Why the Green Party is shit

[Greebo]

I've yet to hear anyone outside of the internet mention intersectionality.

It's been mentioned and discussed on Woman's Hour at least twice since the summer - check your patriarchal bias and working hours privilege.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Why does democratic control lead to more sustainable consumption?

<snip>

Where do you think I said that one 'leads to' the other?

That certainly wasn't my intent in the bit you quoted, especially if you take that to mean 'necessarily leads to' ...

What I meant was something more like, I don't think you can have a coherent analysis that glosses over that relationship or tries to handwave it away with liberal bullshit.

I recommend a look at the thing butchers just linked.

I'll reply properly later.

 

[tbtommyb]

Where do you think I said that one 'leads to' the other?

That certainly wasn't my intent in the bit you quoted, especially if you take that to mean 'necessarily leads to' ...

I recommend a look at the thing butchers just linked.

I'll reply properly later.

Apologies, I took your second sentence to mean that sustainable consumption is sorted out if you have democratic control. what 'other stuff' were you referring to?

I have butchers on ignore, the forum is a much more pleasant experience.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I edited to clarify a bit while you were replying.

Meanwhile here's the article butchers linked.

http://www.commoner.org.uk/?p=49

 

[Bernie Gunther]

OK so let's separate out the 'direct democracy' bit, because that's not the main point I was trying to make.

What I was getting at is the essential relationship between a whole bunch of sustainability-related issues and the productive forces of the global economy being under the control of capital.

Capital being the mechanism that sets the goals for the employment of that productive machinery in almost all cases.

'Direct democratic control' is me jumping to conclusions about what the alternative to that situation might look like, but from where we are right now, that's kind of less important than the immediate challenge of that basic fact.

continued below the drama ...

 

[Meltingpot]

Anyone remember Meltingpot ?

If not, worth reading from here on this thread.

And from meltingpot the green's stormfront postings are revealed from here

Not this crap again :sigh:

I think a reality check is in order. You don't get to tell me to "fuck off and don't come back" and then reference me whenever you think you can use me to make points about a party with which I've been associated and for which I've campaigned (albeit for a short time). It doesn't work like that.

The general consensus on this board, which I've respected, is that I don't belong here and should go. Fine - I've done that. Now I find that you've not only quoted me, but tagged me - twice. The other time was to make an inaccurate comment about my political allegiances in the EDL Watch thread.

Just leave it.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Not this crap again :sigh:

I think a reality check is in order. You don't get to tell me to "fuck off and don't come back" and then reference me whenever you think you can use me to make points about a party with which I've been associated and for which I've campaigned (albeit for a short time). It doesn't work like that.

The general consensus on this board, which I've respected, is that I don't belong here and should go. Fine - I've done that. Now I find that you've not only quoted me, but tagged me - twice. The other time was to make an inaccurate comment about my political allegiances in the EDL Watch thread.

Just leave it.

And you don't get to tell me what I can and can't post. You daft racist.

 

[Meltingpot]

And you don't get to tell me what I can and can't post. You daft racist.

I've just done it.

 

[SpineyNorman]

You don't get to tell me to "fuck off and don't come back" and then reference me whenever you think you can use me to make points about a party with which I've been associated and for which I've campaigned (albeit for a short time).

I've just done it.

Do you expect this to go well?

 

[JTG]

Tbh Spiney, you're the one who summoned him back here. So best leave it really.

 

[SpineyNorman]

to be honest I thought he'd been banned

 

[Bernie Gunther]

... following on from pre-drama post above

What capital being in control of the mechanisms of production and distribution means is that any attempt to optimise for for sustainability (or a just society for that matter) runs right up against the fact that capital optimises instead for accumulation ...

The Stern Review is an instructive case here. It acknowledges the science behind climate change and gives a bit of lip service to prevention, but moves on quickly to decide that it's far too inconvenient for capital to seriously try prevent it from happening. Instead it moves straight on to discuss forcing impoverished countries with hundreds of millions of people directly at risk from the impacts of climate change to buy 'climate change insurance' from the City and Wall Street. That kind of shit is *always* going to happen while capital is in control of the forces of global production. The Stern Review is a large-scale example but you can see it just as clearly in shitty little austerity / cost-cutting moves being greenwashed by your local council or by corporations.

