prelude to marat

The Worst of Times

Part One of a Three-Part Series on Trade
by George Monbiot

Dissident Voice
September 3, 2003

The world is beginning to look like France, a few years before the
Revolution. There are no reliable wealth statistics from that time, but
the
disparities are unlikely to have been greater than they are today. The
wealthiest 5% of the world's people now earn 114 times as much as the
poorest 5%. (1) The 500 richest people on earth now own $1.54 trillion
--
more than the entire gross domestic product of Africa, or the combined
annual incomes of the poorest half of humanity. (2)

Now, just as then, the desperation of the poor counterpoises the obscene

consumption of the rich. Now, just as then, the sages employed by the
global
aristocrats -- in the universities, the thinktanks, the newspapers and
magazines -- contrive to prove that we possess the best of all possible
systems in the best of all possible worlds. In the fortress of Camp
Delta in
Guantanamo Bay we have our Bastille, in which men are imprisoned without

charge or trial.

Like the court at Versailles, the wealth and splendour of the
nouveau-ancien
regime will be on display, not far from the stinking slums in which
hunger
reigns, at next week's world trade summit in Cancun in Mexico. Between
banquets and champagne receptions, men like the European trade
commissioner
Pascal Lamy and the US trade representative Robert Zoellick will dismiss

with their customary arrogance the needs of the hungry majority. There
we
will witness the same corruption, of both purpose and execution, the
same
conflation of the private good with the public good: le monde, c'est
nous.
As Charles Dickens wrote of the ruling class of that earlier time: "the
leprosy of unreality disfigured every human creature in attendance". (3)

The unreality begins in Mexico with the World Trade Organisation's
statement
of intent. It will, its director-general says, ensure that "development
issues lie at the heart" of the negotiations. (4) The new talks, in
other
words, are designed to help the people of the poor nations to escape
from
poverty. In almost every respect they are destined to do the opposite.
Every
promise the rich world has made the poor world is being broken. Every
demand
for the further expropriation of the wealth of the poor is being pursued

with ruthless persistence.

Take, for example, the issue of "tariffs", or taxes on trade. A new
report
by Oxfam, published today, shows that the poorer a nation is, the higher
the
rates of tax it must pay in order to export its goods. (5) The United
States
imposes tariffs of between zero and one per cent on major imports from
Britain, France, Japan and Germany, but taxes of 14 or 15% on produce
from
Bangladesh, Cambodia and Nepal. The British government does the same:
Sri
Lanka and Uruguay must pay eight times as much to sell their goods over
here
as the United States.

This happens for two reasons. The first is that the poorer nations can't

fight back. The second is that, without taxes, the poor would outcompete
the
rich. The stiffest tariffs are imposed on goods such as textiles and
farm
products, in which the weak nations possess a commercial advantage.

The current trade talks were launched with the promise that tariffs
would be
reduced or eliminated, "in particular on products of export interest to
developing countries." (6) The deadline for producing an agreed text for
the
Cancun meeting was May 31st. Because the rich nations have blocked every

attempt to agree upon the wording, nothing has been produced. Instead,
last
week the European Union, the US and Canada submitted a new paper. It
proposes that the poorest countries must do the most to cut their trade
taxes. Bolivia and Kenya must reduce their tariffs by 80%, the EU by 28%
and
the US by just 24%. (7) It appears to be a calculated insult, designed
to
prevent any agreement on this issue from taking place.

Nor has any progress been made on farm subsidies. In 1994, the rich
countries agreed that they would phase them out, if the poor countries
promised to open their markets to western corporations. The poor nations

kept their promise, the rich countries broke theirs. The new round of
talks
is supposed to lead to the "phasing out [of] all forms of export
subsidies",
(8) and a negotiating text to this effect was meant to have been
produced by
31st March. Again, the promise has been broken, and again the poor have
been
told that if only they grant the rich world's corporations even greater
access to their economies, farm subsidies will come to an end.

But the powerful nations, while refusing to address the demands of the
poor,
press their own claims with brutal diplomacy. They now insist that the
"development round" be used to force nations to grant foreign
corporations
the same rights as domestic ones; to open their public services to the
private sector and to invite foreign companies to bid to run them. What
this
means, as nearly all the big multinational corporations are based in the

rich world, is a rich world takeover of the poor world's economy.

