|
THE
DEF’S OF THE ABC’S Back
in January I submitted a contribution which I called “THE ABC’S OF
THE WTO. THE PRC, AND THE ILWU” Now I have a few more things to add. One
of the gurus of the anti-WTO movement, Michel Chossudovsky, calls the
WTO a “totalitarian intergovernmental body” which, together with the
IMF and the World Bank. Has helped to create “the most serious
economic crisis in modern history.” He pictures the countries of the
world about to be "permanently ‘enslaved by an international body
controlled by the world’s largest business syndicates.” (COVERTACTION
QUARTERLY, spring-summer, 2,000) And Jerry Mander would have us believe
that the terms “free trade” and “market economics” are nothing
but positive-sounding phrases that...conceal what they really stand
for.” He offers this as a paradigm case: “An international energy
conglomerate invades some great wilderness to seek oil or logs, and
locals do not have the ability to stop them.” (THE CASE AGAINST FREE
TRADE, Ralph Nader et al. pp. 18-19) Now
I do not wish to deny that powerful global corporations have taken
advantage of the poverty of the developing countries. United Fruit in
Guatemala and Firestone in Liberia are classic examples. There are many
others, and the trend continues to this day. But
the developing nations are not completely passive and powerless. They
have always fought back against exploitation. China, which used to be
called “the sick man of Asia”, was not so long ago, the lowest of
the low. Under the “Open Door” policy it was a colony, not of one
world power but of each and every one of them. But look at China today! Curiously,
the gurus of anti-WTO rhetoric give short shrift to China. Chossudovsky
predicts that China’s entry into the WTO will “spell havoc
“devastate” its agriculture, and “trigger a deadly wave of
bankruptcies.” He sees China as essentially defenseless against the
onslaught of Western corporate power. What is especially curious about
Chossudovsky is that he started out as a China “expert”, turning out
his TOWARDS CAPITALIST RESTORATION? CHINESE SOCIALISM AFTER MAO way back
in 1986. In this book he predicted that as the technologically advanced
foreign companies began to enter China, the locals would be put out of
business, and poverty would increase. From its hopeful socialist
beginnings, he saw China, under Deng. Preparing ‘most certainly” to
follow the familiar third-world route of poverty and
underdevelopment.” There would be ‘modernized’
pockets of social privil6ge, affluence, and Western consumerism” but
the rest of the country would go to the dogs. (See especially pp.5
120,221) On
another and opposite side of the political spectrum we have a new book
by John Micklethwait and Adrian Woolridge, A FUTURE PERFECT. Somebody
named Tom Peters declares on the back of the dust jacket: “As the
angry confrontation erupted at the Seattle WTO meeting in late 1999.
Found myself furious. Not at the protesters, but at myself and my kind
for having done such a rotten job of explaining in clear and compelling
English the power and benefits of globalization. Now M. and W. weigh in
with the response I prayed for. On
the one hand M. and W, do ‘offer a bit of corrective to the unalloyed
pessimism of Chossudovsky. They point out that I you walk into an
American appliance store you are likely to find a small refrigerator
“made by a German-sounding company called Haier.” But in fact this
is the brand of a state-owned Chinese firm which started selling abroad
in 1997 and has already captured over 20% of the US market for small
fridges. (FUTURE PERFECT, 127) Another
successful Chinese enterprise is Tsingtao Beer. Ii was recently reported
that ~in a twist on the much-feared foreign invasion of China, Tsingtao
is now negotiating to buy three breweries from Their foreign owners.”
Noting the “rich variety of manufacturing companies” that exist in
Qingdao, its mayor says: “Some
will jump into the world market. Others will be edged out of it. But I
still think there are more opportunities than drawbacks to joining the
WTO. Or as the chief executive of Haler declares: “We decided we
didn’t want to be eaten by the wolf. We wanted to dance with the
wolf.” (NYT, 7-20) But
on the other hand, the book by M. and W. fobs off a bit when it comes to
discussing the highest operating levels of globalization. Though its
English may be clear enough it will hardly be compelling to the angry
protesters in the streets when it declares: “The private fortunes that
the free market generates with ever greater abundance can often solve
social problems much more effectively than government action can.”
