Posted by WTO Watch Qld on February 15, 2003 at 18:12:51:
QUOTES OF THE WEEK
"Behind the hidden hand of the market is a hidden fist. McDonalds needs
McDonnell Douglas, the maker of the F-15 warplane. And the hidden fist that
keeps the world safe for corporations is the US Air Force, Navy, Army and
Marines."
Thomas Friedman, New York Times, 1999
"Threats to human security are being exacerbated by globalization."
The United Nations Human Development Report 1999
1) COMING EVENTS
a) ABC poll on War with Iraq
b) Peace Marches in Australia
2) FOCUS ON WAR, PEACE AND THE WTO
a) Report on Conference on Globalization and Culture of Peace, Barcelona
b) Globalised Weaponry
c) Globalisation cited as threat to US's security
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) COMING EVENTS
a) Cast your vote on this ABC site
The question:
Do you believe there is a case for war against Iraq?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/poll1/vote/
b) Peace Rallies and Marches Sunday 16th Feb.
Brisbane 11am at Roma Street Forum (aka Emma Miller Place) Speakers include Senators Kerry Nettle (Greens), Andrew Bartlett (Democrats), Claire Moore (ALP) and Grace Grace (QCU) March to QUT River Stage for a Picnic for Peace.
The event is organised by the Queensland Peace Network.
Contact Gavin Sawford 3846 2468
Joan Shears Rally for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament 3350 1889
Darwin 11am Oleander St
Adelaide 12 pm Victoria Sq.
Canberra 12pm Hyde Pk
============================================================
2) FOCUS ON WAR, PEACE AND THE WTO
a) (Ed: Apologies to those of you who have seen this before. Things have moved on since this speech was given. For example,we are now more concerned with the war against Iraq than the Missile Defense Shield. But the role of the WTO has not changed.)
Report on Conference on Globalization and Culture of Peace, Barcelona
The XIth Meeting of Barcelona, "Culture of Peace and Globalisation"
Barcelona, June 9th & 10th, 2000
Organized by Justicia I Pau (Justice and Peace) and Fundacio per la Pau
(Foundation for Peace).
Presented by Steven Staples
---------------------------------------snip-------------------------------------------
As peace activists – we are trying to achieve disarmament, reduced military
spending, the end of the arms trade, and the abolition of nuclear weapons.
In their place, we want to build a global society where the economy
provides wealth equitably, where human rights are respected, and every
person can live in a clean environment and free from the threat of war.
These are our values. So what does corporate globalization mean for us –
how does it affect our work in creating a culture of peace?
Frankly, we face a monumental task. As we can see, corporate globalization
does not share our values. In fact, the values of corporate globalization
are in many ways in opposition to us.
As citizens, we depend on democratic governments that have the power to
promote peace, human rights, social development, and protect the
environment. But global trade agreements and economic institutions oppose us.
Rulings have struck down laws governing the promotion of culture, food
safety, industrial policy, and taxation. Furthermore, environmental
protection measures that in any ways impinge on the ability of
corporations to make profits have been struck down when challenged before the WTO.
One would think that the WTO would view the tremendous amounts of public
resources spent on arms, the special treatment of domestic weapons
corporations by governments, and state subsidies to the arms trade would be
viewed in the same negative light. But this is not the case.
In fact, the only area of economic activity that is given a blanket
exception by the WTO are government policies and actions designated by the
state as essential for national security. In the eyes of the WTO,
national security means the development, production, and trade in arms
required for the provision of a military establishment. Special clauses
called "security exceptions" in trade agreements allow governments free
reign to prepare and wage wars.
Its here that the security exception plays two important roles in
facilitating the development of the new global economy. First, WTO
membership requires an ascension of national sovereignty to the
international body, and the security exception has convinced national
security institutions to acquiesce to the constitutionalization of the
global economic system. Given that the GATT was signed in 1947, the
security exception allowed the system to develop while not interfering in
governments' actions taken to conduct the Cold War.
