Alternatives
To The Collapsed
WTO Doha Round Talks
By Stephen Lendman
23 August, 2006
Countercurrents.org
On
July 24, 2006, World Trade Organization (WTO) Director-General Pascal
Lamy was forced to halt the five years of negotiating of the so-called
Fourth WTO Ministerial Doha Round that began in Doha, Qatar in November,
2001 and ended (for now, at least) in Geneva, Switzerland. The talks
had been ongoing to strike a trade deal but broke down because the US,
as usual, demanded all take and little give in return expecting it could
strong-arm developing nations to accept whatever it proposed as it's
always been able to do in the past.
No longer, apparently, as
nations with growing clout like Brazil, India and others justifiably
refused to knuckle under. Even European (EU) Trade Commissioner and
US ally, Peter Mandelson expressed his ire when he accused the US of
trying to exact a "disproportionate" price from developing
countries. He added: "Surely the richest and strongest nation in
the world, with the highest standards of living, can afford to give
as well as take." Mandelson is right, of course, but he also understands
the US considers itself the de facto ruler of the world and claims the
right in that status to make all the rules and expect all other nations
to agree to and obey them. It wasn't to be this time in Geneva and may
never be again as a growing number of nations are fed up with Washington's
notion of trade that's "free" in words but never "fair"
in fact. The tone of frustration was expressed by India's Commerce and
Industry Minister in his concluding comment that Doha is "definitely
between intensive care and the cremtorium." He and others thought
it would be months to years before further talks could be restarted
and likely never again on same basis as the current round that broke
down.
That basis is the same business
as usual one when the US is involved - promise them (the developing
nations) everything, or at least an equitable arrangement for rich and
poor countries alike, but in the end deliver little or nothing. It's
just another example of US duplicity and disingenuousness as the initial
Doha declaration promised that the rich nations would make most of the
concessions and the poorest ones would need make few or none. It never
happened, and the biggest obstacle was over farm subsidies so important
to developing world countries that need protection for the major part
of their economy along with ease of access to the US and European Union
(EU) to assure growth. The US and EU made no teeth proposals to end
their agricultural subsidies by 2013, but less developed countries rejected
the kind of vague forked-tongue language the US especially has used
before which in the end always failed to deliver what it promised.
A clear example of the kind
of trade agreement the US wants is reflected in its subsidies to cotton
farmers the WTO ruled illegal last year. Despite the ruling, the US
did nothing to bring the subsidies into compliance, and Brazil may now
ask the WTO to allow it to impose $1 billion in punitive duties on US
imports in compensation. Brazil and other countries may also have justifiable
rice, soybean and other crop claims against the US. Uruguay has complained
about unfair US rice subsidies depressing world prices, and Oxfam International
charged that these illegal subsidies, valued at $1.2 billion a year,
hurt rice farmers in a dozen countries.
Call it just more of the
"same old US same old." A key provision of the Doha "development
round" clearly shows it. With a backdrop of high-sounding language
promising to help poor countries grow their way out of poverty by granting
them greater access for their goods, the EU extended the "Everything
but Arms" initiative (EBA) under which it would unilaterally open
its markets to developing countries. That was before the US hypocritically
muddied things up by purportedly agreeing to a 97% opening of its markets
to the developing world. These countries were initially disappointed
with the original EBA initiative, and the EU promised to address their
concerns to reach a more equitable compromise. US intentions, however,
were quite different. While using market-opening language, the US, in
fact, proposed just the opposite by claiming the right to choose a different
3% exclusion for each country to rig the deal to end up allowing developing
countries the right to freely export everything but what they produe.
So while they can freely export aircraft, jet engines, supercomputers
and computer chips, they can't have free access for their agricultural
products, processed foods or textiles. Hardly a fair trade initiative,
and one sensible trade ministers would never accept. They didn't.
The net result is that the
3% EBA initiative is just another disingenuous multilateral trade scheme
corrupted by US undermining to unfairly give this dominant country free
access to world developing markets without having to grant equivalent
access here in return. Based on the outcome in Geneva, developing countries,
led by those with the most clout, no longer are buying it and walked
away. They did it before at Cancun in 2003 and no doubt will stand firm
in any future WTO negotiations.
