Thom York on WTO Trade Rules

The talented Mr. York (of Radiohead) is Losing the faith in yesterdays Guardian. He says,

"There must be a change to trade rules in favour of the poor and the environment. International human rights must be respected. There must be corporate accountability so that multinationals are taken to task over corruption, human rights and environment abuses."

Naturally being the closet sometimes Thatcherite that I am I don't agree 100% with him. I tend to think that rather than fixing rules pro or against a particular country or set of country you will end up creating new inequalities. Make the rules fair to all, provide aid to enable developing nations to prosper would be more my take on it.

Also I'm not convinced by the debt waiving argument. How is that fair to the countries who have dutifully paid back debt foregoing other things in the meantime? If your bank said to you, "Hey forget about the mortgage ok, we're not going to need that money back" would that encourage you to be a responsible borrower in the future?

Posted by Paul at September 10, 2003 04:04 AM |
Visitor Feedback

Yeah, or when the San Francisco DPT waives half your parking tickets because you have so many. I pay all mine, on time, surely I should be getting the frequent violator discount too.

Posted by: gregor at September 10, 2003 07:31 AM

They do that?

Posted by: Paul at September 10, 2003 03:34 PM

Is there much point handing out aid if greater sums are then being demanded in debt repayments?

What happens if developing countries default rather than a decision taken to scale back or cancel debt?

Perhaps we're looking for the least iniquitous of a series of unfair options?

Perhaps making trade rules favourable to all involves treating like countries alike rather than one approach to cover all. Evolving gradually towards a greater equality.

Hhhmmm - "closet sometimes Thatcherite" ???!!!
Go on explain that one now the closet door's ajar and the skeletons are rattling.

Posted by: Bonobo at September 10, 2003 03:42 PM

i'm not saying don't do something with the debt (i.e. make it interest free and on holiday for an indefinite period) but i just don't think it's useful to waive it. it is of course stupid to receive aid money only to have to then use it for purposes other than intended, but in that case too then assuming that the debt wasn't going to be defaulted on otherwise then other money will be freed up so the aid does help. they are two seperate issues and aid should be given where needed and debt should be made manageable regardless. don't serve nobody if the debt is defaulted.

as for whether a en-masse default would be of use then i think not, although desperate times may well call for desperate measures.

us, uk and others should realise that their future safety lies in making others propserous and arrange aid and debt accordingly.

as for the "closet sometimes Thatcherite" thing... well, i suspect you had your suspicions! but m.t. herself was a proponent of free trade more than trade through billions of rules believing that trade makes us more interdependent, makes all of our economies grow etc. and through that will come greater peace and prosperity for all. i agree substantially with her on this.

Posted by: Paul at September 11, 2003 04:02 AM

Must admit I'm with Yorke, Monbiot etc in this one. The whole system of finance and trade needs major reform at both the national and global level.

Am slowly coming round to the idea that the worst thing Thatcher ever did to Scotland or the UK might have been to pave the way for the present government of Mr Blair.
(And believe me I think that woman was responsible for an awful lot of harm)
The more I see and hear of new labour the more I think I could become conviced to vote for independence.)

Posted by: Bonobo at September 11, 2003 04:58 PM