This essay is excerpted from a longer manuscript and is copyright protected.

Not to be published without consent of the author.

Democracy - Global Style with the WTO, OECD, and NAFTA

The spin doctors have done a wonderful job of selling the international trade agreements to the public. The Liberal government under Jean Chretien received a mandate in part to defeat Brian Mulroney's push to accept NAFTA, but sent it through parliament anyway. Riding on the motherhood issues of 'free enterprise' and the 'global village' and 'democracy' these trade talks have continued since then at the WTO in Geneva, as well in many other bilateral agreements, and most significantly at the present, in different negotiating sessions in the western hemisphere for the Free Trade Area of the Americas. Citizens are told that free trade is good for them, that the poor will become richer, that government needs to downsize and get out of business' way, that the world is becoming more democratic and efficient, that the environment will not be harmed. Fortunately the spin doctors lost one round with the Multi-lateral Agreement on Investments, sponsored by the WTO and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a European based think tank. It was defeated by 'public interest groups', the 'French intelligentsia', labour, 'Network guerrillas', 'trade unions', 'environmentalists', and 'fringe movements' that inordinately influenced the media and government, even though the MAI was held secret for a few years without even most members of the governments involved knowing about its existence, until it too was leaked to the public's attention. Veteran trade diplomats - lawyers, MBA',s and career politicians - warn that it is "harder for negotiators to do deals behind closed doors and submit them for rubber-stamping by parliaments."[15] If only that were true, as more current events as shown above indicate, both with the WTO and the FTAA, the latter of which includes most of the MAI premises within it.

First a look at the WTO and their definition of themselves. The World Trade Organization is the end result, in 1995, of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs that followed the Second World War and in their own words is the "global international organization dealing with the rules of trade between nations." The current 145 members (as of February 03, 2003) negotiate at the government level but "the purpose is to help producers of goods and services, exporters and importers conduct their business." Superficially it all sounds fine, and as the WTO's own tracts are read they provide heartfelt platitudes about all the goodness they are doing in the world, but the word democracy does not get mentioned within their discourses - 'transparency' is the catch word, along with 'good government' but these are left undefined and as seen previously, not all that true.

They present ten benefits of the WTO, some of which are based on others, and some that argue in a circular fashion, all again sound reasonably good until a behind the scenes look is taken at who the actual participants are in the negotiations and how they go about negotiating and settling disputes. The first three benefits can be summed up by saying that the WTO rules bring 'peace' through 'disputes' settled by 'rules' that are achieved by 'consensus' and 'non-discrimination'. Sounds wonderful if they were actually true. Next comes cost of living, consumer choice, income increases, growth in jobs - items that could be verified by some twist of statistics or another - followed by more motherhood platitudes about 'efficiency', 'lobbying protection' (really the big lie technique), and 'good government' - items that are highly arguable and cannot be verified through statistics or true deconstructionist analysis.[16]

Supporting the WTO is the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), essentially a think tank, but they also accept by their own publications that they are a 'rich man's club' and an 'unacademic university'. Their preamble says they establish "legally binding agreements" for governments "for free flow of capital and services" and "soft law - non-binding instruments…for multinational companies," an interesting admission on 'hard' laws for government and 'soft' guidelines for big business. The OECD has thirty member states and seventy more associated states. They have most recently been known for their unsuccessful push with the WTO to establish the Multinational Agreement on Investments as briefly mentioned previously[17].

Who are the people behind the WTO and OECD? They are certainly not democratically elected members and cannot claim to be democratic simply because they are appointed by multinational corporations or their own governments as representatives. Essentially the people who are organizing world trade are career politicians, MBA's, and lawyers, people who are certainly above and beyond the call of democracy - if democratic, why then the secrecy around the unsuccessful MAI agreement, why the secrecy around the current FTAA discussions, why the secrecy with the current Doha round of negotiations on agriculture, and the current European Union presentation that by their own request was held secret by the governments it was aimed at?

