Darrell G. Moen, Ph.D.

From Michael Albert and Znet

For those of you who feel that having a viable, worthy anticapitalist economic vision would help us answer questions about what we want as well as help us orient our activism — I need your help.

The vision that is seeking visibility is participatory economics, called parecon for short.

Parecon is getting growing international coverage, as it now begins to appear in different languages.

For example, international invitations to speak on parecon are well beyond my means to accommodate. In Sept. and Oct. I am going to Italy, Turkey, Denmark, Sweden, Greece, Italy again, and probably England, and possibly also Norway and Finland…and the venues for these talks are diverse and the audiences large. Later there may be trips to South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, Korea, and so on. Interviews with left and also even mainstream media occur, articles appear, reviews are published, etc.

In contrast, parecon’s visibility in the U.S. is rather minimal despite its having had a much longer tenure here. There are virtually no visible U.S. reviews, public discussions, talks, etc.

In other words, in many parts of the world those who administer movements, determine the content of periodicals, set up speaking events — and incredibly even those who hand out major awards — are propelling parecon into visibility. But in the U.S. those who administer movements, determine the content of periodicals, and set up speaking events are either doing nothing positive for parecon or are actively rejecting efforts for parecon to gain visibility.

So what’s the solution? (more…)

From Global Exchange Fact Sheet (http://www.globalexchange.org/)

1. The WTO Is Fundamentally Undemocratic
The policies of the WTO impact all aspects of society and the planet, but it is not a democratic, transparent institution. The WTO rules are written by and for corporations with inside access to the negotiations. For example, the US Trade Representative gets heavy input for negotiations from 17 “Industry Sector Advisory Committees.” Citizen input by consumer, environmental, human rights and labor organizations is consistently ignored. Even simple requests for information are denied, and the proceedings are held in secret. Who elected this secret global government?

2. The WTO Will Not Make Us Safer
The WTO would like you to believe that creating a world of “free trade” will promote global understanding and peace. On the contrary, the domination of international trade by rich countries for the benefit of their individual interests fuels anger and resentment that make us less safe. To build real global security, we need international agreements that respect people’s rights to democracy and trade systems that promote global justice.

3. The WTO Tramples Labor and Human Rights
WTO rules put the “rights” of corporations to profit over human and labor rights. The WTO encourages a ‘race to the bottom’ in wages by pitting workers against each other rather than promoting internationally recognized labor standards. The WTO has ruled that it is illegal for a government to ban a product based on the way it is produced, such as with child labor. It has also ruled that governments cannot take into account “non commercial values” such as human rights, or the behavior of companies that do business with vicious dictatorships such as Burma when making purchasing decisions. (more…)

Richard Du Boff

1. Comprehensive [Nuclear] Test Ban Treaty, 1996. Signed by 164 nations and ratified by 89 including France, Great Britain, and Russia; signed by President Clinton in 1996 but rejected by the Senate in 1999. The US is one of 13 nonratifiers among countries that have nuclear weapons or nuclear power programs. In November 2001, the US forced a vote in the UN Committee on Disarmament and Security to demonstrate its opposition to the Treaty, and announced plans to resume nuclear testing for development of new short-range tactical nuclear weapons.

2. Antiballistic Missile Treaty, 1972. In December 2001, the US officially withdrew from the landmark agreement–the first time in the nuclear era that the US renounced a major arms control accord.

3. Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, 1972, ratified by 144 nations including the US. In July 2001 the US walked out of a London conference to discuss a 1994 protocol designed to strengthen the Convention by providing for on-site inspections. At Geneva in November 2001, Undersecretary of State for arms control John Bolton stated that “the protocol is dead,” at the same time accusing Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Sudan, and Syria of violating the Convention but offering no specific allegations or supporting evidence to substantiate the charges. In May 2002 Bolton accused Cuba of carrying out germ-warfare research, again producing no evidence. The same month, three Pentagon documents revealed proposals, dating from 1994, to develop US offensive bioweapons that destroy materials (”biofouling and biocorrosion”), in violation of the Convention and a 1989 US law that implements the Convention.

4. UN Agreement to Curb the International Flow of Illicit Small Arms,
2001: the US was the only nation in opposition. Undersecretary Bolton said the agreement was an “important initiative” for the international community, but one that the US “cannot and will not” support, since it could impinge on the Constitutional right of Americans to keep and bear arms.

5. International Criminal Court (ICC) Treaty, 1998. Set up in The Hague to try political leaders and military personnel charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity. Concluded in Rome in July 1998, the Treaty was signed by 120 countries. Although President Clinton signed the Treaty in December 2000, he announced that the US would oppose it, along with 6 others (including China, Russia, and Israel). In May 2002 the Bush administration announced that it was “unsigning”–renouncing the Treaty, something the US had never before done, and that it will neither recognize the Court’s jurisdiction nor furnish any information to help the Court bring cases against any individuals. In July 2002 the ICC went into force after being ratified by more than the required number of 60 nations, including Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Spain (Russia now having signed but not ratified).

Throughout 2002 and 2003, the US worked to scuttle the treaty by signing bilateral agreements not to send each other’s citizens before the ICC. By mid-2003 the US had signed 37 mutual immunity pacts, mostly with poor, small countries in Africa, Asia, Central America, and Eastern Europe. Threatened with the loss of $73 million in US aid, for example, Bosnia signed such a deal. In July 2003 the Bush administration suspended all military assistance to 35 countries which refused to pledge to give US citizens immunity before the ICC.

6. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, which the US signed but did not ratify. In May 2002, as the US was unsigning the ICC Treaty, it simultaneously announced that it will not be bound by the Vienna Convention, which outlines the obligations of nations to obey other treaties. Article 18 requires signatory nations not to take steps to undermine treaties they sign even if they do not ratify them.

7. The American Servicemen’s Protection Act, 2002. The Bush administration has been working overtime to nullify the ICC. In November 2002 the President signed this Act, which not only bars cooperation with the ICC and threatens sanctions for countries that ratify it, but authorizes the use of “all means necessary” to free any US national who might be held in The Hague for trial before the ICC.

8. Land Mine Treaty, 1997. Banning the use, production or shipment of anti-personnel bombs and mines, the treaty was signed in Ottawa in December 1997 by 123 nations. President Clinton refused to submit it for ratification, claiming that mines were needed to protect South Korea against North Korea’s “overwhelming military advantage,” a proposition denied by the heads of North and South Korea in June 2000. In August 2001 President Bush rejected the treaty. (more…)