GAT T is the same—nobody knows what’s going on there unless
they’re some kind of specialist. And GAT T is even more far-
reaching. One of the things being pressed very hard in those
negotiations is what’s called “intellectual property rights.” T hat
means protection for patents—also things like software, records,
etc. T he idea is to guarantee that the technology of the future
remains in the hands of multinational corporations, for whom the
world government works.
You want to make sure, for example, that India can’t produce
drugs for its population at 10% the cost of drugs produced by Merck
Pharmaceutical, which is government supported and subsidized.
Merck relies extensively on re - search that comes out of
university biology laboratories (which are supported by public
funds) and on all sorts of other forms of government intervention.
Have you seen details of these treaties?
By now it’s theoretically possible to get a text. But what I’ve
seen is the secondary comment on the text, like the Labor Advisory
Committee report, and the report of the Congressional Office of
T echnology Assessment, which is fairly similar.
T he crucial point is that even if you and I could get a text, what
does that mean for American democracy? How many people even
know that this is going on? T he Labor Advisory Committee report,
and the fact that the treaty was withheld from the Committee, was
never even reported by the press (to my knowledge).
I just came back from a couple of weeks in Europe, where
GAT T is a pretty big issue for the people in the countries of the
European Community. T hey’re concerned about the gap that’s
developing between executive decisions (which are secret) and
democratic (or at least partially democratic) institutions like
parliaments, which are less and less able to influence decisions made
at the EU level.
It seems that the Clinton-Gore administration is going to be in a
major conflict. It supports NAFTA and GAT T, while at the same
time talking—at least rhetorically—about its commitment to
environmental protection and creating jobs for Americans.
I would be very surprised if there’s a big conflict over that. I
think your word “rhetorically” is accurate. T heir commitment is to
U S-based corporations, which means transnational corporations.
T hey approve of the form NAFTA is taking—special protection for
property rights, but no protection for workers’ rights—and the
ann
(Ann)
#1