Who are the companies behind the WTO/OECD? They are not your local grocer or feed supply shop, nor your local barber or surveyor, nor the local phone company (provided it has not already been bought out by a bigger company), nor the local banks although all these are now under discussion in Geneva. The companies behind the WTO/OECD are the worlds' multi-national companies, many with names as familiar as those of your corner grocer, but with an economic impact greater than many of the countries in the world. These organizations contain 487 of the Fortune 500 leading companies: 153 American, 161 European, and 141 Japanese, controlling over 92 per cent of the global economy. The top two hundred corporations outstrip the economies of one-hundred eighty-two nations combined. Only twenty-six countries have economies bigger than the global giant Exxon Mobil, the company that opened an organic oil-processing site in Alaska. Other giants include all of the major automobile makers and oil producers, along with familiar names like Wal Mart and Nestle.[18]

The leaders and negotiators within these institutions have produced oft quoted statements that defy common sense if one considers their thin veneer of supposed democracy to help the little person within the economy thrive. The previous Director General of the WTO boasted "We are writing the constitution of a single global economy", all well and good except that there is no truly democratic representation of the average person within those Fortune 500 companies. Another official is oft quoted as saying "This is the place where governments collude in private against their domestic pressure groups", those nasty people like labourers, environmentalists, health care workers, and farmers.[19]

Under this 'constitution', the WTO has given itself judicial, legislative, and executive powers that are a new level of government beyond the level of national governments, a level that national governments have acceded to because many of their own members profit from it, as well as receiving intense lobbying from big business interests within the country that could go a long way to changing the government . By coercion through consensus and threats through economic sanctions or the with-holding of investments monies, the WTO can force or intimidate national legislatures to pass legislation accepting their over riding powers. Consensus among peers means intensive lobbying and behind the scenes pressure, such that the people of a country, and often the legislatures of the country, never here about it.

When disputes arise, either between governments, but increasingly between governments and multinational corporations who are given the same status as governments, the disputes are settled by the WTO in their own dispute mechanism. This dispute mechanism consists of a tribunal, made up again of politicians, lawyers, and MBA's who do not necessarily have the expertise on the given topic (perhaps an environmental issue such as air pollution.), nor do they have to give a written report as to the why's and where fore's of their decisions, at least not to the public. Should a member decide to dispute a specific commitment, they cannot do so until three years have passed and "entails lengthy and difficult negotiations about the level of compensation" and "promises to be particularly difficult for developing country members".[20]

Democracy cannot be served by powerful multinational corporations who are organizing trade rules to benefit themselves, corporations that are not democratic in themselves. The world is not a better place because of the WTO and OECD and NAFTA, but the transnational corporations are certainly wealthier for it. No corporations are democratic, they do not require that their employees vote on what the company is doing; there might be a modicum of democracy within the share-holders, but there again the overwhelming balance shifts to the moneyed elite carrying the power. Consensus is not possible in a democratic fashion within a company anymore than it is within the one hundred eighty plus nations of the world. Very few companies become large without the aid and assistance of the government making the appropriate rules and providing the opportunities without consideration of the true free market system. It is a mutually agreeable feed back loop: the government makes the rules that obviously favour the rich (not many poor people have RSP's, nor can they set up tax protecting trust funds); the rich in good turn favour the government with donations to the party coffers and employment opportunities when they retire or get turfed out (Brian Mulroney is a good example of this). In another tidy feedback loop, corporations pay far less taxes than they used to, with the load ever increasingly falling onto the shoulders of the individual wage earner or salaried worker; following that, the few that make it to the rich side of the ledger incorporate themselves to take advantage of the tax breaks involved with that process. Essentially the government are the rich, the government is plutocratic; the rich are the government and neither are transparent or democratic.