Second, the security exception allows the wealthy industrial countries to
cheat the WTO rules, using military spending to subsidize corporations,
promote regional development through defense contracts, and maintain an
industrial knowledge base through weapons research and development.
However, the security exception gives a false sense of security. The role
of the nation state goes far beyond simply providing a police and military.
The state maintains its legitimacy through responsible governance in the
interest of the common good, and it is this imperative which provides for
the needs of its people.
Moreover, by pursuing a global economic system which facilitates a global
free market – an amoral social Darwinism which promotes the survival of the
fittest based on wealth, privilege, race and geography – it will guarantee
greater conflict, proliferation of arms, and exactly the instability which
is anathema to the economic interests of all nations.
The security exception is supported by Western states because it gives a
competitive advantage to military powers who can afford high military
spending, and use it as a tool to intervene in the economy. The United
States devotes more than $50 billion of its $276 billion defense budget to
weapons procurement, and contracts are selectively handed out to US
weapons corporations such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon. The
government also assists these corporations in foreign arms sales through
promotions, financing incentives, and other means. For example, it's
estimated that in 1995 alone the US government subsidized arms exports by
$7.6 billion.
This special treatment for weapons corporations is not normally permitted
in trade agreements. Export subsides, discrimination against foreign
corporations bidding on government contracts, and preferential treatment
for allies, all violate WTO rules. Countries who cannot afford high levels
of military spending must abide by these rules, while the U.S. and other
military powers are provided an escape clause.
For example, aerospace and defense is a nearly $200 billion per year
industry, dominated by huge corporations such as Boeing, Airbus,
Bombardier, Lockheed Martin, BAe Systems, and DaimlerChrysler Aerospace.
These corporations build both civilian and military products, and receive
preferential treatment and billions of dollars in subsidies from their
governments through military and non-military spending.
However, the WTO is limiting the ability of governments to
provide subsidies for non-military purposes, creating greater dependence
and pressure for military spending to aid "national champions" in
industry. Furthermore, governments may pursue national economic objectives
relating to employment, regional development, strong domestic producers,
and promoting high-tech manufacturing through military spending.
There is evidence that this is already happening. Bombardier is the world's
third largest maker of civilian aircraft, and has annual sales of more than
$7 billion, employing tens of thousands of Canadian workers. In 1999, a
WTO dispute panel ruled against a Canadian industrial program that
subsidized Bombardier Aerospace to build and export civilian passenger
jets. All aerospace corporations receive subsidies from governments, but
the WTO ruling was prompted by a complaint by Brazil, acting on behalf of
its champion aerospace corporation and Bombardier competitor, Embraer.
After changing the industrial program to focus more on research and
development to satisfy the WTO, the Canadian government introduced a new
$30 million (CAD) annual subsidy program for the development of new
weapons and boosted military spending by nearly $2 billion (CAD) over the
next four years. This new military spending will allow Bombardier to
continue to receive subsidies through Canada's military programs, and it
will not be challenged by the WTO.
The Canadian government admits that military spending is being used as an
industrial subsidy. A recent report on the arms trade said, "Despite
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) rules that eliminated tariff
barriers between signatories on civil aircraft products and the restricted
the use of government procurement, many countries use national security
exceptions to provide direct financial assistance to their domestic industry."
The connection here is clear. Because the security exception shields the
war industry from challenges by the WTO, it will spur government military
spending. Military economies are favoured over civilian economies. The
danger is that governments will only be able to promote jobs, new emerging
industries, or high-tech manufacturing through military spending.
It seems that this lesson has not been lost on some of the so-called
emerging economies, such as South Africa. South Africa is currently
undergoing a huge arms buying spree, buying billions of dollars worth of
helicopters, aircraft, ships, and even submarines from European weapons
corporations. The government has negotiated that the corporations will
move some of the production to South Africa, creating short term jobs and
investment. Finance Minister Trevor Manuel explained that the increase in
military spending would allow "the National Defence Force to upgrade
equipment, while providing a substantial boost to South African industry,
foreign investment and exports."