A Disturbing Cloud
on A World Trade Silver Lining
At the same time developing
nations are resisting sweeping trade deals like Doha, some of them are
agreeing to bilateral ones with the US with terms just as unacceptable
as the WTO ones they rejected. So far the following countries have agreed
to such "free trade agreements" with the US or are in the
process of negotiating them: Australia, Chile, Peru, Colombia, Panama,
Bahrain, Israel, Jordan, Malaysia, Vietnam (seeking WTO admission),
Morocco, Oman, Korea, Singapore, Thailand, South Africa, the United
Arab Emirates (UAE), and the Central American nations included under
the Dominican Republic Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA)
of the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua
and Costa Rica (the only CAFTA country that hasn't so far approved the
agreement).
In addition, and less publicized,
there are other agreements in place and being negotiated under various
names like the so-called US-India Knowledge Initiative in Agriculture
that gives US giants like Monsanto free access to the Indian market
for their GMO products ravaging Indian farmers since gaining entry and
causing thousands of suicides among them because of onerous debts they
were forced to assume that ended up killing them; Cargill and Archer
Daniels Midland for wheat at unaffordable prices increasing hunger and
malnutrition and destroying the lives of still more small farmers; and
the king of giants - Walmart - that wants to dominate the Indian retail
market, and if successful, will do to thousands of small retailers in
the country what Monsanto alone did to its small farmers.
By using the tactic of one-on-one
negotiations, the US is showing it's not standing pat in the face of
overall trade defeat that first erupted on the streets of Seattle in
1999, began in earnest in direct talks in Cancun in 2003 and culminated
with the collapse of those talks in Geneva in July. It's trying to overcome
it by undermining the unity of the developing world one nation at a
time and do it with selective agreements covering products and services
it's able to get its negotiating partners to agree on. In the case of
India that stood firm against a sweeping Doha agreement, it's clear
that country so far has been willing to trade away its food and retail
small business security for whatever benefits it hopes to gain in return
that when dealing with the US may turn out to be meager at best.
It's too early to know how
successful this US strategy will be over time, but so far it's had enough
success to show developing nations determined to hold their ground that
their battle to do it has just begun, and it won't be easy prevailing
in the end. Nonetheless, the ones willing to resist US bullying tactics
have decided, so far at least, that sweeping agreements on US one-way
terms are unacceptable. At most, they'll go for a limited one hoping
for some expected gain in return for what they have to give up. So the
bottom line thus far is that while Doha is either dead or on life support,
so-called US-style "free trade" is very much alive and thriving.
Alternatives to the
WTO Doha Round
Despite US trade ingenuity
and chicanery to turn defeat into partial victory, challenges to its
dominance have emerged showing a spirit of resistance and unwillingness
to continue the old corrupted one-way neoliberal way of doing things
that's little more than a race to the bottom. That spirit wanting change
is more alive in Latin America than anywhere else, even though so far
it's more hope than reality. Still, for the first time, more people
in the region are fed up having to live under the oppressive heel of
US dominance and are inspired by what's happening in Venezuela to overcome
it and beginning in Bolivia as well. Call it a start, but all great
social movements have modest beginnings. There's never a guarantee how
far they'll go, and many just fade away or are destroyed by those of
privilege using their power to do what they know how to do best - remove
all threats to the interests of capital by whatever means it takes to
do it.
That battle is now being
waged in Venezuela against its democratically elected President, Hugo
Chavez and his Movement for the Fifth Republic Party (MVR). Chavez was
first elected in December, 1998 and from the start created the beginnings
of a new mass social and political Bolivarian revolution based on participatory
democracy and social justice. Privileged "sifrinos" and the
corporate ruling class in the country aren't happy with the way things
are now and have engaged the Chavez government in confrontation relentlessly
since he came into office. Those forces have a strong ally in the Bush
administration that's done all it can to aid them and continues to relentlessly.
The reason is because of
all Chavez has done to help his overwhelmingly poor people emerge from
their desperate state and have the essential social services and other
help they need. He's accomplished much in a short time despite everything
done to subvert him by powerful and determined internal rogue elements
and the far more hostile threat from the huge shadow cast on his government
from Washington that's tried and failed three times to oust him and
now is planning a fourth attempt that may include an armed assault and
invasion and likely attempt to assassinate him as well.