The multinationals, colluding with the governments, have liberalized trade rules with much more free movement of goods and services, much more movement of capital, but the biggest missing piece here is that in a truly free democratic market, labour could also move. Try moving into a new work position from Canada to the United States and the obstacles in doing so are immense. Workers are confined to their national borders, which is one reason the Mexican maquiladoros works so well - for big business. If the local labour force will not accept reduced benefits and wages, will not accept poorer working conditions, a corporation can close up shop and move across the border(s) to an area where labour is cheap and working conditions are well below standard compared to those achieved by organized, democratic, labour forces. This principle applies across the world: which is why business' such as Gap employ workers at thirty cents an hour and sell the product, but especially the label, to the consumer at huge profits[21] ; which is why even smaller companies like Far West have moved production overseas to cut costs. Child labour still applies in many areas of the world, in many countries ranging through Africa, Pakistan, India, and South-east Asia, with children as young as four being put into indentured service from which they cannot buy their way out. A 1999 GATT ruling forbidding countries from distinguishing between different production methods could lead to policies that do not prohibit child labour.[22] Labour is in chains, literally and figuratively, and without allowing its free movement while allowing governments to enact rules that enable companies to bypass or lower standards of work, the new 'global village' can hardly be deemed democratic.

How has this played out across Canada? Mainly with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer in spite of the statistic that the nation is wealthier overall. The average inflation adjusted wealth for the bottom ten per cent of Canadian families declined by twenty-eight per cent between 1970 and 1999; the top ten per cent increased their wealth by one hundred twenty-two per cent in the same period.[23]

Globally, over the decade of the eighties, four hundred billion dollars of goods were transferred from the poorer countries to the richer European and North American countries[24] . These increasing disparities come about because of trade laws that support the multinationals ability to over ride what many consider to be necessary national rights, while the governments reduce their services and cut back on taxes, leaving more money proportionally in the hands of the rich, and less money proportionally in the hands of the poor, who have the added stress of regressive taxes and lost social programs.

How does all this compare to the WTO's stated ten benefits? That depends on which side of the fence you sit, the democratic progressive side, or the neo-liberal plutocratic side. Peace, for sure, if you accede to all our requests and do not get in the way of a natural resource like oil, and if you keep the ignorant masses disenfranchised and immobile. Disputes settled by rules for certain, but these rules were/are not democratically established, either by the WTO or the national governments. Only a fool would imagine that multinational billion dollar corporations are managing a truly democratic consensus; that much money breeds incredible power and abilities to manipulate both individuals and governments, not necessarily in written form, but also with tacit warnings, that many smaller and developing nations can not counter effectively. The cost of living is supposed to drop, and probably will for consumer goods, for a while, at the expense of the environment and the workers; but natural resources and the service sector will have largely increased prices when taken over by multi-nationals who can easily outbid smaller local companies for trees, or water, or electrical generation, and then sell them to the highest market bidder even if people at home are doing without, again at the expense of the workers and the environment. Incomes will rise, but as indicated above, mainly for those in the top range already; and while the overall average may increase, it only takes a few millionaires to statistically balance out thousands of cheap part-time, temporary, and outsourced contract workers. Jobs will grow, maybe, but mainly in the poorer service areas, while the technical more skilled work will be transferred elsewhere for cheaper labour; and along with that, the much exalted increase in trade is due in large part to trade between branches of the same corporations.

In the third world, the effects are significantly working against the average citizen. In Bolivia, struggling to come to terms of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund[25], inflation dropped from 8 000 per cent in 1985 to only 9 per cent in 1994. At the same time wages fell 22 per cent and temporary workers increased from 9 per cent of the workforce to 24 per cent. Similar stories occur in Nicaraugua and Costa Rica: in the former, 70 per cent of women have lost their jobs and real wages in 1993 were 59 per cent of those in 1980; in the latter, the number of self-sufficient farmers fell from 70 000 to 27 000 as they were forced by economic structures to sell their land to foreign based owners of luxury crops (e.g. bananas)[26].

