http://www.independent.co.uk/news/World/Americas/seattle061299.shtml
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>America accused of sabotage in Seattle
By Andrew Marshall in Seattle
6 December 1999
Recriminations over the collapse of world trade talks
flew yesterday after some European officials suggested
the US deliberately sabotaged the summit when it
became clear other nations would not acquiesce to its
demands.
Some US officials have also hinted at the same ugly
situation after the debacle in Seattle, where the four-day
meeting of the World Trade Organisation ended without
agreement.
The Americans apparently preferred to let the summit fail
rather than try to explain their failure to US unions and
other interest groups, with an election less than a year
away.
American newspapers have begun to report the contrary
charge – that the meeting failed because the European
Union would not compromise on agriculture. This is
belied by the fact that a deal on the table had resolved
most of the difficulties by early Friday evening. America
had mishandled the talks so there was insufficient time for
many other key issues, but at 6pm European officials said
they were willing to carry on into the next morning if it
meant a successful end.
But by 8pm President Bill Clinton, Charlene Barshefsky,
the US Trade Representative, and White House officials
Gene Sperling and John Podesta, decided "the patient
could not be resuscitated," the The New York Times
reported. The US said this was because other
governments would not compromise. But the agreement
on the table was profoundly unsatisfactory to America.
A deal on labour standards – a critical issue and one that
will affect the election – was already a shell, outside the
main WTO text, carrying no policy implications and with
the heavy hint of extra cash for developing countries.
Some developing nations wanted to push it even further
into the margins.
US officials were said to fear this would damage
Vice-President Al Gore's chances of re-election. John
Sweeney, head of the AFL-CIO, America's umbrella
trade body, said after the meeting that no deal was better
than the agreement on the table.
Mr Clinton intervened, calling heads of state around the
world, pushing for American demands. He asked Japan
to back away from its demands that the US amend its
controversial anti-dumping policy, which penalises
exporters to America, for instance.
Again, the deal on the table was a long way from
America's agenda, as it was on genetically modified food.
These agreements were in part struck to gain a deal on
agriculture, making little sense of the claim that no
progress could be made.
European officials had been puzzled for most of the day
that America was failing to tackle many of the
outstanding issues, and some speculated that the US did
not want agreement.
After the meeting, some said that they believed Ms
Barshefsky had let the deal collapse for political reasons.
Others demurred, saying it was incompetence, and not
conspiracy. [/quote]
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>America accused of sabotage in Seattle
By Andrew Marshall in Seattle
6 December 1999
Recriminations over the collapse of world trade talks
flew yesterday after some European officials suggested
the US deliberately sabotaged the summit when it
became clear other nations would not acquiesce to its
demands.
Some US officials have also hinted at the same ugly
situation after the debacle in Seattle, where the four-day
meeting of the World Trade Organisation ended without
agreement.
The Americans apparently preferred to let the summit fail
rather than try to explain their failure to US unions and
other interest groups, with an election less than a year
away.
American newspapers have begun to report the contrary
charge – that the meeting failed because the European
Union would not compromise on agriculture. This is
belied by the fact that a deal on the table had resolved
most of the difficulties by early Friday evening. America
had mishandled the talks so there was insufficient time for
many other key issues, but at 6pm European officials said
they were willing to carry on into the next morning if it
meant a successful end.
But by 8pm President Bill Clinton, Charlene Barshefsky,
the US Trade Representative, and White House officials
Gene Sperling and John Podesta, decided "the patient
could not be resuscitated," the The New York Times
reported. The US said this was because other
governments would not compromise. But the agreement
on the table was profoundly unsatisfactory to America.
A deal on labour standards – a critical issue and one that
will affect the election – was already a shell, outside the
main WTO text, carrying no policy implications and with
the heavy hint of extra cash for developing countries.
Some developing nations wanted to push it even further
into the margins.
US officials were said to fear this would damage
Vice-President Al Gore's chances of re-election. John
Sweeney, head of the AFL-CIO, America's umbrella
trade body, said after the meeting that no deal was better
than the agreement on the table.
Mr Clinton intervened, calling heads of state around the
world, pushing for American demands. He asked Japan
to back away from its demands that the US amend its
controversial anti-dumping policy, which penalises
exporters to America, for instance.
Again, the deal on the table was a long way from
America's agenda, as it was on genetically modified food.
These agreements were in part struck to gain a deal on
agriculture, making little sense of the claim that no
progress could be made.
European officials had been puzzled for most of the day
that America was failing to tackle many of the
outstanding issues, and some speculated that the US did
not want agreement.
After the meeting, some said that they believed Ms
Barshefsky had let the deal collapse for political reasons.
Others demurred, saying it was incompetence, and not
conspiracy. [/quote]
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!