A green movement whose analysis doesn't come to terms with this fundamental fact and do so in a way that connects it clearly to peoples' real-life concerns to help them reason about the issues, risks and choices linking sustainability and our society, isn't in my view capable of providing the basis for a mass social movement to address them. All something like the Green Party is going to be able to manage without such an analysis and such a movement, is to create an electoral 'brand' that offers a bit of greenwashing for business as usual and a safe haven for protest votes. For many ordinary people it's going to be seen, not unreasonably, as a party of irrelevant, interfering, middle-class do-gooders ...

 

[elbows]

The answer is political not statistical. The mention of the peak oil debate above reminds me of what i think is an exemplary piece of what Bernie was saying he'd like to see more of:

The Peak Oil Complex, Commodity Fetishism, and Class Struggle

Good stuff. We've certainly been treated to a few dodgy examples of some of that stuff on u75 in the past. Mostly via certain posts by Falcon, who did not disguise his glee at having a justification for the destruction of remaining post-war social safety nets.

 

[free spirit]

... following on from pre-drama post above

What capital being in control of the mechanisms of production and distribution means is that any attempt to optimise for for sustainability (or a just society for that matter) runs right up against the fact that capital optimises instead for accumulation ...

The Stern Review is an instructive case here. It acknowledges the science behind climate change and gives a bit of lip service to prevention, but moves on quickly to decide that it's far too inconvenient for capital to seriously try prevent it from happening. Instead it moves straight on to discuss forcing impoverished countries with hundreds of millions of people directly at risk from the impacts of climate change to buy 'climate change insurance' from the City and Wall Street. That kind of shit is *always* going to happen while capital is in control of the forces of global production. The Stern Review is a large-scale example but you can see it just as clearly in shitty little austerity / cost-cutting moves being greenwashed by your local council or by corporations.

A green movement whose analysis doesn't come to terms with this fundamental fact and do so in a way that connects it clearly to peoples' real-life concerns to help them reason about the issues, risks and choices linking sustainability and our society, isn't in my view capable of providing the basis for a mass social movement to address them. All something like the Green Party is going to be able to manage without such an analysis and such a movement, is to create an electoral 'brand' that offers a bit of greenwashing for business as usual and a safe haven for protest votes. For many ordinary people it's going to be seen, not unreasonably, as a party of irrelevant, interfering, middle-class do-gooders ...

They do address this, it's the rationale for their policy of pulling out of the WTO / replacing it with an organisation that regulates international trade on the basis of environmental and social concerns as opposed to the WTO that does the opposite.

Long term aims
EC941 To redesign trade policy so that it is based on less, not more, international trade, and founded on the principles of equity and sustainable development.

EC942 To replace the WTO with a more accountable, decentralised body, which aims to protect and enhance social and environmental conditions, and to develop strong self-reliant regions where individual communities meet more of their own needs.

EC902 Formidably powerful and publicly unaccountable trans-national companies are becoming ever more footloose, their strength and mobility facilitated both by technological advances, and by the progressive withdrawal of investment controls by governments and by multilateral institutions such as WTO. TNCs are now increasingly able to exploit differences in social and environmental standards between countries in order to maximise profits.
EC903 The rush towards globalisation is neither inevitable nor desirable. It is leading to the sharp reduction in powers of local and indigenous communities, states, and even nations, to control their futures, as economic power is transferred to global institutions. A worldwide homogenization of diverse, local, and indigenous cultures, social and economic forms, as well as values and living patterns increasingly reflect the new global monoculture

EC904 New global agreements are urgently needed to regulate international trade and investment in the interests of equity and sustainable development. Green policies are based on the principle that we need to reduce to a minimum the overall volume of international trade, and to revitalise local communities by promoting maximum self-reliance, economic, social, and political control, and environmental sustainability. These policies will also greatly increase employment opportunities.

This stuff is all the basic starting point for sustainable development, as defined and explained in the 80s by the Brundtland report*. I've always been of the opinion that the WTO was set up by global capital in direct opposition to the movement towards sustainable development which had just been given a global mandate (for a watered down version at least) at the Rio Earth Summit, prior to the WTO being formed with a mandate that ran completely counter to sustainable development principles.

So I'd agree with the GP analysis and propositions on this, and to my knowledge, they're the only vaguely mainstream party to be calling for the WTO to be replaced.

I'm not sure that many on the left actually understand how core this aspect of the situation is to the environmental movement, who've been fighting the WTO since it's inception.



*largely written by a died in the wool UK socialist with vast amounts of international development experience, to put that into context.

 

[butchersapron]

*largely written by a died in the wool UK socialist with vast amounts of international development experience, to put that into context.