Lamy and Zoellick and the governments (such as ours) they represent must

know that these demands are impossible for the weaker countries to meet.

They must know that the combination of their broken promises and their
outrageous terms could force the weaker governments to walk out of the
trade
talks in Cancun, just as they did in Seattle in 1999. They must know
that
this will mean the end of the World Trade Organisation. And this now
appears
to be their aim. Subverted and corrupted as the WTO is, it remains a
multilateral body in which the poor nations can engage in collective
bargaining and, in theory, outvote the rich. This never happens, because
the
rich nations have bypassed its decision-making structures. But the
danger
remains, so the EU and the US appear to wish to destroy it, and to
replace
world trade agreements with even more coercive single-country deals. The

narrow path campaigners have to tread is to expose the injustices of the

proposed agreements without assisting the rich world's underlying agenda
by
demanding that "the WTO has got to go".

But eventually, as in France, there must be a revolution. It is likely
to
happen only when there is a globalised crisis of survival: a worldwide
shortage of grain, for example (like the deficit which followed the bad
harvest of 1788) or - and this is currently more likely and more
imminent -
a shortage of fossil fuel. In previous columns I have suggested some of
the
means (such as a threatened collective default on the debt) (9) by which

this revolution can take place. Until the nouveau-ancien regime has been

overthrown, and Lamy and Zoellick and their kind are (metaphorically)
swinging from the lampposts, the rich, like the aristocrats of France,
will
devise ever more inventive means of dispossessing the poor.

Next week: How do we best support the demands of the poor world?

George Monbiot is Honorary Professor at the Department of Politics in
Keele
and Visiting Professor at the Department of Environmental Science at the

University of East London. He writes a weekly column for the Guardian
newspaper of London. His recently released book, The Age of Consent
(Flamingo Press), puts forth proposals for global democratic governance.
His
articles and contact info can be found at his website: www.monbiot.com.

References

1. United Nations Development Programme, 2003. Human Development Report
2003. Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford.

2. John Cavanagh and Sarah Anderson, 2002. World's Billionaires Take a
Hit,
But Still Soar. Institute of Policy Studies.
http://www.ips-dc.org/projects/global_econ/billionaires.htm

3. Charles Dickens, 1859. A Tale of Two Cities (taken from the
Wordsworth
Classics edition, 1993).

4. Supachai Panitchpakdi, 25 November 2002. The Doha Development Agenda:

Challenges Ahead. Speech to the European Parliament, Brussels.

5. Oxfam, 2nd September 2003. Briefing Paper 53: Running into the Sand:
why
failure at the Cancun trade talks threatens the world's poorest people.
Oxfam, Oxford.

6. World Trade Organisation, November 2001. The Doha Ministerial
Declaration, paragraph 16: Market access for non-agricultural products.

7. Oxfam, August 2003. New standards in double standards: the
EU-US-Canada
proposals for non-agricultural market access in the WTO. Oxfam, Oxford.

8. World Trade Organisation, November 2001. The Doha Ministerial
Declaration, paragraph 13: Agriculture.

9. This idea is explained in George Monbiot, 2003. The Age of Consent: A

Manifesto for a New World Order (Flamingo, London, 2003).
-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

thanks kraig, but i don't understand the subject line. who or what is
marat? safin?

