<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi P<br>
<br><div><div>On Mar 13, 2013, at 1:57 PM, parminder <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 13 March 2013 02:56 PM,
William Drake wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:22D7DA48-D194-4ABE-AE69-7E7511D58556@uzh.ch" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
Hi Parminder<br>
<br>
<div>
<div>On Mar 13, 2013, at 6:19 AM, parminder <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite"><span style="font-family: Palatino;
font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height:
normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent:
0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255); display: inline !important; float: none; ">It is
rather well known that multilateral agreements have a
greater chance of being based on higher norms and principles
than are bilateral and plurilateral ones, which are more
oriented to narrower interests (pl refer to the literature
on FTAs). Also, almost always, bilateral and plurilateral
agreements based on 'relative power' results in greater
gains for those who are more powerful, something which
follows from the preceding statement.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<div>Among whom is this known, and do they in fact attribute it to
narrow interests being less dispositive in multilateral
contexts? I'm not arguing with you, just curious why you say
this. As a political scientist who's reasonably well read in
the vast scholarly and policy literatures on international
institutions and cooperation, I can't say I've noticed a lot of
people taking this stance or offering evidence thereof, so I'm
curious. A few contrary thoughts for your consideration:</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Bill. <br>
<br>
First of all it should be made clear that I speak from a Southern
point of view,</div></blockquote><div><br></div>Yes, got that. Of course, we disagree on whether it's sensible to speak of uniform Northern and Southern views, but no matter.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> and so when you ask among whom it is well know my
response is, among Southern actors - from civil society and
government - who engage with global governance issues. The bilateral
and plurilateral agreements that I problematize are the ones of the
typical pick and choose variety taken up by counties like the US,
and also such established plurilateral processes like the OECD that
intend to engage in 'global' rule making. (There are indeed genuine
cultural links based grouping like Council of Europe that has done
considerable normative work.)<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You've made clear that you have an issue with industrialized countries, especially the US, engaging in bilateral, regional, and plurilateral agreements. Although I've never been clear whether the fact that developing countries also do this bothers you as well…India for example is in lots of exclusionary FTAs, and not with the great satan.</div><div><br></div><div>But none of this seems integrally related to what seemed to be empirical statement, which just didn't comport with "what everyone knows" among international relations specialists. Hence my question.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
Isnt almost all higher level normative work done at UN/ multilateral
level. Show me where a bilateral process has produced useful norms
and principles. </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Just off my head, the overarching principles that were included in many bilateral, regional, and plurilateral telegraph agreements in the 1840s and 1850s were later taken to the global level with the creation of the ITU. Much of the work devising guiding principles for transborder data flows, international trade in services, digital intellectual property, network security, privacy, and so on took place in the OECD, G8, EU, and others before moving into the broad multilateral level. In none of these cases did the work on devising principles just start de novo on a multilateral basis. I'm sure if one were to spend some time looking at experiences in other global issue areas the same dynamic would be found over and over again, from arms control to environment and beyond.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">OF course, later are focussed on narrow interest
based outcomes. Yes, narrow interests are brought into play as much
in UN/ multilateral systems as well, but the sheer number and
variety of actors, as well as, very importantly, established
principles of process, equity etc, makes for movement towards higher
norms based outcomes. </div></blockquote><div><br></div>While I favor multilateral to small-n solutions for problems that are truly global in scope, I don't think it's empirically supportable to claim that broad ML processes are inherently more consistent with the procedural norms you favor because there are more actors or some greater fealty to principled behavior. Compare say the UN vs the Europe or the Americas machinery. </div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">It is also a basic democratic principle; more
people/ actors are involved in decision making more the decisions
serve all actors equally. Bilaterals between a powerful country like
the US and a developing country has strong elements of take it or
leave it, and the competitive fear among the weaker partners of what
if other similarly placed countries enter into similar agreements
with the US.</div></blockquote><div><br></div>Same goes for bilaterals between say India and Bangledesh?</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> Rich country plurilaterals are of course based on
commonness of interests of richer economies with certain structural
characteristics, and their outputs can hardly ever benefit
non-participant developing countries in an equitable manner. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:22D7DA48-D194-4ABE-AE69-7E7511D58556@uzh.ch" type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>To the extent <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255); ">multilateral agreements do have a greater chance of
being based on higher norms and principles, that is often
because those </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255); ">higher norms and principles are more squishy and
easier to arrive at given more complexly divided interests. </span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Dont know whether you consider human rights instruments as just
squishy, but I think they have been and continue to be very useful.
<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I think international human rights are important, yes</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<blockquote cite="mid:22D7DA48-D194-4ABE-AE69-7E7511D58556@uzh.ch" type="cite">
<div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "> The TA
offers a good case in point. Had that been a plurilateral, we
might even know what enhanced cooperation means :-) <br>
</span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Similarly, WSIS outcome documents contain so many normative
references (see the declaration of principles for instance) that
continue to be useful for progressive causes. You seem to be too
dismissive about such stuff. <br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I'm not dismissive of the WSIS, please don't start with the putting words in other people's mouths thing yet again <br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:22D7DA48-D194-4ABE-AE69-7E7511D58556@uzh.ch" type="cite">
<div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">More </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">higher norms
and principles</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255); "> is not necessarily a good outcome, it depends.</span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
They are always a good outcomes. However *only* norms and principles
without work towards their translation into concrete outcomes is not
good. <br>
<br>
Anyway, in times of such stalemates like the present one in global
IG, there seems to be a great degree of consensus, articulated at
IGFs, mentioned by EU group that met CS reps at Baku, and so on, for
developing principles on which IG could be based..... So, at least
if we focus on the current context higher norms and principles are
certainly not only good outcomes, but very much needed outcomes. <br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I have supported discussion of principles….</div><div><br></div><div>All this seems pretty far from the statements to which I was responding, though...<br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:22D7DA48-D194-4ABE-AE69-7E7511D58556@uzh.ch" type="cite">
<div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">Narrower
interests and relative power by no means disappear in large-n
collaborations. Most multilateral deals are in fact clusters
of bilateral and plurilateral deals among the most powerful
and/or </span>motivated by sharply defined interests.