Things will certainly be more 'efficient' without all the unnecessary rules and regulations that protect the workers, the environment, local resources, and any cultural values. As for encouraging 'good government' the examples above of 'transparent' and 'democratic' good governments that keep their citizens and even their legislators in the dark, and collude in secret against the democratic process, should make everyone reconsider where this whole process is heading.

More American Democracy - Plutocracy and the American Cabinet

“Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands.” Abraham Lincoln.

Now called the military-industrial complex, Lincoln’s view is reinforced more strongly with the current developments of modern history and current events. It should be common sense that the power developed in government is closely associated with the powerful monetary interests of the large corporations within that country. Not quite so clear-cut, still within the norms of common sense, is the relationship of the military and the large corporations and their interests in arranging government to their own needs. For the last twenty years, the military and the large corporations have essentially run the government of the United States without any hint of true democratic representation.

Constitutionally the executive branch is led by the president who has broad powers to manage national affairs and issue executive orders that have the binding force of law. It is the president who chooses the cabinet, and the heads of all executive departments and agencies, none of whom have been elected by the people. The constitution makes no provision for a cabinet, nor does it provide any qualifications for the positions (e.g. being elected by the people)[27] .

The United States is not alone in this as the majority of ‘democracies’ around the world have cabinets appointed by the President or the Prime Minister as in France, Germany, Britain, Iceland, Norway and many other modern ‘democratic’ governments. There are a few in which some electoral responsibility is put upon the cabinet. In Switzerland, the cabinet is elected by the Federal Assembly usually from among its members, thereby giving representation through the votes of the citizen. Finland has an appointed cabinet but is only democratic in that it is responsible to parliament[28](which is a few steps beyond being ‘approved’ by the parliament, or the senate). Canada is the only country among the world’s democratic leaders that has a cabinet appointed from the House of Parliament, making them directly responsible to at the electors. This is very infrequently sidestepped but it also produces much criticism and demands for that person to be elected as a representative somewhere. While the United Sates is not unique in form, it is unique in being the largest economic power of the world having a government with the military-industrial structures strongly incorporated into making the major decisions that guide the president. With the current mixture of the Bush cabinet, the true force of the military-industrial complex is readily visible, and presents a scary scenario of the world under the control of large corporations, big money, and rampant militarism.

Most of the current players in the Bush cabinet go back to the Vietnam era and have been in and out of government, in and out of business, and in and out of the military complex during the intervening twenty years. They were there with Ford, Reagan, and the elder Bush, with some continuing along just as easily under Clinton’s government.

Bush himself is not a highly intelligent person and is essentially the ventriloquists’ puppet, each with their hand up his backside, giving him homilies, platitudes, and simplicities to pass on to the American public to keep them ignorant and eager to go to war. The ventriloquists are the cabinet members and under-secretaries that define the actual policy of how the government is to proceed. He has connections through his father and associates to the bin Laden’s, Enron, WorldCom, Arthur Anderson, Iraq, al Qaeda and many other businesses and suspect politicians. Anyone who can speak of the Russian President as “Pootie poo”, and knows so little about world geography and history that he asks the Brazilian president “Do you have blacks too?” is not a great candidate as world leader[29] .

The Vice President, Dick Cheney, nominally elected along with the President, has a long career in business and government. He was CEO of Halliburton, the world’s biggest oil service company, before becoming part of Bush’s cabal and received significant benefits from the government in the way of tax breaks and loan, was involved with Iran and Iraq, and the failed financial companies back at home, Enron, WorldCom, and Arthur Anderson[30] . His association with Halliburton continues with its failed attempt at unbid reconstruction work in Iraq[31], but its successful work (at least as far as profits are concerned) provisioning the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, to the current no ceiling amount of five hundred twenty-nine million[32].

