THE DEF’S OF THE ABC’S

by Dave Chaddock. Local 52

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.