Chavez began in 1999 by drafting
a new constitution that was put to a nationwide referendum and overwhelmingly
approved by the Venezuelan people. It established the principle of participatory
democracy for all Venezuelans, mandated quality health care and education,
housing, an improved social security pension system for seniors, free
speech, rights for indigenous people and banned discrimination. Chavez
is revered by the great majority of his people because of all he's done
for them since taking office in 1999. He currently enjoys an approval
rating of over 80% and likely will have no trouble remaining President
when he runs again for reelection in December unless an attempt is made
to remove him from office forcibly before then that succeeds. Chavez
is well aware of the threat against him and is doing all he can to prevent
it.
ALBA - The Bolivarian
Alternative to the Fourth
WTO Ministerial Doha Round
Hugo Chavez is pursuing his
progressive agenda abroad as well as at home. Key to it is his alternative
to the US dominated WTO neoliberal type trade agreements that are called
"free" but aren't "fair." The ones now in force
under mandated WTO trade rules along with IMF and World Bank imposed
structural adjustments and privatizations of state industries have caused
growing poverty and human misery throughout the developing world. The
harmful one-way trade rules are in place for agriculture, services under
GATS, intellectual property under TRIPS, and the mostly unpassed corporate
wish list from hell covered under MAI that would establish a single
global economy run by these corporate giants. Led by the US and its
giant transnational companies, the goal of these agreements is to establish
a supranational "economic constitution" based on WTO mandated
rules of global trade that would override the sovereignty of member
states - in other words, to establish a global constitution with a binding
set of trade rues favoring rich countries and giant corporations allowing
them the right to dominate world markets and exploit developing nations
and ordinary people everywhere for their benefit.
Hugo Chavez has opted out
of this corrupted system with his alternative plan called ALBA or the
Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas. It's impressive goal is to
achieve a comprehensive integration among Latin American countries to
develop "the social state" that will benefit ordinary people.
It's far different than the WTO structured deals explained above that
only benefit large corporations and wealthy nations at the expense of
developing ones and all people everywhere. ALBA is bold and innovative
and based on the principles of complementarity, not competition; solidarity,
not domination; cooperation, not exploitation; and respect for each
participating nation's sovereignty free from the control of other nations
and giant corporations.
Chavez hopes ALBA will unite
participating nations in solidarity to benefit the people in them by
providing essential goods and services, achieve real economic growth
at the grassroots and improve the lives of ordinary people by reducing
and one day eliminating poverty. A key feature of the plan is the exchange
of goods and services outside the usual international banking and corporate
trading system. For example, Venezuela has exchanged Venezuelan oil
and building materials with Cuba paid for in kind by Cuba, in turn,
sending 20,000 doctors to work in medical clinics and hospitals in the
barrios plus staffing literacy programs to teach Venezuelans to read
and write.
Venezuela, Bolivia and Cuba
have also agreed on an ALBA and People's Trade Agreement that will operate
on the same basis. The agreements contain many articles and provisions
of complementarity and mutually beneficial exchanges that will benefit
all three countries and their people and also work with other Latin
American countries to help them eradicate illiteracy using the methods
that have virtually eliminated it in Venezuela and Cuba. Compare what's
been accomplished in those two countries with limited resources to the
US where the Department of Education in the richest country in the world
estimates over 20% of the population to be functionally illiterate.
That startling and shameful fact is but one of many noteworthy testimonies
to the failure of the so-called neoliberal "free market" race
to the bottom model the US wants to export to all other nations and
do it by force if necessary.
The Mercosur Alternative
Mercosur, or the Southern
Common Market, is a much less impressive and radical alternative to
the WTO model than is ALBA. It's a customs union comprising Brazil,
Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and most recently in July, 2006 Venezuela
as a formal member. It was founded in 1991 by the Treaty of Asuncion
and amended by the Treaty of Ouro Preto in 1994. Mercosur was formed
to promote free trade in goods and services among its member Latin American
states that also include Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru
as associate members as well as Mexico in temporary observer status
prior to becoming an associate member.