Donald Rumsfield is a cold warrior from many years ago, covering a twenty-five year span from the Pentagon as Secretary of Defense under the Ford administration. He was Reagan’s point-man to Iraq in 1983-84 and after a few handshakes with Saddam Hussein for the cameras, sold them the helicopters that were to be used during the era of chemical weapons attacks against Iran and the Kurds[33]. The current revival of the Star Wars (National Missile Defence - NMD) system is very much under his command and it is his Pentagon commission that signalled the need for control over space and the need for tighter space security, including nuclear weapons as deterrent and as defence forces[34] .

Condaleeza Rice, highly educated with a PhD in Political Science (an oxymoron if there ever was one, nothing scientific about politics),is a right wing ideologue, a former executive with Chevron, and very much in favour of Rumsfield’s NMD[35].

The list goes on and on and could be demonstrated by this seemingly simple writing exercise: on a piece of ledger paper, write the following names at random locations: Patriot Act, Cheney, Bush, Info Exploitation Office, Enron, Rumsfield, Ken Lay, Pentagon, Arthur Anderson, Poindexter, bin Laden, WorldCom, Baker, Ashcroft, Iraq, Iran, Beers, Rice, Afghanistan, Taliban, Information Awareness Office, Halliburton, Saudi Arabia, Rumsfield, Rove; and then for good measure to make sure the military and nuclear deterrents are included, add: Reagan, Star Wars, Wolfowitz, Perle, Zoellick, Bolton, Lockheed Martin, Bechtel (currently managing reconstruction in Iraq), Boeing, Raytheon, Intel, General Electric, Honeywell, Pentagon[36]. Now draw lines connecting each item with each other and you will have a fair mind-map of how all these companies, countries, and players interact with each other.

The current United States administration is very much a military industrial complex with enormous power to control the world for its own control of empire. There is so much information available about these linkages, about the sickness of their ideals (John Bolton, the Undersecretary of State for arms control is described by Jesse Helms as the “kind of man with whom I would want to stand at Armageddon, for what the Bible describes as the final battle between good and evil in this world”[37]), about how they have interacted with bankrupt and profiteering companies at home, about how they have dealt with foreign companies and governments as conveniently suits their purposes in spite of the propoganda they provide for domestic consumption[38], that there can be no denial that it is a non-democratic government powered by big business and powerful imperial style forces.

To update Abraham Lincoln, William Douglas, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice said, “The interests of the corporation state are to convert all the riches of the earth into dollars….Our upside down welfare state is “socialism for the rich, free enterprise for the poor.” The great welfare scandal of the age concerns the dole we give rich people.” As for the democratic voting process, Josef Stalin could well speak for the current U.S. government: “It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”[39]

Future Choices

Which leads to the obvious question: what can be done to help the world become a more democratic place? After all these complaints about the various free trade agreements and the govenrments and associations that support and create them, can anything be done to ameliorate the situation? What is truly important to a healthy life style? There are many venues that need to be considered - education, finances, voting systems - and of all possible changes their may be a few considered paramount, but in general they need to be considered in concert with each other for truly significant democratic changes to occur.

The dream that the poor can work their way to the top remains mostly that, a dream; and the Reagonesque 'trickle down' effect has not occurred in any country.. Business needs a cheap uneducated and disenfranchised labour pool worldwide in order to have the free flow of capital into their profit margins. Certainly poor people can move up, and occasionally some do brilliantly, but the majority get poorer, and those in the middle tend to stay there. Most wealthy people inherit their wealth, or certainly have it gifted to them through means as advanced business contacts, educational opportunities, and personal opportunities through the old boys network. To a degree this wealth cannot be denied them, except for the fact that a lot of it comes from profits taken from people less able to protect themselves and subject to the regressive aspects of a 'free market'. The argument is not that the wealthy should give up their wealth, but that the rules and regulations, if truly transparent and democratic, would allow the workers and middle class to retain more of their own wealth. The spin doctors have done a wonderful job of convincing the consumer at large that the world is a better place for them and that all their efforts will lead to the betterment of their lives, rather than the enriching of the wealthy's already rich coffers; they have also convinced the workers that free trade will improve employment opportunities and better working conditions, all contradicted by the references mentioned above.