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
> The Worst of Times
>
> Part One of a Three-Part Series on Trade
> by George Monbiot
>
> Dissident Voice
> September 3, 2003
>
>
> The world is beginning to look like France, a few years before the
> Revolution. There are no reliable wealth statistics from that time,
but
> the
> disparities are unlikely to have been greater than they are today.
The
> wealthiest 5% of the world's people now earn 114 times as much as
the
> poorest 5%. (1) The 500 richest people on earth now own $1.54
trillion
> --
> more than the entire gross domestic product of Africa, or the
combined
> annual incomes of the poorest half of humanity. (2)
>
> Now, just as then, the desperation of the poor counterpoises the
obscene
>
> consumption of the rich. Now, just as then, the sages employed by
the
> global
> aristocrats -- in the universities, the thinktanks, the newspapers
and
> magazines -- contrive to prove that we possess the best of all
possible
> systems in the best of all possible worlds. In the fortress of Camp
> Delta in
> Guantanamo Bay we have our Bastille, in which men are imprisoned
without
>
> charge or trial.
>
> Like the court at Versailles, the wealth and splendour of the
> nouveau-ancien
> regime will be on display, not far from the stinking slums in which
> hunger
> reigns, at next week's world trade summit in Cancun in Mexico.
Between
> banquets and champagne receptions, men like the European trade
> commissioner
> Pascal Lamy and the US trade representative Robert Zoellick will
dismiss
>
> with their customary arrogance the needs of the hungry majority.
There
> we
> will witness the same corruption, of both purpose and execution, the
> same
> conflation of the private good with the public good: le monde, c'est
> nous.
> As Charles Dickens wrote of the ruling class of that earlier
time: "the
> leprosy of unreality disfigured every human creature in
attendance". (3)
>
>
>
> The unreality begins in Mexico with the World Trade Organisation's
> statement
> of intent. It will, its director-general says, ensure
that "development
> issues lie at the heart" of the negotiations. (4) The new talks, in
> other
> words, are designed to help the people of the poor nations to escape
> from
> poverty. In almost every respect they are destined to do the
opposite.
> Every
> promise the rich world has made the poor world is being broken.
Every
> demand
> for the further expropriation of the wealth of the poor is being
pursued
>
> with ruthless persistence.
>
>
> Take, for example, the issue of "tariffs", or taxes on trade. A new
> report
> by Oxfam, published today, shows that the poorer a nation is, the
higher
> the
> rates of tax it must pay in order to export its goods. (5) The
United
> States
> imposes tariffs of between zero and one per cent on major imports
from
> Britain, France, Japan and Germany, but taxes of 14 or 15% on
produce
> from
> Bangladesh, Cambodia and Nepal. The British government does the
same:
> Sri
> Lanka and Uruguay must pay eight times as much to sell their goods
over
> here
> as the United States.
>
>
> This happens for two reasons. The first is that the poorer nations
can't
>
> fight back. The second is that, without taxes, the poor would
outcompete
> the
> rich. The stiffest tariffs are imposed on goods such as textiles and
> farm
> products, in which the weak nations possess a commercial advantage.
>
>
> The current trade talks were launched with the promise that tariffs
> would be
> reduced or eliminated, "in particular on products of export
interest to
> developing countries." (6) The deadline for producing an agreed
text for
> the
> Cancun meeting was May 31st. Because the rich nations have blocked
every
>
> attempt to agree upon the wording, nothing has been produced.
Instead,
> last
> week the European Union, the US and Canada submitted a new paper. It
> proposes that the poorest countries must do the most to cut their
trade
> taxes. Bolivia and Kenya must reduce their tariffs by 80%, the EU
by 28%
> and
> the US by just 24%. (7) It appears to be a calculated insult,
designed
> to
> prevent any agreement on this issue from taking place.
>
>
> Nor has any progress been made on farm subsidies. In 1994, the rich
> countries agreed that they would phase them out, if the poor
countries
> promised to open their markets to western corporations. The poor
nations
>
> kept their promise, the rich countries broke theirs. The new round
of
> talks
> is supposed to lead to the "phasing out [of] all forms of export
> subsidies",
> (8) and a negotiating text to this effect was meant to have been
> produced by
> 31st March. Again, the promise has been broken, and again the poor
have
> been
> told that if only they grant the rich world's corporations even
greater
> access to their economies, farm subsidies will come to an end.
>
>
> But the powerful nations, while refusing to address the demands of
the
> poor,
