le Battalion
O
PINION
Page 11 • Friday, December 3, 1999
limal 1
irtian surface
is designed to analyze ttete
v The lander is equipped W;-
nples which will be dumped re;
:ait>on dioxide will be baked ir,
< al the mission:
RESTLESS IN SEATTLE
Mass protests spotlight dissenting opinions on free trade, serve as moral check on WTO
K
'X
CALEB
mcdaniel
ralli
say you’re son]’,
he streets
of Seattle
are crowd
ed this week,
but not with
throngs of holi-
lay shoppers.
Angry protest
ers and police
officers have
clogged the downtown area.
Photo images have been stark
"id startling: police in riot gear,
ouds of tear gas, handcuffed
monstrators and armored ve-
cles. It has been a blessedly
ng time since headlines con-
ined news about rubber bullets
id anarchists.
But perhaps more shocking
an the activity in the streets is
e object of all the angst.
Thousands of protesters have
Mome to fight free trade by dis-
Mipting and delaying the highly
publicized meeting of the World
Irade Organization (WTO), an
international body that estab
lishes rules about trade.
What? Never heard of the
TO? Neither had most people
)re., said, walkiiMntil this week. For that reason
strators as ther
taller groups,
police: “Manyo;
An apology i
lone, the protesters in Seattle
have done much good.
They have arrested the
odd’s attention and made it
lonsider the potential dark side
ed about WTO: [ of free trade,
s protectingtheiB The demonstrators — a
this week’s nK hodgepodge of environmental,
istoric showdov; f labor and human-rights groups
he forces of corf—have denounced the WTO for
Toppling trade barriers at the ex
pense of important interests.
J Unfortunately, the national
media has hurried to make these
dissenting voices seem laugh
able, or worse.
| On Tuesday, for instance, air-
aveswere filled with reports of
ts been between
oncerns about te
ronment taking;::
ce brutality,
e have been aifl
s of thousands#
ity’s core and£
storefront
violent rioting in downtown
Seattle, grossly misrepresenting
the day’s events.
Yesterday, after the dust had
cleared, the picture became
clearer as well.
Although a handful of anar
chists in the crowd did go on a
rampage of vandalism and prop
erty destruction, they were by
far the exception, rather than
the rule.
The groups that had organized
the protests have been quick to
disassociate themselves from
these unruly individuals.
Workers are more
important than
capital. They
should be treated
that way.
In fact, it turns out that chants
of “shame, shame, shame,” origi
nally broadcast as protests directed
at the WTO, were in fact being
shouted at those who departed
from the demonstration’s non-vio
lent intent.
The truth is that the vast ma
jority of protesters were peace
fully making a point worth say
ing — economic health is not
worth sacrificing the welfare of
human beings and the world
they inhabit. Commerce, untem
pered by conscience, would be a
grave social sin.
If it is not careful, the WTO’s
credo could encourage unethical
economics. When free trade is
treated as an unqualified good,
other goods — such as labor
rights and environmental protec
tions — often go unnoticed.
For instance, the WTO has not
given much attention to a coun
try’s fair-labor laws when decid
ing whether it should be opened
to trade.
But ensuring a country does
not exploit its workers should be
paramount. Otherwise, corpora
tions will be encouraged to enter
those nations in which they can
abuse unprotected labor with
substandard wages and unsafe
conditions.
All the Seattle crowds are
asking is that the WTO give
more attention to these vital hu
man concerns.
Workers are more important
than capital. They should be
treated that way.
And if they are not, a country
should be refused uninhibited
trade until they are.
WTO officials have attempted
to dismiss these ideas as back
ward and outdated.
They say trade acts as a mira
cle medicine for underdeveloped
economies. Capital allowed to
flow freely into a country would
create jobs and markets with
ERIC ANDRAOS/Tm: Battalion
benefits that will ultimately
trickle down to the lower class.
The economics behind this ar
gument are dubious.
Even in the United States,
which has one of the most open
trade policies in the world, the
richest continue to get richer
while the poorest continue to get
poorer.
Besides, the question remains
worth asking: Even if trade cre
ates jobs, are the jobs worth cre
ating? If trade encourages indus
tries, are the industries worth
encouraging?
These are the issues the WTO
should treat as primary. They
have too often been neglected.
The leaders of the WTO may
try, as they already have, to
chuckle at their opponents, cari
caturing them as half-wits who
cannot keep up with the march
of globalization.
But the true proponents of
globalization are those who care
about the globe. They want to
ensure that dollars are not val
ued over decency and that the
benefits of a global economy are
extended to all.
It is obvious free trade puts
money in the pocket of those
who wear the silk suits. The
question is whether it helps the
sweatshop workers who make
the silk suits.