(310) In an attempt to prove us point, the book actually cites Bill
Gales as an example. Yes, it is true, at present, the richest man in the
world only devotes five hours a Week to philanthropy. But he is on
record as saying: “Anybody can give away money; the point is to give
it away intelligently.” Just think of all the good he will be able to
do in the future! “His relentlessly curious and competitive brain is
plainly beginning to whir.” (311) After
praising Silicon Valley to the skies for its adaptability and
willingness to take risks. M. and B. note in passing that in an area
where the average price of a home is a half-million dollars and the
income of the richest fifth rose by 19% from 1991 to 1997, the average
income of the poorest fifth simultaneously fell by 8%. (220) We are riot
offered any hope at all that the relentless whirring brain of Bill Gates
will tackle that problem! On
one point M. and B. agree with Chossudovsky. They see China heading for
disaster. The shrift they give China is. I anything, even shorter! They
point out that China is “sucking in Western capital’ but is refusing
to fully open its economy. If they continue down this road they may
produce a crisis that makes the recent Indonesia-Korea debacle “look
like a tea party.” (343) Of the Chinese claim to be producing a market
economy with “Chinese characteristics,” M. and B. chortle that these
characteristics are “authoritarianism and xenophobia.” (285) Ii seems
it is hard to find anywhere a voice sympathetic to China. Back
in May when the House was completing its debate on China and the WTO,
Senator Gephardt declared: “This debate would not happen in China.
This freedom of expression that we are exercising all over this country
would not happen in China.” (NYT, 5-25) Putting aside for the moment
the question of what really takes place in China, I would like to ask
just what is so wonderful and freewheeling about the “debate”
taking place in this country? Consider its parameters. One side is
saying: “China is bad. China is terrible, China is violating human
rights. We should not reward China by opening trade.” And what is the
counter-argument? “Yes, you are right. China is bad. China is
horrible. But if we trade with them, maybe it will eventually become
more decent over there. In all this maelstrom of free speech, where does
any prominent voice offer a contrary point of view that maybe the
premise of Chinese evil needs to be re-examined? Now
the leaders of the anti-WTO upsurge, point out that the values of the
big corporate giants who throw their weight around in the world also
play a leading role in controlling the mass media in this country. Far
be it from me to take issue with this thesis. But if this is so- if the
newspapers and airwaves are constantly putting forth a pro-corporate and
anti-union point of view- then why should we trust this same media to
give us a correct picture of China? Hardly
a day goes by without some malicious charge against China being given
prominence in the papers or on TV. Every half-baked canard (so long as
it puts China in a bad light) is reported as it were the gospel truth.
Brother Tim (35181) would have it that China “executes people f or
their organs to be sold on the black market.” Tim, wake up! Don’t
fall for this line of crap! Tim
also refers to what he calls the ‘10,000 killed in 89.” I’m afraid
this is an exaggeration by a factor of over 3.3 times! There were less
than 300 people killed in the so-called “Tiananmen massacre.”
Moreover, a significant number of these deaths (maybe 30 or so) were
police or soldiers. How do I know? I did extensive research on it. I
even wrote a book, and came very close to getting it published. Someday
I will rewrite it and submit it to another publisher. In the meantime I
can only urge my union brothers and sisters to suspend judgment, and
cast a skeptical eye on the endless parade of horror stories about
China. Most
recently, in an op-ed article, Susan Sontag rails against what she calls
the “mounting persecutory’ in China as exemplified in the recent
arrest of Bei Ling, who came to the US in 1988 as an exchange student,
and decided to stay here after the events of 1989. He publishes a
magazine named “Tendency~ which prints articles by Chinese writers
whom Sontag calls ‘independent and censored.” In the most recent
issue he has a picture of Wang Dan, a leader of the 89 protests. Bei was
arrested after he brought copies of his magazine to China to distribute.