> press their own claims with brutal diplomacy. They now insist that
the
> "development round" be used to force nations to grant foreign
> corporations
> the same rights as domestic ones; to open their public services to
the
> private sector and to invite foreign companies to bid to run them.
What
> this
> means, as nearly all the big multinational corporations are based
in the
>
> rich world, is a rich world takeover of the poor world's economy.
>
>
> Lamy and Zoellick and the governments (such as ours) they represent
must
>
> know that these demands are impossible for the weaker countries to
meet.
>
> They must know that the combination of their broken promises and
their
> outrageous terms could force the weaker governments to walk out of
the
> trade
> talks in Cancun, just as they did in Seattle in 1999. They must know
> that
> this will mean the end of the World Trade Organisation. And this now
> appears
> to be their aim. Subverted and corrupted as the WTO is, it remains a
> multilateral body in which the poor nations can engage in collective
> bargaining and, in theory, outvote the rich. This never happens,
because
> the
> rich nations have bypassed its decision-making structures. But the
> danger
> remains, so the EU and the US appear to wish to destroy it, and to
> replace
> world trade agreements with even more coercive single-country
deals. The
>
> narrow path campaigners have to tread is to expose the injustices
of the
>
> proposed agreements without assisting the rich world's underlying
agenda
> by
> demanding that "the WTO has got to go".
>
>
> But eventually, as in France, there must be a revolution. It is
likely
> to
> happen only when there is a globalised crisis of survival: a
worldwide
> shortage of grain, for example (like the deficit which followed the
bad
> harvest of 1788) or - and this is currently more likely and more
> imminent -
> a shortage of fossil fuel. In previous columns I have suggested
some of
> the
> means (such as a threatened collective default on the debt) (9) by
which
>
> this revolution can take place. Until the nouveau-ancien regime has
been
>
> overthrown, and Lamy and Zoellick and their kind are
(metaphorically)
> swinging from the lampposts, the rich, like the aristocrats of
France,
> will
> devise ever more inventive means of dispossessing the poor.
>
>
> Next week: How do we best support the demands of the poor world?
>
>
> George Monbiot is Honorary Professor at the Department of Politics
in
> Keele
> and Visiting Professor at the Department of Environmental Science
at the
>
> University of East London. He writes a weekly column for the
Guardian
> newspaper of London. His recently released book, The Age of Consent
> (Flamingo Press), puts forth proposals for global democratic
governance.
> His
> articles and contact info can be found at his website:
www.monbiot.com.
>
> References
>
> 1. United Nations Development Programme, 2003. Human Development
Report
> 2003. Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford.
>
> 2. John Cavanagh and Sarah Anderson, 2002. World's Billionaires
Take a
> Hit,
> But Still Soar. Institute of Policy Studies.
> http://www.ips-dc.org/projects/global_econ/billionaires.htm
>
>
> 3. Charles Dickens, 1859. A Tale of Two Cities (taken from the
> Wordsworth
> Classics edition, 1993).
>
> 4. Supachai Panitchpakdi, 25 November 2002. The Doha Development
Agenda:
>
> Challenges Ahead. Speech to the European Parliament, Brussels.
>
> 5. Oxfam, 2nd September 2003. Briefing Paper 53: Running into the
Sand:
> why
> failure at the Cancun trade talks threatens the world's poorest
people.
> Oxfam, Oxford.
>
> 6. World Trade Organisation, November 2001. The Doha Ministerial
> Declaration, paragraph 16: Market access for non-agricultural
products.
>
> 7. Oxfam, August 2003. New standards in double standards: the
> EU-US-Canada
> proposals for non-agricultural market access in the WTO. Oxfam,
Oxford.
>
> 8. World Trade Organisation, November 2001. The Doha Ministerial
> Declaration, paragraph 13: Agriculture.
>
> 9. This idea is explained in George Monbiot, 2003. The Age of
Consent: A
>
> Manifesto for a New World Order (Flamingo, London, 2003).
> -- -Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> http://www.anaphoria.com
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

Marat was a chemist who joined the french revolution late, and was one of its bloodiest rulers.
The paraphrase the other day was from Marat/Sade a play and was Peter Brooks first movie with the royal
shakespeare company. it was also glenda jackson first film. Quite entertaining film with lots of silly/bloody songs
an imaginary play written by the Marquis De Sade about The assassination Of Jean Marat as performed by member of an
insane asylum while sade was an inmate there. it must be on DVD.

Paul Erlich wrote:

> thanks kraig, but i don't understand the subject line. who or what is
> marat? safin?

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST