---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 09:58:34 EDT
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Globalism With A Human Face
FYI: An interesting Op-Ed from today's Washington Post
Globalism With A Human Face
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, May 29, 1998; Page A27
Some of what happens in politics is hidden in plain sight.
Last week, President Clinton announced a major shift in America's approach to
global economics. His ideas would affect how workers and the environment gain
protection and whether trade issues are settled in the open or in secret.
Almost nobody paid attention.
Clinton's announcement came in a speech before the World Trade Organization in
Geneva. There was a time when the address would have been front-page news. It
was, for one thing, a direct response to critics of the WTO who accuse it of
bowing to the wishes of powerful international companies and making its
decisions without any public accountability.
Clinton said that on the matter of secrecy, at least, the critics are right.
"We must modernize the WTO by opening its doors to the scrutiny and
participation of the public," Clinton declared. "Today, when one nation
challenges the practices of another, the proceeding takes place behind closed
doors. I propose that all hearings by the WTO be open to the public." Clinton
promised that the United States would open any proceeding it is part of and
challenge other countries to do the same.
For good measure he proposed that private citizens be able to present their
views before the WTO -- meaning that business or labor people, Ralph Nader or
Pat Buchanan, environmentalists or anyone else could raise a ruckus when they
thought vital issues were at stake. Since international organizations now play
such a big role in every nation's economy, how can the basic right to petition
and air grievances be denied?
Calling on the WTO to work more closely with environmentalists and the
International Labor Organization to lift standards, Clinton directly borrowed
rhetoric from critics of his past trade policies: "We must do more to ensure
that spirited economic competition among nations never becomes a race to the
bottom -- in environmental protections, consumer protections or labor
standards. We should be leveling up, not leveling down."
Clinton acknowledged with unusual bluntness that without such protections, "we
cannot build the necessary public support for the expansion of trade. Working
people will only assume the risk of a free international market if they have
confidence that the system will work for them."
That Clinton's speech got so little coverage may reflect the muffling of his
voice by scandal news. But it demonstrates for certain the eclipse of trade as
a major public issue after last year's defeat of authority for the president
to negotiate trade deals on a "fast track."
In fact, Clinton's new proposals are a direct response to the defeat of fast
track. They grow out of continuing discussions between Treasury Secretary
Robert Rubin and a group of House Democrats.
Some of Rubin's interlocutors -- Rep. David Bonior of Michigan, for example --
were sharply critical of Clinton's old approach to trade. But many of them,
including Reps. Nancy Pelosi of California and Barney Frank of Massachusetts,
are also interested in a "third way" that accepts global markets as a reality
but seeks, as Frank put it, "globalization plus civility."
On trade, says Frank, "the president and the Democrats realize there's a
fundamental intellectual tension. We're not for trickle-down domestically. Why
should we be for trickle-down internationally?" Thus the importance of
Clinton's "leveling up" rhetoric. "We're not saying no to internationalism,"
Frank says. "We're saying you have to do it with offsets for inequality."
Another sign that foes of Clinton's past trade policies see him responding to
their views came from AFL-CIO President John Sweeney. He praised the speech as
"a dramatic turning point in the debate over the rules of globalization."
Commerce Secretary William Daley -- a free-trader who served as the
administration point man on the North American Free Trade Agreement --
acknowledged in an interview this week that "some of our friends on the far
right and far left" regard the WTO as "some sort of Trilateral Commission," a
powerful body that makes important decisions in secret.
"If we're going to depend on international organizations," Daley said,
referring to the WTO and International Monetary Fund, "we'd better not only
start defending them but also deal with the legitimate problems that have come
up. . . . We're trying to get this debate on a different level."
Forging a new consensus around global growth with equity would be a major
achievement. But the resounding silence that greeted the president's speech
suggests that the road there will be long and that there may be limits on
Clinton's ability to lead the journey.
� Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company