One of the first steps to correct what is currently a plutocracy acting under the guise of a democratic free market is to make it a democratic fair market. The difference being that a fair market has equal conditions on both sides, that workers have the same health standards, work environment, safety conditions, and the same pay for equal work. Of course the WTO and the Fortune 500 argue that this is what is happening and in a sense it is true, but it is true at the minimalist level where every worker is disenfranchised of any of the gains made by democratic labour over the last few centuries. People need come before profits, and those 'same' conditions need to be safe, and healthy, with a fair distribution of the capital flow. Trade is a necessary item for a society's growth and expansion of ideas and technical advancement; it need not deprive the masses for the sole benefit of the stratified few.

Education is another keystone for a more democratic fair world. Child labour deprives many millions of children of a healthy life, but they are sometimes stuck in their position by poverty and family needs. In order to benefit the children, education needs to be universally available under enforced laws making child labour criminal. To replace the meagre incomes that the children may provide the families, small loans should be arranged with the family, especially the mothers, in order to liberate them from the cycle of penury and servitude. This is best accomplished through educating the women, both about finances and about related family items including birth control and children's educational opportunities. In areas without child labour problems, education in a broader general sense, both to give skills for work, as well as to develop critical thinking, will allow a society to advance faster than any great infusion of wealth. The Arab countries are a good example of the failure of wealth to create a healthy equal system as most opportunities to use the billions of dollars of oil money have been squandered away by military despots. Of course there are more parameters to the Arab situation, but lost opportunities to democratize and educate their people is major factor on their situation

One of the most important factors to be educated about, once the skills and critical thinking opportunities are in place, is to get rid of the foolish notion that growth is and of itself good, that growth can also be sustainable. The world is only so large and already the environmental footprint of North Americans and Europeans is four times greater than the majority of the world and it would take several more worlds in order for all six billion of us to live at the American level. Eventually the globe will be full as it absorbs only so much energy per day and can provide only a certain amount of food in total to the ecosystem. Eventually that limit will be reached, not necessarily in a Malthusian sense, as technology may do a few more wonders in agriculture before the full range of energy conversion into food is depleted, but certainly it will come. Growth cannot be sustainable, but the environment can be.

All people are an integral part of the environment and cannot remove themselves from it, not even those day-dreamers that see human thought, emotion, spirit, and soul downloaded (uploaded?) into the realm of silicon. Without an environment that is balanced as it is today for life's current genetic make up, organic existence would be doomed. The chances of robots and cyber-people living forever remains a fantastic science fiction formulation which like most science fiction, will never happen. That aside, the current concern about losing species needs to be broadened in the public's eye to the recognition that all ecosystems are integrated and the loss of species is a sign of environmental changes over a system, not just of that one particular genetic structure. At what point does the environment change catastrophically and will it be gradual or sudden? The answers are unknown but what is known is that we have evolved in this environment and ought to be extremely careful about changes that might lead to our own extinction. In a harsh genetic sense that would simply be too bad for us, and a great opportunity for other species to take over vacated niches within the world. Growth cannot be forever sustainable; the environment will not support it.

And so what of democracy? Education will certainly go a long way to improve that as more people are able to organize themselves and think around their problems, but direct changes to government are also needed. No democracy is perfect and probably cannot be. No society can be truly egalitarian in the sense of letting everyone have their say at organizational meetings. Too many people exist for hunting-gathering and tribal-chiefdom styles of government to work any more so it needs to be recognized that while free speech may exist, some form of delegating authority needs to be made. That delegation is where the changes need to be made, and those delegates need to be fully responsible to the people that voted for them, and not fully answerable to non-democratic institutions and multinational companies that serve only their own interest. In the United States, the electoral college needs to be changed - disbanded would be best, with a presidential decision made either by direct popular vote or by some form of house majority rule. . All parties need equal access to the voting system, currently blocked by the electoral college, and a true proportional system of government needs to be implemented. The power of the American cabinet needs to be limited and somehow placed under the constraints of the representatives and the voters, more truly open and transparent. The American mix of senate, congress, and presidential power might then work effectively, although no ‘democratic’ system works for the people unless the people are active and make it work, not ncessarily through the ‘proper channels’ but through protests and demonstrations.