As a functioning trade body,
Mercosur is far different than ALBA. It was never meant to be an alternative
to the dominant WTO model but rather to be complimentary to it. It was
formed by and represents the ruling class of its Latin American member
states that have long been dominated by the Global North. They believed
by unifying into a regional trade block, they would have more negotiating
clout in combination than each one could have acting separately. Despite
the standoff at Cancun in 2003 and the just failed Doha round in Geneva,
its results have been mixed at best in its dealings with the US primarily.
Even as a more powerful regional trading block, these nations haven't
been able to get the US to soften its negotiating position in trade
talks and thus be willing to offer fairer terms, especially on products
most important to each Latin country.
The failed Doha round especially
proved that, but it also proved that when developing nations stand firm
together, they can hold their own, bring talks with the US to a standstill,
and prove they mean business and no longer are willing to cut one-way
deals hurting themselves. So maybe after three years of failing to get
its way in spite of all the pressure the US can bring to bear, Washington
may finally be getting the message. But with the hardline Bush administration
still in charge moving ahead boldly with bilateral deals, that possibility
may only be wishful thinking.
Enter Venezuela into
Mercosur
On July 21, Venezuela formally
became the fifth member of Mercosur making this body the world's third
largest economic bloc and adding to the strength of Latin American unity
that may better enable it to hold its own in future trade negotiations
with the US and other dominant Global North nations. Hugo Chavez joined
this alternative trade bloc just months after withdrawing from the Andean
Community of Nations (CAN) pact in April, 2006 in response to CAN members
Colombia and Peru signing Free Trade Agreements with the US. The benefits
of Venezuela's addition are significant, and Hugo Chavez signaled it
by saying: "We are entering a new stage of Mercosur." He went
on to add: "Latin America has all it needs to become a great world
power (he didn't mean a military one). Let's not put any limits on our
dreams. Let's make them reality." Chavez's words were backed up
by Brazil's President Lula da Silva when he added "no one is talking
anymore (about the US-backed) FTAA." And Argentina's President
Nestor Kirhner added emphasis with his comment that "Democracy,
human rights, liberty and the fight against poverty (are the basis for)
a new world order." In his comments, Hugo Chavez was expressing
his hope that with the addition of his country and likely other nations
to follow, Mercosur would take more steps to "prioritize social
concerns" and begin a process of no longer being beholden solely
to "the old elitist corporate models" that put profits ahead
of people needs. Hopefully, to some degree at least, Lula and Kirchner
were expressing the same sentiment. So far though in their own style
of governance, these two leaders differ markedly from Hugo Chavez and
mostly follow the neoliberal "free market" rules prescribed
by the US that the corporate giants benefit from.
But those leaders as well
as those from Uruguay and Paraguay got a hint of what their people want
at the summit when social activists representing the interest of labor,
the environment, women's issues, human rights, and campesinos marched
on the streets in solidarity with demonstrators of left-wing parties
to present their progressive alternative proposals for regional integration
to the Mercosur leaders. The street event marked the close of the summit
at which the Peoples' Summit for Sovereignty and Integration ran for
the first time parallel to a Mercosur summit meeting. The Peoples' agenda
addressed issues that included anti-poverty measures, indigenous peoples'
rights and demands, the protection of natural resources, investment
in education, trade liberalization and matters of concern to women.
Participating organizations
prepared a final document that proclaimed "South America is entering
a new era," and they intend to create and fight for an alternative
plan to the failed neoliberal so-called "free market" ones
they reject. They made their goals clear stating: "No to free trade
agreements and yes to peoples' integration. No to foreign debt and to
meddling by the international financial institutions. Yes to economic
independence. No to militarization, yes to self-determination. No to
hunger and poverty, yes to better distribution of wealth."
Those attending also rejected
a US Senate initiative to create a counter-terrorism organization in
the tri-border area connecting Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay, demanded
Latin American UN MINUSTAH "blue helmet" so-called "peacekeepers"
(that, in fact, serve as thuggish enforcers) be withdrawn from Haiti,
and protested against the illegal US war against Iraq and the joint
US-Israeli equally illegal ones against Lebanon and Palestine. This
is likely to be a taste of further protest activism to come with various
NGO groups representing ordinary people demanding their political leaders
address the vital issues of greatest concern to them. With Hugo Chavez
as a formal Mercosur member and already governing that way in Venezuela,
these groups have an important regional leader as an ally who'll back
and help them by addressing their needs and advocating Mercosur nations
adopt them.