So while we as peace activists are up against the new global economy where
human rights, the environment and social programs are out – and the
military is in – we are at the same time losing our ability to even work
to promote peace and human rights.
Today, the WTO is prepared to challenge the work of peace activists who are
trying to restore democracy to Burma, a country that Amnesty International
has consistently criticised for its terrible human rights record.
Burma is ruled by a military junta which refuses to relinquish power to
Burma's legitimately-elected leader, Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, who
is under house arrest. Trade unions have listed Burma as one of the most
dangerous places in the world to be a union organizer.
But in 1996, peace activists succeeded in having Massachusetts and twenty
other municipalities and counties across the United States pass laws
preventing government contracts from being issued to companies doing
business with Burma, in order to put pressure on the military rulers. This
legislation was similar to the laws that many governments passed in the
1980s to support the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa.
In response, both the European Union and Japan challenged Massachusetts'
law as a violation of the WTO's Agreement on Government Procurement on the
grounds that Burma and companies that did business with Burma were being
unfairly discriminated against.
Before the WTO could convene a dispute panel, a U.S. corporate lobby group
– supported by the E.U. and Japan – stepped in and sued Massachusetts in
domestic courts, under the pretext the state had exceeded its authority.
Massachusetts lost the case and the court overturned the law and all
similar laws in the U.S. Massachusetts is appealing the ruling to the US
Supreme Court.
The lesson here is clear as well. If we, as activists, are successful in
achieving laws which promote peace and human rights, but affect corporate
profits, we will face the entire weight of the transnational corporations
and the WTO.
***
Until now I have been largely speaking about transnational corporations
outside of the arms industry. But the end of the Cold War, corporate
globalization, and the weakening of the nation state has had a profound
effect on the weapons corporation as well.
In the last five years, there has been an unprecedented round of mergers in
the weapons industry. Boeing swallowed up McDonnell Douglas to create the
world's largest manufacturer of military aircraft. The same is true in
Europe, where British Aerospace swallowed Marconi, and soon we will see the
merger of France's Aersopatiale Matra, Germany's DaimlerChrysler
Aerospace, and Spain's Construciones Aeronauticas into the European
Aeronautic Defense and Space Company, or EADS.
The sheer size of these corporations pose a direct challenge to
governments. The top five of the world's weapons corporation in aerospace
sales, where military sales exceed civilian sales, amount to more than
$130 billion dollars every year.
Boeing is the U.S.'s largest exporter, with customers in 145 countries,
employees in more than sixty countries and operations in twenty-seven U.S.
states. Worldwide, more than 200,000 people get their paycheque from
Boeing. Boeing is the worlds largest military aircraft maker, with $55.4
billion in civilian and military aircraft sales.
Lockheed Martin is the largest over-all weapons builder at $26 billion. The
next two are European corporations, with EADS at $25 billion and British
Aerospace (or BAe Systems) at $20.5 billion. Fifth is the US missile
manufacturer Raytheon with $17.5 billion.
These corporations manufacture practically every weapons system imaginable,
ranging from bombers, fighters, helicopters and missiles. In both Europe
and the United States, these corporations have become larger and larger
in an arms race between the two continents, each side competing for the
world's $20 billion export arms market, but at the same time positioning
themselves in transatlantic alliances for lucrative contracts from NATO
nations.
Transatlantic mergers of these corporations have been resisted by the
United States for fear that it would result in a weapons corporation so
large, that even the Pentagon could no longer control it. But while the
Pentagon has been nervously watching these mergers and its influence
slipping away, it finally admitted last year that it will not be able to
resist transatlantic mergers of their client corporations. The most likely
merger would be between Boeing and BAe Systems, which would create a
weapons corporation with more than $75 billion in annual revenues.
Governments seem to be powerless in the face of these corporations. In the
United States, weapons corporation have become so intertwined with the
military and industrial policy that they cannot be allowed to fail
financially. So the government aids in arms exports, subsidies research and
development, and even ten years after the end of the Cold War, is
increasing its military spending to more than $300 billion.
