On Fri, 3 Dec 1999 [log in to unmask] wrote:
> >Any views on this? If anyone's interested I can pass on reports, info.
>
> Keston, I looked and found a few pretty pictures. Is that what you
> meant? Or are you referring less specifically to the whole WTO shebang?
>
> As for "credibility", one assumes that the word in that context means
> much more than simply its opposite.
>
> Best
>
> Alison
>
Hello Alison. I was not referring merely to the pictures, which I dropped
in because they were to hand. Credibility is almost a technical word and
was meant, in my note, as it is meant by policy advisors for the World
Bank and WTO: as a measure of the willingness of western companies to
invest in relatively unstable or 'illiberal' countries. As I said in that
note, I think this is a bad use of the word, since it projects the
free decision of (eg) the subcontractor onto the state under review,
turning the unwillingness of the former into some objective failure of the
latter.
Perhaps you have an insight into this protest which could explain for me
why the pictures are 'pretty'?
Yesterday Clinton signed a treaty against child labour in WTO states. The
fact that he was even able to do this shows why they are not pretty.
so earnest, k
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Alison Croggon
> Editor
> Masthead Literary Arts Magazine
> PO Box 186
> NEWPORT VIC 3015
>
> Masthead online: http://www.masthead.com.au
> Home page: http:www.fortunecity.com/victorian/bronte/338
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|