<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Thursday 14 March 2013 11:42 AM,
parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:51416A58.7070003@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<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=UTF-8">
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=UTF-8"
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,</blockquote>
<br>
of course 'pertinently', and not 'penitently ' <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:51416A58.7070003@itforchange.net" type="cite">
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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>