In Canada the best change to be made would be to have a representational government that appoints in some manner, again with perhaps necessary restrictions due to population sizes, a parliament based on the proportions of the popular vote received by each party. This would have to apply to provincial as well as federal government levels and would help ameliorate some of the wild swings in local governments that do not necessarily reflect the will of the people.

In face of the power of the WTO and the OECD, a form of national civil disobedience could help but it would take great courage on the part of a national government to abrogate unilaterally any of the deals it has signed with the supranational body. But whose law is it? Are not nations sovereign? Should not a nation guard and protect its resources, its energy production, water, minerals, agriculture, and not sell the local workers out to an uncaring unfettered market? Should not governments, if truly democratic, be responsible to the people beyond any spin doctoring, and not to the multinationals? Certainly great pressure economically can be exerted against a dissident country, as has already occurred with the WTO's 'consensual agreements', as smaller economically weaker and less experienced governments can hardly be expected to withstand the threats and barriers the larger powers can make against them. But short of having an army sent in, a democratic government can simply say 'No, we no longer accept your rules' and proceed to tear up or to renegotiate any trade deals. Can a company then sue a government for 'expected profits' like they can now under the WTO agreements? Not if that country refused to accept the authority of the world body, as happens in many instances with the World Court and the United Nations. As it is working out, the United States is one of the most protectionist countries in the world with huge agricultural subsidies, protection against lumber imports from Canada, and protection against European and Japanese manufacturing industries. Europe's unwillingness to allow genetically modified crops has already led to some consideration that the U.S. may withdraw from the WTO in 2005[40]. Certainly the power of the United States would make a national civil disobedience unarguable; other countries obviously by necessity have to be prepared for the risks.

Civil disobedience needs to remain at the sub-national level as well. The more technology a government has, the easier it is to keep its citizens under control, but if truly democratic, a government would not be operating in that fashion. Demonstrations and protests are all a vital element of democracy; purposely breaking a law and willingly accepting its consequences is a strong hallmark of civil disobedience and has produced stunning results against sometimes apparently overwhelming odds. The racial protests in the United States, the events in South Africa and India/Pakistan, show the significance of a large movement of this kind. The high standard of living of the American working class (and similarly the Canadian working class) did not come about because of the efforts of the government to make it justly so; instead they came about because of direct action by the workers and the government’s reaction to the threat of labour militancy.[41]

Arrayed against the possible omnipresence of controlling technology is the internet, one of the truly democratic institutions globally, where information and discussions range across all subjects, and the free dissemination of information (type in MAI for a search item) can be credited with aiding the rise of global democracy. While its use is not civilly disobedient unto itself, it is certainly a powerful tool for those working against oppressive rules and regulations.

The future is not set in stone; the will of national governments can retain power over the multinationals; the will of the people, properly educated for critical thinking to help protect against the ever present spin doctored mind wash of 'free trade', 'sustainable growth' and 'transparency', can retain power over the national governments. Democracy can be protected against the collusion of self-serving governments and secretive transnational corporations. Courage to do, and wisdom to do so, can only come from a strong democratic government supported by an educated electorate.

[2]Diamond, Jared Guns, Germs, and Steel The Fates of Human Societies. W. W. Norton and Company, New York, 1999. especially p. 276 ff.

