EDITORIAL
Trade hypocrisy
"GATT has nothing to do with free trade, but rather the liberalisation of trade within certain parameters _...] It is wrong to say that liberalisation is going to make the poor rich as a result of the opportunities offered to them."
It was no lover of protectionism that made these remarks at the end of last November, but Peter Sutherland, the director general of GATT, the very one responsible for steering the so-called Uruguay round through its final stages. In the event, the round was concluded on December 14 amidst a mass media propaganda blitz and an array of chauvinist excesses that were grotesque to say the least. ALFONSO MORO
HE lords of international capital have waged a holy crusade these last seven years — since 1986, when the Uruguay round of negotiations began — for the dismantling of customs regulations and the elimination of non-tariff barriers to the circulation of merchandise, all in the name of "free trade"
Free trade? We've never been further from it. The USA, Japan and the European Union have taken 80% of world trade for themselves in trade between themselves, while 20% of the world's population is involved in only a miserable 0.9% of world trade. Could things be any more blatant?
To be sure, the last seven years have given rise to real disagreements between the major imperialist powers. In fact, the final product is more of a compromise than an agreement. But this cannot hide the obvious - the dominant feature remains the current state of crisis of the world economy, initiated in the 1970s, characterised by persistently inadequate conditions for capital valorisation, and by an unresolved question: who will pay the consequences?
In the area of services, an area which offers the best chances for the internal development of a country and for access to the world market, principles such as "intellectual property" have been firmly entrenched. This is nothing more than a measure of exploitation imposed on the poorest countries in fields such as medicine and the manufacture of computers.
The benefits of the agricultural agreement are ambiguous to say the least. At the same time that poor countries are asked to eliminate subsidies and protectionist measures, and to substitute crops for internal consumption with those meant for export, malnutrition and famine keep on growing.
Spoonfed on Ricardo's old liberal theory on international trade, the major imperialist powers conducted the negotiations of the decrepit GATT institution in their own inimitable style. This was a hypocritical spectacle in which three large regional blocs, each with their own conductors, shared out the world market amongst themselves - while the great majority of countries, where four fifths of the world population live, participated as silent guests, with no right to speak.
Indeed, they have had to pay their way into a show run largely at their expense. *
International Viewpoint #252 January 1994 3
RUSSIA