From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: In GATT They Trust (III)
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: daemon@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 05:10:21 GMT

In GATT They Trust (III)


The following article was taken from the _Covert Action_ Spring 1992
[special issue dedicated to  Native people's rights/struggles]
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Terry Allen is co-editor of CAIB [CovertAction Information Bulletin] 
and a journalist who has worked in the U.S. and abroad. 
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
For more information about CovertAction Information Bulletin and
subscription information, please see bottom or email Rich Winkel at
rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


    "For example, GATT proposes that Codex Alimentarius, an obscure
    U.N.  agency based in Rome, be the standard-setting agency for
    food safety.  Years of infiltration by the chemical companies and
    food manufacturers have rendered Codex standards weak at best and
    meaningless at worst.  For DDT, for example, Codex permits
    residues on imported foods up to 50 times greater than those
    allowed under U.S.  law.


=============================== 
The Dunkel Draft:  U.S.  Impact 
=============================== 

First, under the Dunkel draft proposal, federal law would preempt any 
state and local laws that had even minor bearing on trade.  The impact 
could extend to such diverse areas as evironmental policy, food safety 
regulations, worker rights, and social policy.  It would also include 
many laws that control or regulate the flow of capital, such as 
anti-hostile takeover laws and regulations contolling foreign 
ownership of farmland, airlines, or the media. 

Second, it preempts even federal laws in many of these same areas by 
requiring that a wide rande of environmental and consumer protection 
regulations be subject to challenge within GATT.  If U.S.  regulations 
were more strict than the relatively weak global standards set by 
obscure and often corporate-dominated international agencies, these 
more lax standards would prevail.  For example, GATT proposes that 
Codex Alimentarius, an obscure U.N.  agency based in Rome, be the 
standard-setting agency for food safety.  Years of infiltration by the 
chemical companies and food manufacturers have rendered Codex 
standards weak at best and meaningless at worst.  For DDT, for 
example, Codex permits residues on imported foods up to 50 times 
greater than those allowed under U.S.  law. 

Third, the Dunkel draft limits the ability of Congress to impose laws 
designed to regulate the exploitation of natural resources.  For 
example, laws that limit the export of raw logs from the ancient 
forests in Washington and Oregon, designed to protect both the spotted 
owl and jobs, may be challenged as illegal under the proposed plan. 

Fourth, it greatly expands the powers of GATT by transforming it into 
a Multilateral Trade Organization(MTO).  Under this new name, GATT 
rules would begin to apply to an expanded range of items, including 
services and financial institutions.  Although there could be positive 
aspects to a democratic and environmentally sensitive international 
regulatory body, the currently proposed stucture will merely help the 
Bush administration pursue its domestic deregulation agenda.  A number 
of Third World citizens groups have labled this MTO a strategy for 
"recolonization." It will be used, they charge, to render their 
national and local governments powerless in a number of important 
economic, ecological, and social policy-making areas. 

Fifth, this Dunkel proposal makes the decisions of GATT's dispute 
settlement panels binding, forcing the U.S.  to accept whatever 
rulings might result from the secret hearing held within the GATT 
structure.  Currently, when a dispute is brought to GATT it is treated 
like a legal complaint.  A panel of three "judges"-chosen for 
"availability" not expertise-take written and oral testimony from both 
sides and then together with the GATT legal counsel render a dexision. 
All testimony is secret, as are the hearings.  Instead of the current 
structure requiring consensus to adopt rulings, Dunkel wants to turn 
the system on its head and require a consensus to reject rulings. 

Even under the present arrangement, the Bush administration wields 
enormous influence over the GATT staff and over panel members.  The 
proposed changes in the system would give the White House much more 
power, especially over domestic policy.  If Bush decides he doesn't 
like a specific U.S.  law and if Congress will not change it to his 
liking, he can simply encourage another country to challenge the U.S. 
law through GATT.  Since GATT panel hearings are all conducted in 
secret and are subject to U.S.(i.e., White House) influence, it is 
likely that the ruling will accomplish what the Congress did not.  If 
GATT declares the offending law as "inconsistent" with our 
international obligations under GATT, Congress is face with an [typos] 
enormous amount of pressure to conform to the GATT panel's ruling, 
since failure to comply could bring on GATT-sanctioned trade 
retaliation. 

In addition to its potential to erode democratic political process, 
the massive draft contains many specific proposals that would 
devastate various aspects of the U.S.  economy ranging from family 
farmers to workers in textile, steel, auto, coal and timber 
industries; from small town banks and main street businesses to major 
manufacturing sectors.  A business research group, the WEFA Group, in 
a January 1992 study, extimated that 1.4 million U.S.  jobs would be 
lost as a result of this accord[see article for citation]. 


		  =================================
		  [ . . . c o n t i n u e d . . . ]
		  =================================

Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.save.the.earth