Who was that?

 

[free spirit]

Who was that?

Phil O'Keefe

 

[butchersapron]

I really don't think that's right.

 

[free spirit]

I'm not sure that many on the left actually understand how core this aspect of the situation is to the environmental movement, who've been fighting the WTO since it's inception.

tbf, there have also been many on the green movement who've not grasped this either, particularly so in recent years since Blair altered the meaning of sustainable development in UK legislation, resulting in lots of environmental graduates being taught that version rather than the original version, and missing a lot of the social and political context, and the way in which neoliberalism must really be viewed as being incompatible with environmentalism.

 

[free spirit]

I really don't think that's right.

I was taught by him for 3 years in the mid 90s, so have a pretty good idea what I'm on about.

Which bit don't you think's right?

 

[butchersapron]

I was taught by him for 3 years in the mid 90s, so have a pretty good idea what I'm on about.

Which bit don't you think's right?

The bit that says he largely wrote the the Brundtland report.

 

[free spirit]

The bit that says he largely wrote the the Brundtland report.

largely might be pushing it, but he was one of the main authors of the report and heavily influenced its direction, and these sections in particular.

 

[free spirit]

largely might be pushing it, but he was one of the main authors of the report and heavily influenced its direction, and these sections in particular.

Actually I'm going to go back to my original position, I'm pretty sure that Phil O'keefe was responsible for writing and/or editing the bulk of the report on behalf of the World Commission on Environment and Development, or at least the key bits of it relevant to this discussion. There was an editing committee, and expert committees, as well as the main Brundlant Committee, so I'm not saying it was all him, but he heavily influenced it - he certainly talked about the all night editing sessions, thrashing out the exact wording of the text and definition etc. with the authority of someone who was right at the heart of it.

There's no chance that the report itself was written or even edited by the main committee of dignatories, someone (or a small team) with a real grasp of the entire subject matter had to do the actual writing and editing, and from my recollection Phil was right at the heart of that process.

Who else would be able to write a 300 page report of that depth than someone who's now written 30 books, 200 academic papers and 1000 contract reports mostly on the subjects covered in the Brundtland report?

He was involved in a lot of research and report writing for the WCED and the UNEP from the 70s onwards, so it makes sense that he'd be heavily involved in the most important report the WCED released.

Stuff like this are pure O'Keefe IMO:-

I. The Concept of Sustainable Development
4 The satisfaction of human needs and aspirations in the major objective of development. The
essential needs of vast numbers of people in developing countries for food, clothing, shelter,
jobs - are not being met, and beyond their basic needs these people have legitimate aspirations
for an improved quality of life. A world in which poverty and inequity are endemic will always
be prone to ecological and other crises. Sustainable development requires meeting the basic
needs of all and extending to all the opportunity to satisfy their aspirations for a better life.

5. Living standards that go beyond the basic minimum are sustainable only if consumption
standards everywhere have regard for long-term sustainability. Yet many of us live beyond the
world's ecological means, for instance in our patterns of energy use. Perceived needs are
socially and culturally determined, and sustainable development requires the promotion of
values that encourage consumption standards that are within the bounds of the ecological
possible and to which all can reasonably aspire.

6. Meeting essential needs depends in part on achieving full growth potential, and sustainable
development clearly requires economic growth in places where such needs are not being met.
Elsewhere, it can be consistent with economic growth, provided the content of growth reflects
the broad principles of sustainability and non-exploitation of others. But growth by itself is not
enough. High levels of productive activity and widespread poverty can coexist, and can
endanger the environment. Hence sustainable development requires that societies meet
human needs both by increasing productive potential and by ensuring equitable opportunities
for all.

And it's those bits I'm really referring to as being the key texts that define what sustainable development means, and how it requires reduced inequality, and ensuring that the needs of all members of society are met, and that all have the opportunity to improve their lives / have their lives improved for them.

It's also refuting the fucking stupid element of green thinking that assumes that sustainability must mean zero growth.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Fair point to bring up the Brundtland report. I don't think it matters much who actually wrote it though.

My view is that while it was definitely a step in the right direction, it still (or maybe this was implementation in the context of neo-liberal capitalism taking hold) didn't address the fundamental problem of capital controlling development investment and hence optimising for different outcomes to those envisaged by the Brundtland report.

Thanks for putting me in mind of it again though. I'd kind of mentally filed it away under 'dustbin of history' since about 2001 or so, but probably worth taking another look at it in the present context.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Does it really form the basis of Green Party analysis and policy though?

