<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 13 March 2013 08:31 PM,
William Drake wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:79893FE4-31AB-4A5A-B908-C0E33F417FCE@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
Hi P<br>
<br>
<div>
<div>On Mar 13, 2013, at 1:57 PM, 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">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<snip></blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<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>
</blockquote>
<br>
Bill<br>
<br>
All 'agreements' where unequal power is leveraged to obtain unequal
gains bother me. Later in the email you speak of India-Bangladesh
example... Of course there is the 'big brother' problem vis a vis
India in the sub continent. When I was last in Bangaldesh I was
shocked to see the local TV mostly full of Indian soap opera. To me
the extent of domination of these programs appeared too culturally
invasive. I later heard similar things about Sri Lanka. I would
support any steps these countries would like to take to limit
cultural imports from India to safe guard their respective cultures
(btw, very penitently, now there is a UNESCO Convention on the
Protection
and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, which
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 3.5 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
</style> shows the value of multilaterlism in such situations). And I
would resist if India seeks to use its market size and such
allurements to browbeat these countries through FTA kind of
agreements to act in ways that, what these countires otherwise feel,
are really harmful to their national public interest...<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:79893FE4-31AB-4A5A-B908-C0E33F417FCE@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<snip>
<div><br>
</div>
While I favor multilateral to small-n solutions for problems
that are truly global in scope, </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Internet is truly global in scope, and so must ne its governance..<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:79893FE4-31AB-4A5A-B908-C0E33F417FCE@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div>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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>