[3]www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf (a website discussing the electoral college)

[4]Federalist Papers, Federalist No. 10, Friday, November 23, 1787

[5]Federalist Papers, Federalist No. 68, Friday march 14, 1788.

[6]Paul Finkleman “The Murky Pro-Slavery Origins of the Electoral College” from: http//:jurist.law.pit.edu/election/electionfink.htm

[7]www.votescount.com/books/elecoll.htm (a Californian website explaining the electoral college)

[8]Federalist Papers, Federalist No. 10

[9]www. guerrillanews.com/stauber/stauber_transcript.html

[10]Bernays, cited in “Market democracy in a Neoliberal Order: Doctrines and Reality”, Noam Chomsky, Davie Lecture, University of Cape Town, May 1997. (www.zmag.org/chomsky/index.cfm)

[11] ____________ “Trade Policy Dvelopments 2000-2003” Canadian government report to the WTO from www.wto.org.

[12] Laidlaw Stuart “Open up world trade talks”, Toronto Star March 03, 2003.

[13]http://216.18.14.226/Canada.htm “Request From the EC and its Member States to Canada”

[14]ibid

[15]various journals cited in: Chomsky, Noam “Hordes of Vigilantes & Popular elements defeat MAI, for now” available at www.zmag.org/chomsky/index.cfm

[16]www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/inbrief_e/inbr000_e.htm

[17]www.oecd.org

[18]www.fortune.com and www.cia.gov/publications/factfile

[19]These quotes are widely cited in a variety of websites active against the MAI

[20]______________ Canada Watch September 2002, Vol. 09, No. 1-2. from www.roberts.york.ca/pdf/cw_9_1-2.pdf

[21]Drew, Richard AP Wirephoto, Globe and Mail, Thursday, November 21,2002

[22]Wallach, Lori and Sforza, Michelle The WTO Five Years of Reasons to Resist Corporate Globalization. Seven Stories Press, New York,1999. [23]Kerstetter, Steven “Rags and Riches: Wealth Inequality in Canada Summary”, December 04, 2002 from www.policy alternatives.ca/publications

[24]George, Susan from Transnational Institute, Amsterdam cited in www.cs.unb.ca These figures reflect more intra-company transfers than they do trade.

[25]The “least transparent” institution and “antidemocratic”, see Stiglitz, Joseph E. Globalization and Its Discontents. W.W. Norton & Company, New York. 2003.

[26]Chakravarthi Raghavan South-North Development Monitor SUNS #3620 C-504, 8-14 Av. de la Paix Ch-1211 Geneva 10 Swtizerland email:

[27]http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/politics/govworks/oag-pt3.htm

[28] www.cia.gov/

[29]Kellner, Douglas From 9/11 to Terror War - the Dangers of the Bush Legacy, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland. 2003.

[30]Ibid.

[31]Trotta, Daniel “Postwar Iraq struggles to rebuild”, The Globe and Mail, Toronto, Monday, July 14, 2003.

[32]Jackson, Derrick Z. “America’s worst side in Iraq”, Boston Globe. Friday, August 15, 2003.

[33]www.coutnerpunch.org/scahill/0802.html

[34] Caldicott, Dr. Helen. The New Nuclear Danger - George W. Bush’s Military-Industrial Complex, New Press, New York. 2002.

[35] Kellner, and se also www.moles.org

[36] Caldicott. The Pentagon is the nation’s largest employer, larger than Fortune 500’s Exxon, with employees in 130 out of 178 countries globally.

[37] Caldicott.

[38]see Chomsky,Noam and Herman, Edward S. Manufacturing Consent. Pantheon Books, New York, 2002.

[39] Quotes cited from www.doublestandards.org/quotes.html

[40] Miller, Scott “WTO talks face setback” Wall Street Journal cited in Globe and Mail, Monday, March 17, 2003.

[41]Zinn, Howard. Passionate Declarations Essays on War and Justice. Perennial (Harper Collins), New York, 2003.