Chavez and Mercosur have
already had one notable achievement last November when Venezuela successfully
led the opposition that thwarted the US's attempt to conclude its Free
Trade of the Americas agreement (FTAA) with South American countries.
It's very likely FTAA is now dead, and the US may only attempt to resurrect
it in bilateral form to get the best deals it can, even ones less acceptable
to its giant corporations that would rather have all they get bilaterally
than nothing at all resulting from the demise of FTAA.
The US task, however, will
be all the harder with the addition of Venezuela as a full Mercosur
member. The country has clout and intends to use it. Besides its immense
oil reserves Chavez is willing to share equitably on an ALBA-type arrangement
with his trading partners, Venezuela is South America's third largest
economy after Brazil and Argentina. It's addition to Mercosur means
this trade bloc now has a combined market of 250 million people and
a total output of $1,000,000,000,000 ($1 trillion) in goods and services
annually - 75% of the continent's GDP. Further, with its associate members
and possible addition of Mexico (especially if Lopez Obrador manages
to assume the office of President he won but so far has been denied),
Mercosur is poised to become even larger and more powerful. At the Mercosur
summit on July 20 - 21 in Cordoba, Argentina, Chavez called for Bolivia
and Cuba to be included in the trade bloc. Bolivia already is an associate
member, and in a clear rejection of how the US treats uba with its 45
year-old embargo aimed at trying to topple Fidel Castro, Mercosur nations
just concluded an Economic Complementation Accord with the island state
designed to eliminate tariffs and boost complementary trade.
Mercosur's growing strength
is more political than economic, and therein hopefully lies its clout.
It can't compete in size with the Global North or any trade bloc with
the US as a member. As impressive as its market size and combined GDP
numbers are, they're quite small compared to the three nation NAFTA
bloc dominated by the US that has 450 million people in it and a combined
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of $14 trillion. But just as the Hezbollah
resistance humbled the mighty Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) fourth most
powerful military in the world by its resilience, so too might economically
small Mercosur hold its own in its dealings with its powerful and dominant
northern neighbor - especially with some help from other developing
nations like India, China and Russia that are also unwilling to trade
across the board on any basis they consider unfair and are getting away
with it when determined to do it.
Recent Russian muscle-flexing
is an example of how one nation is able to stand up to the US successfully.
Relations between the two countries have been frosty for some time,
and as a result the Bush administration blocked Russia's desired entry
into the WTO. In return, Russian President Vladimir Putin retaliated
by denying US oil giants Chevron and Conoco-Phillips the right to develop
oil and gas fields in the Barents Sea. Putin also cemented a relationship
with US nemesis Hugo Chavez by concluding an arms deal involving 24
advanced Russian fighter jets, 53 helicopters, and 100,000 Kalashnikov
rifles in addition to discussing the possibility of Russia becoming
involved in building an oil pipeline in Venezuela.
In addition, Russia earlier
joined in an important energy alliance in 2001 with China, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan called the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization (SCO) that reportedly will shortly include Iran as a full
member because of the Persian state's vast energy reserves so important
to the other members, especially China. The intent of this alliance
appears to be an effort to counter US attempts to control the hydrocarbon-rich
Eurasian/Caspian Basin region and establish its own foothold in this
vital part of the world. The SCO may be looking to add still another
new member to its alliance after the CIA instigated fake 2004-05 "orange
revolution" installed Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko was
forced to accept pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovich as his Prime Minister
on August 3. The CIA election tactic "coup" robbed Yanukovich
of the presidency he won, and he now may look to get even by moving
Ukraine into the Russian orbit dealing the US another defeat as opposition
alliances gin in strength at the expense of the ruler of the world wannabe
that looks a little vulnerable.
The US may face still further
obstacles as Russia, China and Iran have announced or signaled their
intentions to shift a portion of their dollar reserves away from the
US currency into others like the euro. Russia also plans to make its
ruble convertible into the other major currencies, and Iran intends
to open an oil bourse, (its scheduled opening now delayed several times)
and sell at least part of its oil in euros. China, in fact, just did
it by opening its Shanghai Petroleum Exchange on August 18, began trading
in gasoline, announced bitumen, methanol and glycol will follow and
soon thereafter will trade in other petroleum and chemical products
including crude and refined oil and liquified gas. The announcement
didn't mention what currency trading would be done in, but likely initially
at least it will be in the Chinese yuan with possible euro trading to
follow.