Doesn't show up at all when you search their site.

 

[free spirit]

Fair point to bring up the Brundtland report. I don't think it matters much who actually wrote it though.

My view is that while it was definitely a step in the right direction, it still (or maybe this was implementation in the context of neo-liberal capitalism taking hold) didn't address the fundamental problem of capital controlling development investment.

Thanks for putting me in mind of it again though. I'd kind of mentally filed it away under 'dustbin of history' since about 2001 or so, but probably worth taking another look at it in the present context.

Well, it never got implemented. The RIO earth summit agreements and agenda 21 were a pale imitation of it, and it then got further watered down at national levels.

Basically if Brundtland had been implemented then the WTO would have been enacted with a remit that gave at least equal weighting to environmental and social concerns as it did to free trade, and the last couple of decades would have seen a very different model of global development.

Thing with it was, that Brundtland basically overstepped their remit from the UN, which initially was focused entirely on environmental issues (and tbf, prior to Brundtland the environmental movement was largely divorced from social considerations, it was really Brundtland that changed this).

"8. Suggests that the Special Commission, when established, should focus mainly on the following terms of reference for its work:
(a) To propose long-term environmental strategies for achieving sustainable development to the year 2000 and beyond;
(b) To recommend ways in which concern for the environment may be translated into greater co-operation among developing countries and between countries at different stages of economic and social development and lead to the achievement of common and mutually supportive objectives which take account of the interrelationships between people, resources, environment and development;
(c) To consider ways and means by which the international community can deal more effectively with environmental concerns, in the light of the other recommendations in its report;
(d) To help to define shared perceptions of long-term environmental issues and of the appropriate efforts needed to deal successfully with the problems of protecting and enhancing the environment, a long-term agenda for action during the coming decades, and aspirational goals for the world community, taking into account the relevant resolutions of the session of a special character of the Governing Council in 1982;"[5]

My reading of it is that O'Keefe (and associates) was fairly instrumental in the move to entwine the environmental, social and economic aspects of the situation into one overarching strategy, and insist that we can't sort out the environmental issues without tackling the social and economic issues as well.

They were then pretty much sidelined in the run up to Rio, as were key parts of their analysis which would have resulted in not just the local agenda 21 stuff, but also transnational bodies to enforce environmental and social agreements on transnational capital as opposed to the WTO that does the opposite.

It's a long time since I read it, but Tears of a Crocodile was his response to what he saw as the massive wasted opportunity of Rio.

 

[elbows]

I've always been of the opinion that the WTO was set up by global capital in direct opposition to the movement towards sustainable development which had just been given a global mandate (for a watered down version at least) at the Rio Earth Summit, prior to the WTO being formed with a mandate that ran completely counter to sustainable development principles.

I know I've argued with you about this before and don't wish to repeat the argument in its totality, but I still think this is too much an oversimplification at best, and just plain wrong at worst.

Its not like there was nothing around with a similar mandate before the WTO. The WTO is built on GATT. GATT has been around since shortly after the second world war ended, and it was originally supposed to include an international trade organisation until the US congress got in the way of that bit. Regardless of that setback, they managed to get it working as an agreement with institutional support for decades. A GATT ministerial meeting in 1982 didn't go very well, and the global economic situation wasn't looking too healthy at the time either. Many capitalist agendas were in effect. So there was a lot of business to attend to, so they decided to take on a large agenda. This overrunning round of negotiations from 1986-94 delivered the WTO and much else.

This makes it very hard for me to come up with a narrative that simply places a growing awareness of sustainable development issues at the very heart of the creation of some evil new beast called the WTO. Rather it was a refresh of a long-existing system, that served a large number of agendas that were on the table at the time. As usual, some stuff was fudged/compromised in a manner that didn't end up serving their agendas properly, so they had more work to do. And it hasn't gone very well since really, the Doha round seems stalled to the point that much of todays trade liberalisation agenda is being served by regional agreements instead, due to international deadlock in key areas.

 

[elbows]

Besides, although the Brundtland report does delve into some realms that would be incompatible with the agendas in play at the WTO, there is plenty in it which could have been adopted without meaning any more in practice than the various agreements we've actually seen come to fruition, greenwashing, etc.

For example in chapter 3, the Brundtland report deals specifically with multilateral trade forums.