Sontag calls this arrest an attempt by the “despotic government of
China to “enlarge the scope of its persecution and intimidation of
independent thought.” (NYT,
8-19) But
just consider. Wang Dan helped to create a massive disruptive protest
which paralyzed Beijing and led to 300 deaths. The Chinese are
determined that such an event will not be allowed to happen again. How
did it start? It started when many Chinese students became brainwashed
by following demagogic leaders who swallowed the rhetoric of US big
business- hook, line, and sinker. It was the rhetoric of the so-called
“independent” thinkers who saw China as being “despotic” and
very much in need of US “freedom of expression.” Now this same
rhetoric seems to be energizing Bei Ling. Just
what is it that big business wants China to do? It wants I to ‘‘open
up.’’ It wants it to allow “freedom.” And what does this mean?
Here is a recent example. Corporate advertising executives in China are
reported to be miffed that China is so benighted
as to regard advertising as “a privilege bestowed by the government’
rather than seeing its true role as “a commercial extension of the
right of free speech.” Ah yes, these rules, these government
guidelines, are so annoying! Why should Budweiser be required to provide
statistical evidence to the Chinese government before it is allowed to
use its slogan America’s favorite beer.” (NYT, 8-17) Why can’t
these executives just do anything they damn well please? Yes,
it used to be that way. The major powers used to have a gunboat in every
port. When things did not go their way they would threaten to fire off a
few rounds. But then the Chinese rose up and had a revolution. The local
bloodsuckers and their foreign backers were defeated. Now
the Chinese saloon has opened its doors once again, but under new
management. The capitalists are welcomed back. But this time, as in the
better-run saloons of the old West. They have to check their guns
at the door! Bill
Gates has been welcomed to China, and the Chinese have been grateful for
some of his charity. They were not entranced, however, when Gates hired
Taiwan programmers to introduce a Chinese-language Windows 95 that
displayed a reference to “Communist bandits” and exorted users to
“take back the mainland.” Nor were they charmed by Microsoft’s
high prices and proprietary code. In fact, China has recently made a
strategic decision that Microsoft will not be allowed to monopolize the
software market. Great Wall Computer has already shifted toward Linux,
shipping 200.000 PC’s with the Linux system. It is estimated that by
the end of next year, Linux will run half of all servers in China. One
young Chinese Internet executive declares: “Microsoft is a bully.” (NYT,
7-8) So
what is the essence of the new Chinese economic system as refined under
Deng’s leadership? One Chinese economist puts it this way: In
the past everyone wanted to be told what to do. Now we must develop our
own individual creativity. This doesn’t mean avis well with the market
economy. If you leave it 100% free, the rich get richer and the poor get
poorer. We try to micro-manage more than other countries. If government
sees here very rich and there very poor, they invest in the poor areas.
This is what is meant by a market economy with Chinese characteristics.
(USCHINA REVIEW, Fall, 1997, p.13) Yes,
in some eyes it may look like “authoritarianism” or even
“despotism.” That is exactly the way the authorities in South
Carolina view unions. They want to stand up for “liberty”, for the
“right’ of the worker not to belong to a union. Brothers
and sisters, others may see it as “authoritarianism” but we, above
all, should look upon China, a worker’s state, as our friend. We
should not fall for the line of the mass media that China is oppressive. Yes,
we should send a delegation to China, as mandated by our recent
convention in Portland, This would do wonders in breaking down the
mindless hostility for China which has unfortunately sullied our ranks.
It would re-invigorate the solidarity we had back in 1945 when Harry
Bridges wired Secretary of War Patterson that US troops were propping up
the dictatorship of Chiang Kai-shek, and should be withdrawn. I
do have reservations, however, about some of the wording in the
resolution calling for the China delegation. It speaks of “eradicating
human rights abuses in China and the rest of the world.” But why is
China singled out for special mention? Is it assumed, as the media would
have us believe that China is especially bad in this regard? China is
insulted by such an assumption. Also
the resolution speaks of making contact with ‘opposition leaders.”
I’m afraid China will view this in the same way that we would view the
presence of a China delegation to the ILWU which insisted (in the
interests of objectivity!) in interviewing a few scabs as well! This
unfortunate wording may be an obstacle, but hopefully we can surmount
it, and the visit at the delegation will take place. |
|
This unofficial site was created and is
maintained by rank and file ILWU members ©1999/2009 ilwu19.com |
