Why the Green Party is shit

[elbows]

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.

I do share your frustration that holistic approaches have not been taken, and without that most stuff ends up a sham.

But I can't really point the lions share of blame at single institutions like the WTO for that. If we really took the holistic approach to all these matters then the implications are almost infinite, and probably involve kissing goodbye to capitalism and present structures of power.

Given that the WTO can't even avoid having its main agendas totally stalled for many years over issues directly relating to trade, its no wonder that many nations didn't feel like adding greatly to the quagmire by increasing its remit into more controversial areas.

 

[free spirit]

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.

Neoliberalism and sustainable development are polar opposites, one insists that free trade should be the core principle that trumps all others, the other insists that trade, environmental protection, and social protection should have equal weight.

Both were being discussed at a global level at the same time but via different routes (GATT vs UN), one ended up being enshrined in a multilateral agreement with huge economic clout and legal penalties in a way that precluded the other from co-existing effectively.

Please tell me which bit of this you disagree with, as I really can't see it.

 

[elbows]

They are not polar opposites. There is some overlap. Neoliberalism is an extreme, but one that as an agenda in practice is comfortable with the idea that utterly free markets very rarely exist, and its proponents are usually satisfied with something slightly different, that involves at least compromises between different interests.

I will pick a couple of parts of the Rio 92 Declaration to illustrate areas of obvious overlap, that get in the way of me painting WTO and Rio as two diametrically opposed forces. Because the language of neoliberalism hardly fails to make its mark here.

Principle 12

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.

Principle 16

National authorities should endeavour to promote the internalization of environmental costs and the use of economic instruments, taking into account the approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution, with due regard to the public interest and without distorting international trade and investment.

 

[free spirit]

ffs please don't quote the bits of RIO that were specifically put into Rio by the neoliberalists as evidence of an overlap between sustainable development and neoliberalism.

 

[free spirit]

They are not polar opposites. There is some overlap. Neoliberalism is an extreme, but one that as an agenda in practice is comfortable with the idea that utterly free markets very rarely exist, and its proponents are usually satisfied with something slightly different, that involves at least compromises between different interests.

OK, maybe not exactly polar opposites, but there is a massive chasm between their 2 positions.

Compromise could have been reached between the 2 positions, but it would have had to result in something like the WTO but with the environment and social factors being given equal weight to free trade as opposed to being allowed as long as they didn't interfere with free trade.

As the neoliberalists went ahead and set up the WTO and specifically precluded that from happening, they basically stopped a similar sustainable development organisation from happening, as sustainable development would need to take equal account of all 3 factors, it can't work if it's just environmental and social issues being addressed on their own (which would be what would happen as the WTO already had trade wrapped up).

So by setting the WTO up the neoliberalists did kill the potential for a multilateral sustainable development organisation with any real clout to exist.

 

[elbows]

ffs please don't quote the bits of RIO that were specifically put into Rio by the neoliberalists as evidence of an overlap between sustainable development and neoliberalism.

My quoting of that stuff is a direct consequence of your oversimplified narratives that paint a picture of Rio UN verses WTO. Its not that simple is it, there is significant overlap in language and ideas, especially when business is conducted via the UN, not in spite of it.

The WTO did not invent the capital-friendly doppelganger of sustainable development that we loathe, nor its slimey language.

I am mocking the idea that one multi-lateral agreement is cast in the demon role, and the other as hero. Bollocks to the other UN stuff too, some of it had promise here and there but it was no less subservient to the forces that corrupt the meaning of sustainable development at the end of the day.

To be quite specific, I cannot take any international conference statements on sustainable development seriously if they emerge at a time when NONE of the nations involved look like they are actually embracing the agenda in a full and meaningful way back home. The nations that backed the 'good guys' in your version of events were hardly embracing the full implications of the Brundtland report at all. They had a number of agendas including trying to right some historical wrongs on the global trade and power front. Therefore I am suggesting that the political will to do the right thing in terms of sustainability was not on vivid display at the time, there was no beautiful plan that the WTO's formation thwarted, at least none that had any serious sponsors at this level.