The influence of this military-corporate complex, a collusion between the
military and the weapons corporations, is perhaps even powerful enough to
spark a new arms race and a revival of the Cold War in its short-sighted
quest for ever greater profits. Here I am speaking about the United States'
plan to deploy the National Missile Defence System. (Ed: And the war against Iraq?)
The deployment of a missile defence system goes against every reasonable
peace and security policy imaginable. The rationale of deploying a dubious
$60 billion system to shoot down non-existent missiles from North Korea
and Iran defies logic. Surely, if a so-called rogue nation wished to attack
the US with a nuclear bomb they would do it secretly in a suitcase on a
bus or ship, rather than so overtly launching a ballistic missile which
could be tracked back to its launching point.
And worse, the system has caused warranted consternation in Russia which
says the system will violate the Ballistic Missile Treaty and force Russia
and other nations to deploy more missiles to overwhelm the shield in order
to maintain nuclear deterrence.
A better explanation of why the US is so vigorously pursuing the national
missile defence system lies in the more than $26 million spent on political
lobbying Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and TRW. These four weapons
corporations will win the billions of dollars in contracts to build the
system. And of this $26 million spent on lobbying, about $4 million has
been given to both political parties in a presidential campaign year.
Another example of the influence of weapons corporations over defence
policies is the expansion of NATO. The expansion of NATO eastward to
include three more states should have never have happened. Why? Because we
now know that at the end of the Cold War, U.S. President George Bush went
to Mikhail Gorbachev to strike a deal with him that if Russia acquiesced
to a reunified Germany, then NATO would not expand. Gorbachev agreed, and
we now have a unified Germany.
But never underestimate the power of the corporations. The Committee to
Expand NATO whipped up support for NATO expansion where there was no
support before. The committee was chaired by the Vice President of Lockheed
Martin, the largest weapons builder in the world.
The arms corporations stood to gain billions in contracts from NATO
expansion because new member countries would have to retool and upgrade
their weaponry from old Soviet equipment to newer and more advance
American and European equipment like planes, communications equipment, and
other weaponry.
As we know, their lobby was eventually successful, and in 1999 Poland,
Hungary and the Czech Republic joined NATO. However the cost was enormous
in relations with Russia who was betrayed and humiliated by NATO and the
United States. Many analysts point to NATO expansion as a major low-point
in post Cold War reconciliation between East and West, and a lost
opportunity to build trust and a more secure peace between old foes.
But the corporations have nothing to complain about. Their allies in the US
military are now inspecting each NATO member's arsenal of weapons and
equipment, and handing each member a shopping list of new equipment
required to create "interoperability" within NATO, exactly as the
corporations hoped would happen. This will mean more lucrative contracts
for the corporations.
***
Finally, we cannot rule out even more sinister motives. The US military is
part of corporate globalization and the agenda of creating a single global
economy, dominated by the United States and its allies. This spectre was
raised by the columnist for the New York Times, Thomas Friedman, who last
year wrote this in one of his columns:
"Behind the hidden hand of the market is a hidden fist. McDonalds needs
McDonnell Douglas, the maker of the F-15 warplane. And the hidden fist that
keeps the world safe for corporations is the US Air Force, Navy, Army and
Marines."
This observation rings true when compared with recent statements from the
U.S. military. The U.S. Space Command wrote in its Vision 20/20 planning
document: "U.S. Space Command -dominating the space dimensions of military
operations to protect U.S. interests and investment. Integrating Space
Forces into war-fighting capabilities across the full spectrum of
conflict." The document further compares the U.S. effort to control space
with the effort centuries ago when nations built navies to protect and
enhance their colonial commercial interests by ruling the oceans.
