Re: <nettime> (fwd) After Seattle: Is China the Enemy?

["Jeffrey Fisher" <jfisher@igc.org>]

A lot of what Marty says here is on the mark.

The coalition brought together to oppose the WTO still has a long way to go
before it has anything like a unified ideology or long-term objective, like
the destruction (or expropriation/socialization) of MNCs, the retirement (if
you will) of capitalism, etc. Indeed, I wonder if the renewed focus on China
(which is a renewal, not a brand new thing -- China MFN status is an annual
fight) arises partly - even predominantly - precisely out of a need to
further unify the otherwise disparate agendas of the anti-WTO coalition
partners.

That is, workers, farmers, environmentalists, market socialists (aka
compassionate conservatives), anti-communist ideologues, and little-d
democrats can all agree that, given the existence of a WTO, China's
membership ought to be contingent upon certain basic rights - freedom of
speech and association, labor rights, etc. etc. Moreover, they will hope
that granting China accession within those parameters will force the
relevant issues onto the table for the WTO, so that they can then be applied
elsewhere (Hoffa/Sweeney's "seat at the table").

Now, one can wonder if that is a reasonable thing to hope for. Under what
circumstances would the US agree to more stringent labor or environmental
standards/enforcement *inside* the US? True reform of the WTO would undercut
US domination and prevent US and EU corporations from running the show. That
will only happen with a massive alliance of activists internationally, on
the one hand, and of national governments and regional blocs, on the other.
With France talking to Japan, China talking to Russia, and the formation of
an Asian Monetary Fund, that may not be so unlikely as it seems. But it's
also a ways off and could easily be derailed. Moreover, even such a
disruption of northern/western power is only indirectly a blow against
capitalism.

However . . .

While I agree that a fight against China membership (1) distracts from a
fight against the WTO proper and the system that both produced it and is
furthered by it, (2) is often proclaimed with the most vulgar red-baiting
(not by Wei Jing-Sheng, interestingly), (3) offers the
in-all-probability-false hope that the WTO as it is can be reformed into an
international trade-management body that puts workers and culture before
capital, much less become an instrument of socialist development (ha!), (4)
is hypocritical in that it ignores the fact that current WTO members (like
the US, for example) have all sorts of problems that reformers should also
want to address, (5) etc. etc. etc.  . . .

I also think that to favor China's accession, or even to stand neutral, is
to ally ourselves with capital in its efforts to drive open all markets,
regardless of their social and political situations, and to globalize and
homogenize culture. It is to ignore the democracy movement in China by
legitimating oppression and repression (remember "constructive
engagement"?). Surely China, in its negotiations with charlene barshefsky,
agreed to crack down harder and more systematically on software and music
pirates, but no less on Falun Gong, democracy activists, and so on.

Chinese membership also threatens to legitimate the WTO. The truth is that a
WTO *without* China is NOT a WTO at all! China's membership is absolutely
critical to the US plan for the WTO. After Seattle, the WTO may already be
dead in the water. But Chinese accession would be a major victory for the
US, rebuilding some momentum for the organization and putting the US
squarely back in the driver's seat.

Finally, the fight over China's accession, properly exploited by activists,
provides an opportunity to continue educating the public (and even
activists, many of whom may still oppose China's accession for the wrong
reasons) on just what the problem is with the WTO itself. That will only
happen if the fight is approached properly, but more education on this
matter can only be a good thing.

If I sound certain of all this, then that's just because I'm trying to come
to a solid conclusion, myself. The question of China's accession is a
complicated one, but I'm inclined to think that opposing it, and vigorously
so, is the proper course of action. 


Jeff Fisher
[no nifty MR books or even articles . . . YET!]


#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net