 

[elbows]

So by setting the WTO up the neoliberalists did kill the potential for a multilateral sustainable development organisation with any real clout to exist.

As is probably clear by now, I am suggesting that the potential that existed then is exaggerated, as is the WTO's ability to get in the way of such potential, either then or at any point where political will for this agenda emerges.

If the will exists, such things could be incorporated into the WTO at any time. But really I see the WTO as a symptom, not something that was effectively deployed to thwart an agenda. Plus the WTO is a bit broken anyway, so whilst neoliberal agendas are very far from dead, the WTO has hardly been effective in silencing the critics and keeping meaningful sustainability off the agenda.

I don't think they even bought themselves time with these antics, I think this was time they already had, and they've not got themselves into a position to weather the storm any better if/when that time runs out.

 

[free spirit]

My quoting of that stuff is a direct consequence of your oversimplified narratives that paint a picture of Rio UN verses WTO. Its not that simple is it, there is significant overlap in language and ideas, especially when business is conducted via the UN, not in spite of it.

I am mocking the idea that one multi-lateral agreement is cast in the demon role, and the other as hero. Bollocks to the other UN stuff too, some of it had promise here and there but it was no less subservient to the forces that corrupt the meaning of sustainable development at the end of the day.

it's a bit off though when I've already quoted the exact same passage a few posts earlier and pointed out that the neoliberalists had already got in and subverted the process at Rio, resulting in the rio agreement being a heavily watered down version of the original brundtland ethos.

It should be pretty clear that I'm in no way holding up Rio as being the definitive true form of sustainable development.

It was however at least a lot more democratic than GATT.

To be quite specific, I cannot take any international conference statements on sustainable development seriously if they emerge at a time when NONE of the nations involved look like they are actually embracing the agenda in a full and meaningful way back home. The nations that backed the 'good guys' in your version of events were hardly embracing the full implications of the Brundtland report at all. They had a number of agendas including trying to right some historical wrongs on the global trade and power front. Therefore I am suggesting that the political will to do the right thing in terms of sustainability was not on vivid display at the time, there was no beautiful plan that the WTO's formation thwarted, at least none that had any serious sponsors at this level.

fucks sake can you stop inventing a straw man to argue against.

I'm fully aware of the short comings of the rio earth summit agreement and raised them prior to your intervention, I really don't need your help to point them out to me as if I wasn't aware of them.

 

[free spirit]

As is probably clear by now, I am suggesting that the potential that existed then is exaggerated, as is the WTO's ability to get in the way of such potential, either then or at any point where political will for this agenda emerges.

is it easier to integrate social and environmental concerns at the heart of a multilateral trade agreement before it's signed, or years down the line when the previous text had specifically excluded those elements from the remit of that organisation?

I'm not saying it would definitely have happened if the WTO hadn't come into existence, what I am saying is that the formation of the WTO with that remit pretty much precludes it from ever happening, and that those who formulated the WTO remit did this deliberately knowing full well what it meant for the movement towards sustainable development as a key principle for governing global economic development.

 

[elbows]

it's a bit off though when I've already quoted the exact same passage a few posts earlier and pointed out that the neoliberalists had already got in and subverted the process at Rio, resulting in the rio agreement being a heavily watered down version of the original brundtland ethos.

It should be pretty clear that I'm in no way holding up Rio as being the definitive true form of sustainable development.

It was however at least a lot more democratic than GATT.

Sorry, it wasn't intentional, its just the way the disagreement evolved and the order I did research in.

I suppose one of my points is that the neoliberal didn't subvert the process, the process was by its very nature always going to take that agenda into account. Neoliberalism needs to be defeated elsewhere before the potential really opens up on this front, or at least that was the case back then. And if neoliberalism does become genuinely vulnerable on this front, they have not constructed an effective shield in the WTO.

I'm fully aware of the short comings of the rio earth summit agreement and raised them prior to your intervention, I really don't need your help to point them out to me as if I wasn't aware of them.