Therefore, the events in Seat
tle should give the WTO pause.
Perhaps for once in his disap
pointment of a career, the lead
ership of President Clinton
should be heeded.
“I believe the WTO must make
sure that open trade does indeed
lift living standards, respects core
labor standards that are essential
not only to worker rights, but to
human rights,” Clinton said in a
speech Wednesday.
If more of the world’s leaders
would join in that call, the
streets of Seattle would be emp
ty instead of the pockets of the
underprivileged.
If the protests have proved
anything, they have proved free
trade is not unanimously popu
lar, and anything that can make
30,000 people upset enough to
organize deserves to be exam
ined. Tear gas will not make this
go away.
Caleb McDaniel is a junior
history major.
icrosoft deserves to be reprimanded
(U-WIRE) NORMAN, Okla.
he federal government’s anti-trust
case against Microsoft has made
a lot of news lately. Something
at probably shouldn’t have surprised
nie so much is that free-market capital
ists have been criticizing the govern-
, . fJ^nt’s action against Microsoft’s mo-
inituie anoppuij! l| 0 p 0 jy as unwarran t ec j j heavy-handed
st Parkway & Teteiriterference in industry.
—— fl It’s funny that when the government
livery Available Breaks up a monopoly to allow compe-
Phone OrdersWtj|tion, that’s what laissez-faire capital
ists call government “meddling,” but
hen a single company prohibits free
ompetition by controlling the market
ith tyrannical and unethical tactics,
bat’s called the “free” market.
After all, they ask, is it Microsoft’s
ult that it’s a monopoly? Should Bill
YWOOD USA
Admission Prices » S-
') Children (M i) nnd Seniws(65»
MATINEE AH shows botore 6 p ^
ice opens daily at it» tales be punished because people like
n FOR SHOWTIMES ■. . ^ - tr r-
JEEEHZE!EP 6ls P roducts?
wurday.nndnowonTHjHSDAv^j| jf thg monopoly weren’t Microsoft’s
^ fault, the situation would be different.
joy stop jit’ s no t mere market share that makes a
"iocsi«i3»ffionopoly illegal, it’s wielding the pow-
woRiDisNOTEif ’er a monopoly affords.
10:30But it is Microsoft’s fault, for pre-
—lisely that reason. Microsoft, with a 95
1 * 11204 ' "ercent share of the personal computer
operating system market, refuses to li-
ense its operating system to computer
lanufacturers unless they bundle Win-
hows with every PC they sell.
This is only one of the points of the
nti-trust case.
It isn’t just detrimental to competi-
jors; it hurts consumers too.
If you buy a PC from any major
omputer retailer, you are forced to buy
license for Microsoft Windows at the
same time. This “Microsoft tax” is hid
den, but included in the price. Never
)U ordered a -frind that you might already have a li-
hnd and will p: : I tense ^ or Windows and just want to
impus nextatf P8 ra J de Y our hardware.
). you can 1.1 h doesn I matter if you re planning
, C .; to erase the hard drive and install a
' ' 0 ^^Jjpon-Microsoft operating system like
f°i t ' ie Tlinux. You have no choice but to buy
oi^year mailedm[j croso q> s product.
)I5 Reed McD^H Free-market capitalists don’t see
his as a problem. They tell us that if
e’d just repeal all these silly anti-trust
aws and bleeding-heart labor regula-
ding or
-2613 (credit ;i |
j between
4:30 p.m, lt r
augh Friday a#
6.50 mailing and
ig fee.
|ions, and get the government out of
he business of governing business,
hen the market would work it all out
n our best interest.
The problem with that line of rea
soning is this: the lenient business and
sh,Check,Visa,Ma& ; a bor laws for which they argue are ex
cow andAmemW actly where we started from; that’s how
accepted.
we got to where we are. The regula
tions we have today weren’t just drawn
up at random.
Our government had to enact anti
trust laws in order to stop huge indus
trial monopolies from clogging com
merce by charging exorbitant and
inflated prices. Your eight-hour work
day, your safety regulations, your
weekends — these exist not because
the company you work for cares about
your well-being, but because labor ac
tivists and union women and men
fought so that you could work under
livable conditions.
The idea of laissez-faire also implies
that by deregulating business we are
somehow staying out of the economy,
forgetting that government is already
waist-deep in any economy because
state power is needed to enforce pri
vate property.
If we repeal the laws against busi
nesses stealing labor from workers, can
we also repeal the laws against workers
stealing products from businesses?
Many businesses fight workers and
regulations at every turn, making pay
cuts, “downsizing,” cheating our
“free” market by colluding with com
petitors to fix prices, even moving
into other countries so they can pay
their employees less than our mini
mum wage.