These sentiments are shared by US Secretary of Defense William Cohen. In
February last year, Cohen went to Redmond, Washington to meet with two
hundred Microsoft workers to deliver a simple message. He said, "For all of
the domestic prosperity produced by the Information Age – symbolized by the
astounding success of Microsoft – U.S. economic power is still dependent
on its military strength. Some soldiers in the high-tech revolution do not
fully understand or appreciate the soldiers in camouflage."
But perhaps most frightening of all, was a quote brought to my attention by
author Susan George in her book, the Lugano Report. She quotes a military
planner writing in the journal, Proceedings, that "The de facto role of the
U.S. armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open
to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of
killing."
***
But in the face of corporate globalization – a new social movement for
peace, human rights, the environment, and the rights of workers is
emerging.
. -----------------------------snip--------------------------------------
For me, building a culture of peace requires building a mass movement of
people who are prepared to reclaim their democracy. The challenge is to
stop the current pro-corporate agenda of globalization. We must work to
ensure that globalization is essentially people-centred, not
profit-centred. That means reclaiming our governments from the influence
of big business and then ensuring that governments are empowered to work
for peace.
We have to redefine "national security." National Security does not come
from tanks, and warplanes, and missiles. National Security comes from
economic justice, peace, human rights, a clean environment, and an economy
that works for everyone.
International Network on Disarmament and Globalization
405-825 Granville Street, Vancouver, British Columbia V6Z 1K9 CANADA
tel: (604) 687-3223 fax: (604) 687-3277
info@indg.org www.indg.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b) GLOBALIZED WEAPONRY
(Ed: The WTO's mantra of 'export led development' has now been translated into the arms trade.)
http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/briefs/vol5/v5n16arms.html)
By Tamar Gabelnick and Anna Rich, Arms Sales Monitoring Project,
Federation of American Scientists
During the cold war the U.S. government exempted the conventional
weapons trade from its general advocacy of free trade. U.S. arms exports
were restricted to preserve national security, and the U.S. worked
closely with allies to limit conventional arms proliferation. But the
Clinton administration took advantage of the change in the global
security environment to reverse many self-imposed barriers on arms
exports. Financial gain and competition--not national or global
security--are now the dominant values governing arms exports in today's
global marketplace.
National security concerns still get some lip service, but the
proliferation of arms transfers tells an entirely different story. At
least 154 out of 190 independent countries will get contracts for or
deliveries of American arms in fiscal year 2000, according to the U.S.
government. From 1995-97, U.S.-based firms profited from a 55% share of
the global arms market (up from roughly a third during the cold war),
exporting four times more than its closest competitor (Britain). U.S.
arms deliveries have also increased in absolute terms--from $23 billion
in 1987 to almost $32 billion in 1997. Like McDonald's and Coca-Cola,
American arms have penetrated the world market.
Declining global demand for weapons since the cold war's end makes U.S.
dominance of the arms trade all the more remarkable. Three factors
explain American defense manufacturers' ability to grab a larger piece
of a shrinking pie: 1) a sophisticated technological base (thanks to
high U.S. defense procurement and government investment in R&D); 2)
governmental promotion of and financial support for arms exports; and 3)
industry willingness to provide extra incentives to make a sale.
Consequently, the U.S. arms industry has neither cut production
significantly nor converted to civilian products despite lower U.S. arms
purchases.
In a 1995 Presidential Decision Directive, the Clinton administration
expressly stated for the first time that supporting U.S. economic
interests was an important policy consideration when making arms
transfer decisions. The government's rationale is that foreign sales
maintain defense-related skills and infrastructure in the U.S. at a time
of reduced U.S. government arms procurement, thereby creating lower
per-unit costs for U.S. weapons procurement while also promoting
"interoperability" with allies for joint operations. This conventional
wisdom, however, is rarely supported by hard analysis. The General
Accounting Office, for instance, has questioned the per-unit cost
savings supposedly derived from arms exports, and allies can achieve
interoperability without purchasing only U.S. equipment.