I felt the need to point out some of the shortcomings in order to demonstrate that the WTO was not required in order to thwart this stuff.

I'm sorry if the argument gets tedious at times, but I'm trying to make the most of the opportunity to point out that the WTO has not been a roaring success. And that even without the 'burden' of a full agenda of genuine sustainable development being embraced, we've still reached a point where full international agreement is getting harder to achieve.

 

[free spirit]

Sorry, it wasn't intentional, its just the way the disagreement evolved and the order I did research in.

I suppose one of my points is that the neoliberal didn't subvert the process, the process was by its very nature always going to take that agenda into account.

One issue with this discussion is that there is no single clear cut definition of neoliberalism, it's meaning has changed over time, and there are various streams within it, some of which are more compatible with sustainable development than others.

The stream of neoliberalism that want's essentially to remove all government imposed restrictions on trade entirely isn't compatible with sustainable development.

I felt the need to point out some of the shortcomings in order to demonstrate that the WTO was not required in order to thwart this stuff.

The WTO would likely have existed regardless, it wasn't set up purely to spite the sustainable development movement, however the way it was set up, and the remit it was given specifically preclude the environmental and social elements of sustainable development from ever forming part of it's role.

A lot of the same negotiators who were at Rio were also involved in the final phases of the GATT talks to establish the WTO, so it's not as if they were unaware of this, therefore I can only conclude that this was a very deliberate decision, and that they made it knowing what the consequences would be for sustainable development.

I'm sorry if the argument gets tedious at times, but I'm trying to make the most of the opportunity to point out that the WTO has not been a roaring success. And that even without the 'burden' of a full agenda of genuine sustainable development being embraced, we've still reached a point where full international agreement is getting harder to achieve.

I'd argue that in part the problems in negotiating the Doha round actually stem from the WTO not adopting sustainable development principles, and viewing free trade in complete isolation from the social and environmental consequences.

The opening up of the agricultural markets of developing countries has the potential to have huge social and environmental consequences, as does the dismantling of the EU and US farm subsidy system, but the WTO process prevents these potential consequences being factored into the discussions properly, resulting in the effected countries refusing to agree to them.

The fact the WTO has not been a roaring success would in my view be because it was set up wrong, has the wrong remit, and essentially it's continued failure to secure agreement on the doha round is perhaps the most likely route by which these fundamental issues might end up being properly addressed. I won't hold my breath though.

 

[elbows]

is it easier to integrate social and environmental concerns at the heart of a multilateral trade agreement before it's signed, or years down the line when the previous text had specifically excluded those elements from the remit of that organisation?

Thats partly why I gave a dull history lesson earlier - the WTO was not built from scratch, the core trade agreement was still GATT, just refreshed. And other new stuff with GATS, which was arguably the main thing that made neoliberal moist and happy at the time.

Yes it would be opportune to get issues of genuine sustainability woven into the fabric of an organisation at a time when it is undergoing change anyway. The problem is that the changes well underway already by that point were being driven by very different interests.

In practical terms I'd suggest that integrating new concerns into an agreement is a mission thats success depends far more on how much genuine will to take on board the new concerns exists, than on whether its a brand new agreement or an update performed years later.

 

[free spirit]

As an indication of the impact the WTO has had on sustainable development, a few years ago a scandinavian* government initiative to promote the concept of buying locally produced food to reduce food miles was kaiboshed by the EU because they feared it would break WTO rules and could result in the EU being taken to arbitration and losing.

Since then this fairly key ethos of sustainable development has been excluded from pretty much all government, council etc promotional budgets for sustainable development - other than a few who probably didn't get the memo.

* I forget which one.

 

[elbows]

I'd argue that in part the problems in negotiating the Doha round actually stem from the WTO not adopting sustainable development principles, and viewing free trade in complete isolation from the social and environmental consequences.

Good, because thats been one of my main points. That the WTO has failed to thwart the sustainable agenda because its failed to provide alternative solutions to problems, or to act as any sort of pressure-release system when negotiations between nations get bogged down on these fronts. It is wide open for criticism, and despite paying vague lip-service to the term sustainable development since its inception, it has done nothing to protect the neoliberal agenda from pressure on the sustainability front.

