* wouldn't, because the cost of labour isn't a material part of the total cost of the shoes.

In the case of a domestic economy, I'd point out to you that in a broad sense, better paid workers have more money to spend and are better able to e.g. ensure that their children get basic education, which benefits everyone (except providers of capital in the short run.)

I totally agree with you that these things (and other issues like health and safety standards) are the provisions of governments, not the WTO. However, the WTO's ability to rule on those issues, and the fact that its policies have deep consequences on a lot of the stakeholders, mean that it also carries some resposibility.

Effects of specific policies aside, the protestors are simply vocalising to what could be a legalistic body that looks at trade in very narrow terms that their policies affect real people in the outside world.

posted by: Dave on 12.17.05 at 09:17 AM [permalink]

Dave:

You are partly right, and in fact hit the nail on the head. These policies are the responsibility of governments. The WTO is an intergovernmental forum. But it is not the right place to introduce policies that are the responsibility of national governments. Who is the WTO to tell China that it must pay its textile workers US$5 an hour? Even if it is a small component of the cost of textiles, at the margin it is significant enough to make a difference - otherwise why the scramble by the both the Americans and EU to negotiate "deals" restricting textile exports despite the ending of restrictions at the start of 2005.

Your Henry Ford argument is right - if you pay workers more, they can afford to buy your products. But that's up to the employer to decide.

As I said elsewhere - the world isn't fair. Some countries have low wages, wages far below what people would for in developed countries. But already China is finding upward pressure on wages as migrant labour starts to demand more money and labour shortages emerge in Guangdong. The market can sort these things out with a minimum of fuss.

I should add I'm no advocate of abusing human rights. Slavery and indentured labour is clearly wrong. But I still see minimum wages as doing more harm than good...and I've thought and studied this topic extensively.

But I do understand that people want their voices heard by the WTO, so that negotiators realise the consequences of their policies. I think that's already been done effectively by some groups (Oxfam springs to mind) but not by others (Korean farmers). The negotiators are all from governments, and even if not democratically elected governments depend on popular will to exist. They are constantly reminded of the protesters desires and Pascal Lamy goes out of his way to incorporate outside voices, despite no legal need to.

posted by: Simon on 12.17.05 at 10:17 AM [permalink]

I am off to Nam for Christmas (please restrain yourselves before the ironic 'chicken flu' comments start to flow), but I'll try and respond to what's written above before I go... In the meantime, here's a letter I've circulated to the HK press.

Bear in mind that I was actually present at all of the major scuffles, and peacefully witnessed what really happened...

Dear Sir,

The scare-mongering sensationalist media circus, the over-the-top policing and bleeding hearts about Hong Kong's broken history of peaceful protest have all became quite tiresome.

I spent the week and preceding month touring the city in a chicken costume to raise awareness of the WTO's true nature. I worked to trivialise and undermine media attempts to create a climate of fear by decorating riot shield lines with Christmas decorations, I also subverted live TV broadcasts as the anchors went to air donning helmets especially to exaggerate the level of danger, when there was absolutely no threat.

I was amongst the 99% of completely peaceful demonstrators (who were still tear gassed without warning!). Those who caused disturbance were NOT 'rioting' in a chaotic 'war zone', smashing up shops, cars and infrastructure or beating up civilians and policemen. They were simply trying to get to the Convention Centre and the police were an obstacle. This 'militant mob' picked up litter and returned police shields after their protests and it was never more than a few dozen activists at the front using force to break police lines.

If a country invites the WTO to their city, authorities should not be surprised if some of the millions of desperate people it affects turn up to express their anger. I was shocked by the diabolical lack of journalistic integrity and fairness shown by reporters and have set up a website detailing my observations at www.tvb.wxs.org .

posted by: tom grundy on 12.19.05 at 05:39 PM [permalink]




Post a Comment:

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?










Disclaimer