Outsiders then get pushed to conform with what these inner
circle types have worked out. The problem in trade has been
that the identities and mixed interest of the inner circles have
diversified, and the outsiders have found fewer reasons to
budge.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
agree<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:22D7DA48-D194-4ABE-AE69-7E7511D58556@uzh.ch" type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Small-N collaborations may devote less time to <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">higher norms
and principles because they are "nested" agreements. </span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I am speaking of such ones that are not nested agreements, but are
attempts to bypass normally accepted norms and principles at global
level, like TPP and SOPA trying to get away from such higher norms
through small group and closed door agreements. <br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Will we ever stop hearing SOPA discussed as if it were established policy? It was proposed by some congress critters under pressure from some lobbyists and was defeated. By others with "a Northern perspective." The TPP I agree is problematic, but that's got a lot to do with the fact that multilateralism in the WTO has broken down very substantially. There's a big push here in Europe for a free trade deal with the US on the same grounds.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:22D7DA48-D194-4ABE-AE69-7E7511D58556@uzh.ch" type="cite">
<div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "> For
example, FTAs at least nominally have to be compatible with
the WTO instruments (some disagreement about the consistency
of practice) and so the</span> <span style="background-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255); ">higher norms and principles spelled out
in the latter are absent presences in the former. It's like
reading a piece of legislation that modifies another piece of
legislation that is not fully incorporated into the text, you
have read the docs back and forth to get the full picture.</span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, but they can go beyond WTO instruments as long as they do not
violate thmn, which in a way itself can be considered a negation of
a higher order normative agreement reached in negotiating WTO
instruments. <br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>They can go beyond them in depth of liberalization affected through the schedules of commitments, but they have to comport with the fundamental principles of the trade system, e.g. MFN, national treatment, etc. Of course, many trade mavens argue that while this is nominally true, there are incentives there to cheat, and so each such agreement gets looked at closely for exclusionary impact even if there's a lack of declared intent.<br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<blockquote cite="mid:22D7DA48-D194-4ABE-AE69-7E7511D58556@uzh.ch" type="cite">
<div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><br>
</span></div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">Accordingly,
while specifics can vary with contexts, global civil society
has to make its considered value based choice whether it
prefers multilateral agreements or bilateral/ plurilateral
ones when the issue is clearly of a global import, like
Internet governance is, perhaps like no other issue. In all
other areas of global governance, I see a distinct
preference in civil society for global agreements in
preference to bi/pluri-lateral ones, on issues ranging from
trade and IP to climate. </span></blockquote>
</div>
<div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">I know
where you're coming from, </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">but I don't
think this necessarily follows, or that it's entirely fair to
characterize it as a values choice (which I guess would
mean those focusing on non-multilateral are making inferior
choices, from a values perspective?). </span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
This kind of extreme characterisation can always be used to make the
opposite argument look bad. </div></blockquote><div><br></div>It's neither 'extreme' or trying to make your argument look bad. You said CS <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "> </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">has to make its considered value based choice whether it prefers multilateral agreements or bilateral/ plurilateral ones. So you're saying one should prefer one to the other and its' a matter of values. And I was simply saying I disagree in that having certain values doesn't necessarily require such a choice, especially when non-ML agreements may have a greater impact on values we care about in some cases...</span></div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">I am asking just that the same actors
should note resist multilateralism who merrily go about doing
plurilateralism exactly on the same issues (not to speak of US
unilateralism). This is a values issue and an inferior choice from
that standpoint. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:22D7DA48-D194-4ABE-AE69-7E7511D58556@uzh.ch" type="cite">
<div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "> In many
case, national and small-n frameworks may have greater on the
ground impact on the people and values CS is trying to defend,
so as much as I wish they'd engage more in the multilateral
stuff (since that's where I live) I'm not prepared to say that
they're committing a grievous moral or strategic error. <br>
</span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Well, they are committing a grievous democratic error, nay mischief,
if (and ony if) 'they' resist mutlilateralism - and I repeat the
above phrase - while merrily doing plurilateralism exactly on the
same issues (not to speak of US unilateralism).</div></blockquote><br></div><div>But that's not extreme.</div><div><br></div><div>Ok, well I was interested in understanding your original statement</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">It is rather well known that multilateral agreements have a greater chance of being based on higher norms and principles than are bilateral and plurilateral ones, which are more oriented to narrower interests (pl refer to the literature on FTAs). Also, almost always, bilateral and plurilateral agreements based on 'relative power' results in greater gains for those who are more powerful, something which follows from the preceding statement.</span> </blockquote><br></div><div>And I think I've got it now.</div><div><br></div><div>All the best,</div><div><br></div><div>Bill</div><br></body></html>