 

[free spirit]

In practical terms I'd suggest that integrating new concerns into an agreement is a mission thats success depends far more on how much genuine will to take on board the new concerns exists, than on whether its a brand new agreement or an update performed years later.

but in practical terms it would have needed the agreement of half the number of countries if it was done up front compared to it being done now.

There was significant support for Brundlant in some quarters, they just weren't the quarters that were deeply involved in the GATT talks. Those who didn't support it just got on and set the WTO up without needing their support, then effectively gave them the choice of joining or not joining.

 

[free spirit]

Good, because thats been one of my main points. That the WTO has failed to thwart the sustainable agenda because its failed to provide alternative solutions to problems, or to act as any sort of pressure-release system when negotiations between nations get bogged down on these fronts. It is wide open for criticism, and despite paying vague lip-service to the term sustainable development since its inception, it has done nothing to protect the neoliberal agenda from pressure on the sustainability front.

well, it's played a major part in thwarting it for 2 decades. I'm sure at some point that the edifice of the WTO will come crashing down, and this can all be reconsidered, but I'd have preferred that to have happened in the 90s.

There's been huge opportunities missed since then for developing countries to have skipped the stage of development that resulted in millions of deaths from air an water pollution, and the poverty wages, long hours and sweat shop working conditions.

 

[elbows]

Name some countries that were well up for it then, so I can research in the right direction. Cheers.

 

[free spirit]

Name some countries that were well up for it then, so I can research in the right direction. Cheers.

it's 25 years ago, pre internet and it's 2 in the morning, so it's unlikely I'm going to produce a list of names for you.

but what would make you think there weren't?

The brundtland report was signed off by a commission with representatives from 22 countries, the rio summit had some countries arguing for pretty much full implementation of brundtland.

This didn't all entirely come about in a vacuum, it happened because it had support from some quarters - it wouldn't have even merited a UN sponsored global conference if it didn't.

 

[free spirit]

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

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

just to return to this, the green party policy might not specifically reference brundtland by name, but it's clearly heavily influenced by it.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Thing is though, I don't see anything in the Green principles that says something like 'We're all fucked unless control of the means of production is wrested from capital, so ultimately we stand for doing that ... '

It's more stuff like 'we don't like GDP as a way of measuring wealth so we'll legislate something else' and 'we don't think property owners should be able to ignore the views of others with a stake in how their property is used, so property laws should include duties as well as rights ... '

http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/philosophical-basis.html

This is fundamental stuff IMO. The Brundtland recommendations are all very well, but while investment remains, directly or indirectly, under the control of capital, it's not going to be optimised for the needs of humans or nature, or for anything but more accumulation.

 

[elbows]

it's 25 years ago, pre internet and it's 2 in the morning, so it's unlikely I'm going to produce a list of names for you.

but what would make you think there weren't?

The brundtland report was signed off by a commission with representatives from 22 countries, the rio summit had some countries arguing for pretty much full implementation of brundtland.

This didn't all entirely come about in a vacuum, it happened because it had support from some quarters - it wouldn't have even merited a UN sponsored global conference if it didn't.

You didn't have to produce it last night, any time will do. It doesn't have to be comprehensive either, just give me something.

Or don't worry about it. Which is fine because, by asking for a list of countries, I'm actually leading this one into the same unilluminating territory as the look at Peak Oilers analysis warned about earlier - an obsession with how different nations were positioning themselves and competing with each other, to the exclusion of analysis of how capital and related forces were adapting to events and defining outcomes.

This was deliberate on my part, as I sought to demonstrate that the things you say were possible and had momentum in the 80's and early 90's were somewhat off in their own world. Yes the ideas had big implications for capital if they were adopted, but I am suggesting that there was no prospect of them being adopted then for that very reason.

