Editor in chief: Jack Clifford
Managing Editor: Jessica Blanchard
Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Room 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: ode@oregon.uoregon.edu
EDITORIAL EDITOR: MICHAEL J. KLECKNER opededitor@journalist.com
Free trade means Free reign
iL h *
w
ell, the Summit of
the Americas in Que
bec, establishing the
Free Trade Area of
the Americas, is long over. Hey
wait, did you even hear about the
gig in Quebec? Maybe you did,
but more likely you didn't. “Free
trade” supporters tried really hard
to keep it a secret. They didn't
want you to know that they now
rule the world.
Quebec's meeting was yet an
other secret tribunal to establish a
global marketplace. Concerned
citizens (the media usually calls
them “anarchists” to make you
afraid and angry) were there, but
they couldn't even slightly inter
fere with the summit, thanks to a
monstrous concrete and chain
link fence surrounding the con
vention center. As a result, the
world plunged ever further into
the dangerous, unexamined
depths of globalization.
It’s not that I'm blindly op
posed to global commerce. It's
inevitable, and it could be done
right. But here's the problem:
The toxic hot air conservatives
huff and puff regarding “free
trade” is usually technically
true, and that's how they contin
ue to lie to everyone and destroy
the world.
Corporate executives have the
media and the average citizen
convinced that opening up trade
barriers is simply about “raising
everyone's standard of living.”
More jobs, more opportunities,
everyone's happy; so goes the
propaganda. And nothing could
be further from the truth.
Yes, it is true that by expanding
international trade, we will create
new markets, sell more products
and create jobs. Yes, in some
countries where markets are
opened, the citizens fhere are hap
py to have employment. Yes, this
occasionally means things such as
running water, electricity and
some money to slowly build a bet
ter life.
I, and most thinking individu
als, wouldn't be opposed to such
scenarios. But a lot of intelligent
people (oh yeah, “anarchists”) are
upset, because a better standard of
living isn't the reason for “free
trade” pacts like the FTAA.
The real impetus for interna
tional agreements such as GATT,
NAFTA, the WTO and the FTAA
is to let businesses become the
new world government. There's
been talk in the past of expanding
the United Nations’ powers to
eventually form an international
congress. But the process is slow
(people have to vote on stuff), de
veloping coun
tries want a lot
(like to be
treated fairly),
and “externali
ties” have to be
taken into account '
(like the environ- Mfll
ment and human la
rights). That doesn't
please our friendly
corporate executives. ■
Businesses want new 1
markets, lower wages, no
environmental or labor
standards and plenty of
impoverished peasants to
take advantage of, both as
workers and consumers.
And they want it now.
Guess what? “Free-trade”
agreements give busi
nesses what they want. ^
And you, as a citizen of
a “democratic” Western ^
government, don't get to
elect anyone, you don't
have any input on the
laws and — best of
all — you can't - j
even know what j
happens at the
“legislative ses
sions.”
The governing bodies for these
“free-trade” agreements almost al
ways meet in secret. Even the
FTAA agreement itself, signed by
your president (he's not, I know),
George W. Bush, is secret. And
these secrets allow businesses to
rewrite or eliminate laws passed
by your democratically elected
representatives.
Here's a sample illustration:
Americans, rightfully concerned
about the amount of poisons re
leased into their rivers from
manufacturing, pass laws limit
ing emissions. Greed Incorporat
ed, concerned about its ability to
compete globally when compa
nies in other countries don't
have these restrictions, com
plains to the governing board of
the “free-trade” agreement. The
board decides that it's just not
fair to tell a company not to poi
son the water, so it erases the
law. Citizens don't vote on it,
there are no public hearings. It's•
simply unfair, so the law is
wiped away.
I am in favor of free trade. But
free trade should mean we raise
the standard of living around the
world. Wait, isn't that what con
servatives say we're doing? Then
why does “free trade” eliminate
environmental laws and labor
standards? Why does the WTO
(the FTAA will soon) decide that
it's OK for companies to poison
the water and exploit the workers
in Third World countries?
Corporate executives who use
“free trade” to lower the standard
of living are callous, greedy pigs.
It's the only answer. They must
have higher profits, after all, and
right now.
It s a shame that the media, the
government and corporations
keep lying to you about what “free
trade” really is. It’s too bad that
most of you don't seem to care.
Because if more responsible, car
ing citizens were paying attention,
there could have been enough
people in Quebec to rip apart the
fence of secrecy surrounding “free
trade.”
It's not that I like to see destruc
tion. It's just that something must
be done, or globalization will
keep expanding until there's no
standard of living. And when that
happens, you ' "■ £
won't even hear about it.
Michael J. Kleckner is the editorial editor
for the Oregon Daily Emerald. His views
do not necessarily represent those of the
Emerald. He can be reached at opededi
tor@journalist.com.
University’s integrity is suffering
Guest Commentary
iiillililllSll
. . -...
George
Beres
liilill
A !
±X
CC Jk rrogance” by an employee was the
phrase the University used to justify
its pursuit of women’s basketball
.coach Jody Runge that ended with her
resignation. That’s an ironic choice of language. Arro
gance seems better suited to describe the behavior of
the University administration in a variety of areas in
recent mopths.
First, the University succeeded in getting the Oregon
University System to agree that identifying major
donors to the school was no longer was necessary. That
got overturned by the state Legislature after many
newspapers complained, citing the state’s public
records law. But weeks later, coziness with the govern
ing body was revived when the OUS gave the Universi
ty permission to renege on its decision to join the
Worker Rights Consortium because — among other
things — the WRC was going too far in seeking fairness
for underpaid and mistreated workers.
Now the arbitrary behavior has spread to varsity ath
letics, adding to the unsettling signs of dogmatic arro
gance on the campus. First it was the decision to ignore
the University’s academic mission by agreeing to a De
cember date for the Civil War football game that con
cludes the 2001 season. The president of the Universi
ty Senate protested that this broke the long-standing
rule to not schedule games at the time of final examina
tions. It was the meek statement of a “toothless tiger,” •
and it resulted in a not-surprising response from the of
fice of a University vice president: “We gave the ques
tion serious consideration.” But the exception stayed
in place, he explained, because the TV money and na
tional exposure that came with the change were too
tempting to turn down.
The latest example of failing University integrity came
with the refusal to make public the independent review of
coach Runge that was used to justify her resignation.
Once again, when asked by the mass media for the report,
the vice president responded directly and bluntly: “No. ”
When told the report had to be released because of the
state public records law, the answer was that the law did
not apply because the $500,000 settlement with Runge to
get her to resign came from money raised independent of
the fiefdom of intercollegiate athletics. Conveniently ig
nored was the fact that the state of Oregon underwrites
varsity athletics at Oregon (and Oregon State and Port
land State) with an annual grant to each of about $1 mil
lion. The money comes from the state’s lottery revenues.
Captive accountants of the University might claim oth
erwise. But it is state money that made possible the mas
sive buyout, as well as the payment of $25,000 to the in
dependent reviewing agency. Without seeing the results
of the review, the public—whose taxes paid for the buy
out and the review—has no way of knowing whether
her resignation was justified, or whether it was part of a
vendetta against an outspoken woman coach.
That question becomes secondary to the major issue:
When did public universities in Oregon suddenly earn
the special privilege of secrecy that no longer makes
them accountable to the public that pays the bills?
George Beres is a former Oregon sports information director, for
mer editor of the University of Oregon faculty newsletter and for
mer manager of the University Speakers Bureau. Retired, he now
writes on the history of college sports. He can be reached at
gberes@oregon.uoregon.edu.