2.4 The Mandates of Multilateral Trade Forums

55. Although a number of UNCTAD research projects have considered the links between trade and environment, these issues have not been taken up systematically by intergovernmental organizations. The mandates of these organizations - principally GATT and UNCTAD - should include sustainable development. Their activities should reflect concern with the impacts of trading patterns on the environment and the need for more effective instruments to integrate environment and development concerns into international trading arrangements.

56. International organizations dealing with trade will find it easier to reorientate their activities if each nation designates a lead agency with a broad mandate to assess the effects of international trade on sustaining the environmental and resource base of economic growth. This agency could be responsible for raising sustainability issues in the work of UNCTAD, GATT, OECD, CMEA, and other relevant organizations.

Thats not such a threatening concept that it requires the creation of a new trade organisation in order to thwart. Rather, whether you are sticking with the old institutions or happen to be in the middle of creating a new one, just make sure it pays the right amount of lip-service to sustainable principals, without actually upsetting the applecart. Plus no matter the detail of the institutional setup, its the political and economic considerations of nations involved that will drive agendas, along with capital etc. So even if Brundtland principals had been widely adopted across the board, a failure of political will by powerful nations or collections of less powerful ones at any later stage could still lead to deadlock. Given the amount of deadlock we've seen with both subsequent trade negotiations and climate change negotiations, even when dealing with stuff that is watered down a lot, its somewhat hard to imagine that Brundtland report recommendations could have achieved substantially different results.

 

[free spirit]

I know I've argued with you about this before and don't wish to repeat the argument in its totality, but I still think this is too much an oversimplification at best, and just plain wrong at worst.

Its not like there was nothing around with a similar mandate before the WTO. The WTO is built on GATT. GATT has been around since shortly after the second world war ended, and it was originally supposed to include an international trade organisation until the US congress got in the way of that bit. Regardless of that setback, they managed to get it working as an agreement with institutional support for decades. A GATT ministerial meeting in 1982 didn't go very well, and the global economic situation wasn't looking too healthy at the time either. Many capitalist agendas were in effect. So there was a lot of business to attend to, so they decided to take on a large agenda. This overrunning round of negotiations from 1986-94 delivered the WTO and much else.

This makes it very hard for me to come up with a narrative that simply places a growing awareness of sustainable development issues at the very heart of the creation of some evil new beast called the WTO. Rather it was a refresh of a long-existing system, that served a large number of agendas that were on the table at the time at the time. As usual, some stuff was fudged/compromised in a manner that didn't end up serving their agendas properly, so they had more work to do. And it hasn't gone very well since really, the Doha round seems stalled to the point that much of todays trade liberalisation agenda is being served by regional agreements instead, due to international deadlock in key areas.

Of course its' a simplified point, this is a message board not a masters thesis. You can't deny thought that there were 2 opposing narratives going on at the same time, and the formation of the WTO in this form was the point where neoliberalism won that battle of the ideologies.

There was GATT lead by the rich capitalist countries of the west that resulted in the WTO in 94, and there was the brundtland inspired sustainable development movement coming more from the UN, and largely from the global south, which culminated in the UN Earth Summit at Rio.

Obviously Bruntland was an attack on GATT and neoliberalism, so GATT had to be going on at the same time to be attacked, but essentially the Earth Summit and agenda 21 were agreed at a UN level in a relatively democratic way, whereas the WTO was launched as a multilateral agreement between the richest nations alone to use their economic clout to force their will over the rest of the planet.

The neoliberalists actually got a key point into the earth summit agreement.

Principle 12. Supportive and Open International Economic System
States should cooperate to promote a supportive and open international economic system that would lead to economic growth and sustainable development in all countries, to better address the problems of environmental degradation. Trade policy measures for environmental purposes should not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade. Unilateral actions to deal with environmental challenges outside the jurisdiction of the importing country should be avoided. Environmental measures addressing transboundary or global environmental problems should, as far as possible, be based on an international consensus.

The WTO essentially was them enshrining this part of the Rio agreement on their own on their own terms, with them fully in charge of setting the agenda, and ensuring that the rest of the Rio agreement couldn't be implemented effectively.

We could have had a WTO that set basic environmental and social criteria as a requirement for membership, with the rich nations using the access to their markets as the carrot to level the rest of the world upwards so that all member countries had strict environmental and social criteria. Instead the did the opposite, viewing the developing nations as being countries that were ripe for exploitation of their environment and lack of social protection laws so the multinationals could cut their costs and increase profits.

So essentially the formation of the WTO was the neoliberalists of the rich North / West winning over the counter current favouring sustainable development that had most support in the global south.