 

[SpineyNorman]

All very interesting (genuinely - I'm not being sarcastic) but I'm not seeing much there that helps us decide how shit the green party is and why

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip>

Yes the ideas had big implications for capital if they were adopted, but I am suggesting that there was no prospect of them being adopted then for that very reason.

Totally agree with the above, but ...

On the other hand they were an important input into the pre-2001 anti-globalisation movement's thinking. Even though there were fundamental issues due to capital remaining in control of investment and trade flows in the Rio model, they were at least something with a degree of international support (albeit nominal due to capital etc), that clearly articulated the essential connection between economic justice and sustainability, which could act as a basis on which to organise and challenge capital's moves (see e.g. Genoa, Seattle etc).

Until everybody got distracted by a bunch of wars anyway.

The post-2008 Occupy movement by contrast seems to have far less coherent analysis (with extra lizards), and as I suggested earlier, without a mass anti-capital political movement driving it, "Green" is just another brand choice in neo-liberal electoral politics / business as usual.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

All very interesting (genuinely - I'm not being sarcastic) but I'm not seeing much there that helps us decide how shit the green party is and why

If I may?

They're pissing away a fantastic opportunity, by letting UKIP corner the protest vote, due to being a bunch of irrelevant, interfering, lentil-gobbling, middle-class do-gooders in the minds of most of the people experiencing the harsh reality of austerity policies.

They're also (along with the corpses of the left, but the Greens are guiltier in my eyes because they still have a pulse) letting a bunch of lizard-botherers and far-right fuckwits dominate the extra-parliamentary anti-austerity movement (see above post) ...

Fucking pathetic really.

 

[butchersapron]

For the Greens here - what does this policy mean on the doorstep?

Take it from 'Short Term Policies' on, from the rather badly worded: "We will replace existing British Immigration law with an Immigration law which does not discriminate directly on the grounds listed above" onwards.

 

[elbows]

Totally agree with the above, but ...

On the other hand they were an important input into the pre-2001 anti-globalisation movement's thinking. Even though there were fundamental issues due to capital remaining in control of investment in the Rio model, they were at least something with a degree of international support (albeit nominal due to capital etc), that clearly articulated the essential connection between economic justice and sustainability, on the basis of which to organise and challenge capital's moves (see e.g. Seattle). Until everybody got distracted by a bunch of wars anyway.

The post-2008 Occupy movement by contrast seems to have far less coherent analysis (with extra lizards), and as I suggested earlier, without a mass anti-capital political movement driving it, "Green" is just another brand choice in neo-liberal electoral politics / business as usual.

Yes, I do not mean to knock their implications on that front. I've mostly been responding to the idea that this stuff was such a threat that the WTO had to be created quick-sharp to deal with it. I'm not suggesting the stuff was no use on any front. There is also a danger that my reading of the situation fails to pay enough attention to the power of ideas, even if they are not realisable at that time, they are still seeds that may grow into something interesting one day.

On a personal level I'm sad that bad timing with where my head was at meant I missed this stuff - I read about it and watched bits on TV, but by the time I was in a position to learn all sorts of details via the internet, momentum seemed to be fading. The emphasis at the time seemed to be on the horrible implications of GATS, and I was reading some apparently leaked 'LOTIS group' minutes online that contained elite language that was somewhat humorous to decode. But then things started to fade out and the agenda was shaken ala Blairs 'the kaleidoscope has been shaken, lets rearrange the world before the dust settles' post-9/11 shit. I would be interested in reading a post-mortem, not that I am suggesting the movement is totally dead, but what else happened to cause this beyond the obvious war stuff?

 

[butchersapron]

Enabling cameron to undermine UKIP/protest votes that damage tories.

 

[brogdale]

Enabling cameron to undermine UKIP/protest votes that damage tories.

Yeah.
Enabling him to bottle it "on principle". The give away being...

He has also told his allies he would be happy to see no debates at all during the election campaign itself

 

[JTG]

but the Greens are guiltier in my eyes because they still have a pulse

Good, they'll have something to eat then

 

[killer b]

I'd imagine they'd all be pleased to let the debates quietly disappear.