If China, Russia, and Iran
ally to reduce their dollar holdings, trade oil in euros, rubles and/or
other non-dollar currencies and can get other oil producing states to
join with them and do the same like Venezuela, it will pose a serious
threat to US dominance in the region as well as undermine it's position
as the world's economic leader. It will also increase world instability,
as the US won't stand pat in the face of actions it sees as a challenge
to its preeminence or anything that may harm its economy. Nonetheless,
it shows what's possible when enough nations join together to counter
the hostile effects of US dominance in trade and all else. In alliance
these nations have strength in numbers, may attract others to join with
them and thus be able to hold their own against US hegemony, weaken
it significantly in the process, and end up negating whatever steps
the US may attempt to fight back.
The Lesson Learned
May Be Resist and Ye Shall Succeed
To prevail, it's just a matter
of enough nations joining in their common self-interest to find out
how successful they may be if they try. It's like the old story of the
schoolyard bully who's able to get away with beating up on weaker kids
until one or more fight back, strike a telling blow, and get away with
it. At that point, the game is up, and the bully knows his bullying
days are over. Others picked on know they too can fight back, some will
if picked on, and bullies only like picking on the ones who won't. It's
the same story with nations as with schoolyard bullies. The developing
world can put down the US bully if enough of them in it refuse to be
pushed around any more, join together for added strength and fight back.
History is on their side
as the US seems to be repeating the same fatal errors all other dominant
empires in the past did that overreached and paid for it with their
own demise. Grandiose imperial plans and dreams and super weapons to
back them up are no insulation against the rest of the world determined
to resist them. That's what Yale Senior Research Scholar Immanuel Wallerstein
believes in his 2003 book The Decline of American Power. In it he said
the US "has been a fading global power since the 1970s, and the
US response to the (9/11) terrorist attacks has accelerated this decline......the
economic, political and military factors that contributed to US hegemony
are the same factors that will inexorably produce the coming US decline."
Retired professor Chalmers Johnson also predicts the dissolution of
the US empire if present trends continue. He outlines a disturbing scenario
in his 2004 book Sorrows of Empire including a "state of perpetual
war," a loss of democracy, and the US going bankrupt becase of
its inability to maintain its "grandiose military projects."
The conclusion is the US is acting recklessly and imprudently like all
other dominant empires before it and is increasingly vulnerable as a
result. It just remains for enough other nations joining together in
a common purpose for them likely to be able to achieve what they set
out to do.
It's already happening with
positive results that holds promise of resonating and inspiring others
in the developing world to join the struggle for their own rights. It
happens in schoolyards, and it's now beginning to happen in global trade.
It may just be a matter of time before the fight is carried to the larger
issues of war and peace, social equity and global justice. All that's
needed to advance the ball are a few more dedicated leaders like Hugo
Chavez and Bolivia's Evo Morales combined with enough good people acting
with courage and determination on their own behalf throughout the developing
world to spread their message of resistance, ignite it into a raging
bonfire, and extend it to others willing to join the fight for the possible
big reward of a better world. That may be happening now on the streets
of Mexico as millions there are rallying behind their candidate Lopez
Obrador so far denied by electoral fraud of the office of President
he clearly won. Win or lose, their voices are being hear in Mexico and
throughout the region. Their resonance may inspire others to battle
as courageously for the social equity and justice they too deserve.
Hugo Chavez is on a mission
to help them by trying to build unity among developing nations to "confront
the great challenges of this imperialist neo-liberal era." As part
of it, he just concluded a whirlwind tour of seven nations including
Russia, Iran, Vietnam, Belarus, Mali and Benin, and beginning August
22 he'll spend a week in China (his fourth visit there) to strike energy
and investment deals and try to build political support with this important
Asian country in need of the oil Venezuela can supply it. Chavez and
his allies know how important these alliances are, and if they can convince
enough other nations to join with them their strength in combination
may give them the power they need to challenge US dominance and end
its bullying days forever. For now it's just a glorious dream. But isn't
that the way all great social movements begin?
Stephen Lendman
lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected].
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.