They are driven to these tactics be
cause they want more money. Why, if
we removed all the laws that keep
companies from cheating and exploit
ing people, would they suddenly grow
a social conscience?
Right now our ways of dealing with
companies that break the law is inade
quate, largely because the actual law
breakers can hide behind corporations.
A corporation is a legal fiction which
absorbs responsibility and shields crim
inals from prosecution.
An example of this is the recent case
in which General Motors (GM) discov
ered a defect that caused certain cars to
explode in flames when hit.
GM decided not to release the infor
mation when it was determined that it
would be cheaper to settle court cases
with the families of the hundreds of es
timated victims than it would be to fix
an item costing just a few dollars in
millions of cars.
If any of us decided to sacrifice a hu
man life for a few thousand dollars,
we’d be sent to prison, or worse.
When a group of people, operating
within a corporation like GM, does
that exact thing a few hundred times,
they get slapped with a fine that they
pay with a company check. There is no
accountability.
Because corporations are legal enti
ties created and enforced by the gov
ernment, it is within our power to dis
solve a corporation’s charter. Of course,
Microsoft hasn’t actually killed anyone
yet, but GM has. Many states have en
acted harsh “three strikes” laws for re
peat felons. Why should we be less vig
ilant in ending crimes by corporations?
Brian Crabtree is a columnist
for The Oklahoma Daily at the
University of Oklahoma.
Cuban child suffers
while adults argue
F or four decades,
Cubans in the
United States
fought to free their na
tion from Fidel Castro.
This conflict has seen
many low points, in
cluding the Mariel
boatlift in 1980 and the
shooting down of two
aircraft rented by Cuban
exiles which skirted Cuba’s airspace.
The lowest point in this 40-year strug
gle may have come this week when a
boat carrying 10 Cuban refugees sank off
the coast of Florida.
Only three of the boat’s 10 passengers
survived the accident.
One of the survivors was a 5-year-old
boy who clung to an inner tube for two
days until he was picked up near Ft.
Lauderdale, Fla.
Elian Gonzalez not only suffered
through this horrific situation, but he
also lost his mother and stepfather when
the boat sank.
Elian is living with relatives in Miami,
but his story has yet to be finished.
Elian now is being used as a point of
contention between the Cuban govern
ment and the many U.S.-based anti-Cas
tro groups.
Gonzalez’s father lives in Cuba, and
has appeared several times on CNN, cry
ing about how he misses his son and
wants him returned.
. Upon the arrival of TV cameras, neigh
bors appear to lead “spontaneous”
demonstrations against the United States,
carrying signs written in English. Cuba’s
government claims the boy was kid
napped by his mother and should be re
turned to his father.
Ninety miles away, a picture of Elian
Gonzalez strapped to a gurney after be
ing plucked from the Atlantic can be seen
on flyers everywhere.
The Cuban-American National Founda
tion has created these flyers, which call
Elian “another child victim of Fidel Castro.”
This organization and others like it have
made this little boy’s struggle political.
This issue’s battle lines, like those of
many others like it, have been drawn up
too quickly.
On one side are Castro and the Cuban
government, who obviously want the
boy back.
Their motivation is not necessarily a
humanitarian one allowing Elian to re
main in the United States would be a po
litical embarrassment.
Cuban-American organizations know
this is the case and therefore want Elian
to stay in the United States.
One of the most effective ways to draw
attention to an issue is to show how it af
fects children and Elian Gonzalez’s story
of pain and suffering in an attempt to
gain freedom can be used effectively
against Castro.
Caught between these two factions is
Elian Gonzalez himself.
What does he want? The major com
batants in this issue claim to speak for
him, but are they really?
Apparently not, and that is the saddest
part of this tragedy.
Elian is being used as a pawn by two
groups that could care less about his
well-being.
Castro wants the boy returned because
the Elian’s situation is a stinging indict
ment of his outlaw state.
The Cuban-American organizations
have shown themselves to be almost as
callous by showing interest in the 5-year-
old more as a statistic than as a person.
The most basic issue is the one most
neglected by both sides and the media —
Elian’s future.
From all indications, Elian wants to
stay in the United States, and he should
be allowed to do so.
He also should be allowed to see his
father, who apparently wants to be re
united with his son. While the struggle to
remove Fidel Castro from power is a chal
lenge, the welfare of this child should
come first.
Elian Gonzalez is 5 years old and al
ready has endured more than most peo
ple could expect in a lifetime. It is unfair
to use him as a bargaining chip in a fight
he is not old enough to understand.
Castro, Cuban-Americans and the U.S.
government should at least attempt to
reach some sort of com',in r; ise on the
health and welfare of th child before
they do anything else.
Once that is done, these groups can go
back to doing what they have for decades
— acting like little children themselves.
Mark Passwaters is a senior electrical
engineering major.