In today's global economy, the U.S. government (in particular the
Pentagon) has become an advocate for U.S. companies interested in
exporting arms. During the 1990s the Defense Technology Security
Administration (DSB), the agency responsible for strategic evaluation of
arms exports, was moved from its traditional position in the Pentagon's
policy division to Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, the
directorate devoted to reducing costs for U.S. arms procurement. The
overarching goal has shifted from control for national security reasons
to export promotion. In addition, the Arms Transfer Policy Review Group,
a new committee responsible for rendering decisions about controversial
arms sales, is also supposed to "champion" arms industry concerns. The
Secretary of Defense himself serves as an unofficial sales
representative for U.S. industry, routinely promoting U.S. arms sales on
foreign visits.
As a result of this new market orientation for decisions about arms
transfers, the U.S. government has proved willing to export increasingly
sophisticated weaponry to an ever-widening group of countries. The U.S.
has introduced new arms technology into highly charged regions like the
Middle East and the Aegean, and is helping Taiwan further its arms race
with China. U.S. weapons manufacturers can now count on a large export
market (regardless of the sensitivity of the technology)--sometimes
before the weapons are produced for American use. For example, the
United Arab Emirates (UAE) just finalized a deal to buy 80 F-16s that
will have better range, radar, and targeting accuracy than those used by
the U.S. Air Force.
To seal arms sales agreements, exporters must often provide importing
countries with a share of production, thereby further contributing to
global arms proliferation by increasing the number of producers. These
production-sharing, or offset, arrangements can include local assembly
work, subcontracting agreements, joint weapons development, and
technology transfers. In today's buyers' market, offsets may exceed 100%
of the value of the weapons, and may include greater access to U.S.
technology and demands for blanket re-export rights. U.S. firms--though
not their employees--have embraced this globalization of arms
production. Turkey and South Korea now produce F-16 fighter jets for
their own use, and Turkey has so far produced 46 jets for export to
Egypt, over the protests of Lockheed-Martin workers. The prevalence of
offsets, which send jobs and production overseas, undercuts the argument
that arms sales significantly benefit the U.S. economy.
-------snip-----------------------------------------------------
Exporting more arms is the easy way to deal with the arms industry's
overcapacity. But the U.S. government is creating serious problems by
promoting exports as the solution. A better approach is to create a
responsible arms export policy, and to cut back U.S. arms production
where necessary. With some encouragement from its constituents, the next
administration may muster the political will to get this done. (Ed: The 'next administration' is the present one---George W Bush's)
For Further Information:
Organizations
Bonn International Center for Conversion
Email: bicc@bicc.de
Website: http://www.bicc.de/
British American Security Information Council
Email: basicus@basicint.org
Website: http://www.basicint.org/
Contact: Theresa Hitchens
Federation of American Scientists
Arms Sales Monitoring Project
Email: tamarg@fas.org
Website: http://www.fas.org/asmp/
Contact: Tamar Gabelnick
-------------------------------------------------------------------
c) Globalisation cited as threat to US security
By Edward Alden in Washington
Financial Times; Feb 12, 2003
The heads of the main US intelligence agencies warned yesterday that
globalisation, which has been the driving force behind the expansion
of the world economy, has become a serious threat to US security.
In a bleak assessment of the threats facing the US, the Senate
intelligence committee was told that nuclear proliferation, failing
economies, rising anti-Americanism and terrorist recruiting pose
grave dangers.
"Under the right conditions, globalisation can be a very positive
force, providing the political, economic and social context for
sustained progress," said Vice-Admiral Lowell Jacoby, director of the
Pentagon's Defence Intelligence Agency.
"But in those areas unable to exploit these advantages, it can leave
large numbers of people seemingly worse off, exacerbate local and
regional tensions, increase the prospects and capabilities for
conflict and empower those who would do us harm."
George Tenet, CIA director, said that globalisation had been "a
profoundly disruptive force for governments to manage". Arab
governments, in particular, he said "are feeling many of
globalisation's stresses, especially on the cultural front, without
reaping the economic benefits".
=========================================================
Terrie Templeton WTO Watch Qld gumbus@powerup.com.au