That's a rough sketch outline of my reading of the situation anyway.

 

[free spirit]

Besides, although the Brundtland report does delve into some realms that would be incompatible with the agendas in play at the WTO, there is plenty in it which could have been adopted without meaning any more in practice than the various agreements we've actually seen come to fruition, greenwashing, etc.

For example in chapter 3, the Brundtland report deals specifically with multilateral trade forums.



Thats not such a threatening concept that it requires the creation of a new trade organisation in order to thwart. Rather, whether you are sticking with the old institutions or happen to be in the middle of creating a new one, just make sure it pays the right amount of lip-service to sustainable principals, without actually upsetting the applecart. Plus no matter the detail of the institutional setup, its the political and economic considerations of nations involved that will drive agendas, along with capital etc. So even if Brundtland principals had been widely adopted across the board, a failure of political will by powerful nations or collections of less powerful ones at any later stage could still lead to deadlock. Given the amount of deadlock we've seen with both subsequent trade negotiations and climate change negotiations, even when dealing with stuff that is watered down a lot, its somewhat hard to imagine that Brundtland report recommendations could have achieved substantially different results.

it would have needed proper buy in from the rich developed nations to have made it work, but had the WTO had environmental and social standards at it's core at least on a level with free trade, then things would have been very different.

Think of how the EU has human rights as a basic core principle that all countries need to sign up to as a prerequisite for membership, and has negotiated agreements on air pollution, working times etc. etc. across the membership.

The WTO explicitly says it's not for doing that.

The WTO is only competent to deal with trade. In other words, in environmental issues its only task is to study questions that arise when environmental policies have a significant impact on trade. The WTO is not an environmental agency. Its members do not want it to intervene in national or international environmental policies or to set environmental standards. Other agencies that specialize in environmental issues are better qualified to undertake those tasks.

 

[elbows]

You can't deny thought that there were 2 opposing narratives going on at the same time, and the formation of the WTO in this form was the point where neoliberalism won that battle of the ideologies.

There was GATT lead by the rich capitalist countries of the west that resulted in the WTO in 94, and there was the brundtland inspired sustainable development movement coming more from the UN, and largely from the global south, which culminated in the UN Earth Summit at Rio.

I can deny it. There is simply no way I can subscribe to the idea that there were two simple opposing narratives, or that the creation of the WTO was the point where neoliberalism won.

Obviously Bruntland was an attack on GATT and neoliberalism, so GATT had to be going on at the same time to be attacked, but essentially the Earth Summit and agenda 21 were agreed at a UN level in a relatively democratic way, whereas the WTO was launched as a multilateral agreement between the richest nations alone to use their economic clout to force their will over the rest of the planet.

Bruntland was not an attack on GATT at all. It had implications, sure, but it did not set itself up as being opposed to the concepts of anti-protectionism and free trade that GATT embodied. It called for a change of focus that was radical and unlikely to be adopted, but it did not call for the destruction of the institution, just at it did not call for the replacement of the World Bank and the IMF with something else, just for them to adjust some of their priorities and programmes.

I am not going to defend the creation of the WTO as being democratic or fair, but nor can I characterise it as simply being an agreement between the richest nations alone. The sort of trade agreements that GATT and WTO are there to create and protect do not get to exist if they are simply decided on by rich nations. Rather, it is necessary to make the right noises, the right concessions, etc, in order to get the necessary range of nations on side. All the time, repeatedly, every round, by hook or by crook, or even by promising to do the right thing.

Indeed it has been the failure of certain nations to live up to WTO commitments they made to developing nations during the Uruguay round that has contributed so significantly to the failure of the Doha round to achieve its agenda. So its creation was no kind of permanent victory.

The creation of the WTO did nothing to protect neoliberalism from the long-term implications of sustainability agendas and all related issues. Nor did it manage, beyond the honeymoon period, to paper over the cracks that form from the gradually changing geographic balances of economic, trade, resource etc power we are seeing.

So essentially the formation of the WTO was the neoliberalists of the rich North / West winning over the counter current favouring sustainable development that had most support in the global south.

That's a rough sketch outline of my reading of the situation anyway.

I suppose one of the reasons I want to harp on about this stuff is because I don't like the implications of painting this simple a picture. The two sides thing, whether the split be north-south, WTO-Rio, or whatever, seems to do a dangerous disservice to the agendas and the nature and stage of capitalism, investment, industrialisation etc in many of the countries in question, and indeed issues of capital that are not tied to specific nations per-se.