<nettime> SAND IN THE WHEELS (n°49) - ATTAC Weekly newsletter

[newsletter@attac.org]

Wednesday 20/09/00

This weekly newsletter was put together by the « Sand in the Wheels »
team of volunteers. <newsletter@attac.org> <http://attac.org>

Content

1- Alternate Euro-Summit in Biarritz
2- I, me, myself and... well the UN
3- World Bank - Global Development Gateway
4- WTO Tidbits
5- Hell's Kitchen

______________________________

1- Alternate Euro-Summit in Biarritz
____________________________________________________________

A number of citizens and associations have come together in Biarritz in
order to develop a common platform and to organise an alternative meeting
when European heads of state and prime ministers convene on 13 and 14
October.

This new collective includes:

AB, AC! Pays Basque, ATTAC Pays Basque, ATTAC 64, Coordination des Comités
de soutien aux prisonniers Basques, Eraikizan, FSU 64, Haika, LAB, LCR
Pays Basque, Les Verts Pays Basque, UL CGT Bayonne.

Call for an alternative European summit meeting in Biarritz on 13 and 14
October 2000

European heads of states and of governments convening in Nice have the
institutional and the social issues on their agenda. The Biarritz summit
meeting on 13 and 14 October is intended to prepare the debate in Nice.

On the occasion of former similar meetings in Amsterdam, Cologne and
Lisbon citizens converged to express their anger and opposition, for
Europe is currently being built through unbridled free-trade policies that
take no account of the population's actual needs. Similarly mobilisation
for the alternative summit meeting in Biarritz asserts that

The world is not for sale, and neither is Europe.

We demand that Europe be built on genuinely social policies.

Today Europe is being built on social deregulation, on a constant
challenging of acquired rights, on privatisation of public services, and
on market criteria superseding social expectations.

The truly social Europe that we demand would

- rule out unemployment, redundancies, and the precariousness engendered
by flexibility;

- guarantee a genuine social protection and a decent income to all;

- develop public services that meet people's elementary needs: health,
education, housing, water and energy supply, transport.

We demand that Europe protect the environment

The Erika catastrophe, The European directive that cancel the moratorium
on GMO farming, GM maize being imported from the United States and farmed
in the south-west of France are as many pieces of evidence that Europe
currently participates in the degradation of the environment.

We demand that Europe:

- show due suspicion towards GMO, food imports and the merchandising of
living organisms;

- move away from a productivism which results in destroying the
environment (transport, farming, power plants, etc.): environmental
standards and measures to be taken in order to redefine and diversify the
production of energy have to discussed in the open ;

- develop its resources so as to break away from a traditional and
essentially unequal development, with rural areas being deserted and towns
overcrowded.

We demand that Europe stand for fundamental human rights both for
individuals and for associations.

In our times of globalisation free circulation is guaranteed for
everything, except for human beings. Europe does not respect the right of
asylum. Many companies ignore trade union rights. In France parliamentary
inquiries have revealed that living conditions in prisons are an insult to
human dignity. In the Basque country in particular demonstrations for
political prisoners have brought to light a policy of systematic removal
of prisoners from the area where their relatives live.

We demand:

- the improvement of living conditions in prisons and an end to this
removal policy;

- the regularisation of illegal immigrants ('Without Papers');

- the right to vote for immigrants;

- more rights for the trade unions;

- the implementation of policies against racism and sexism.

We demand a democratic Europe of the peoples.

All peoples in Europe have a right to develop their minority cultures and
to have their languages officially recognised.

European institutions are being discussed within the European Union which
so far has paid little attention to expectations of peoples.

We want Europe to serve its inhabitants. All peoples have a right to
self-determination. Peoples, not only heads of governments must decide on
what relations they wish to develop among themselves on the European
stage.

We demand that Europe feel committed to help people in poor countries.

On the surface of the globe today 200 individuals have as much as 2,5
billions of human beings; poverty is spreading not only in the South and
in the East but also in rich countries.

Every country has a right to choose its mode of development and expect
international support.

In order to fight inequalities we demand:

- the cancellation of external debts in Third World countries;

- the implementation of the Tobin Tax and the suppression of tax havens;

- transparency and citizens' control on world organisations such as WTO
and IMF;

- the opening of the European Union to whatever country wants to join
without any discrimination;

- free access to health and education.

The present platform has been backed by:

AC! National, APEIS, ATTAC 64, CDDHPB, C.E.S.P.R.I.M.E.R. Pays Basque,
Corrent Revolucinari OCcitan, DAL Pays Basque, DAL National, ELB, Gauche
Socialiste République Sociale, LCR, Les Marches Européennes, MNCP.

For more information, please email to : pays.basque@attac.org Translation:
Christine Pagnoulle, Volunteer Translator coorditrad@attac.org


______________________________

2- I, me, myself and... well the UN
____________________________________________________________

Reproduced without any further comments...

WHY THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT OWE DUES TO THE UNITED NATIONS (House of
Representatives - September 18, 2000)

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk for a few minutes
this evening about U.N. dues. I am not going to talk about the proposal of
the U.N. to levy taxes on the countries of the world, including ours,
which frightens a number of our people. Indeed, that is frightening. I am
not going to talk about the proposal that the U.N. have its own army, and
I know that there are those and some of them from our country in the past
and at present who genuinely feel that the world would be a safer place if
the U.N. had the largest army in the world and, therefore, could keep the
peace. I am frightened by that prospect, and I know a number of our people
are.

I am not going to talk about U.N. resolutions which once they are made
have the effect of law, which have the effect of setting our laws aside
and actually sometimes have the effect of setting our Constitution aside.
Of course, that should be unthinkable but it has happened and we need to
talk about that, but I am not going to talk about that because I am sure
that others will this evening.

I am also not going to talk about whether the U.N. is effective or not,
whether it really meets the promise that we held for the U.N. when it was
established a number of years ago. I am not going to talk about whether
the U.N. should be expanded or not. I understand they want 10 new floors
on their building. They are already a monstrous bureaucracy. I am not sure
being a bigger one would make them more effective.

I am not going to talk either about whether it is in our vital national
security interests to continue to be a part of the U.N. That needs to be
debated. I hope it will be debated across the countries; and others, this
evening, I am sure will cover that subject. I am also not going to talk
about whether 25 percent dues and 31.5 percent for peacekeeping is a fair
share for the United States. I do not think we have 25 percent of the vote
or 31.5 percent of the vote. As a matter of fact, when one looks at our
vote, the U.N. has threatened to remove our vote because we have not paid
our dues; that is, our vote in the General Assembly.

Let us just look at that vote for a moment and what it would mean if we
did not have a vote in the General Assembly. We have less than 1 percent
of the vote cast in the General Assembly, and there are a number of
countries, we could easily name 15 or 20 countries, that if we vote yes
they vote no and some of those countries have less citizens than the
District of Columbia, and so they can cancel our vote in the U.N. What
does our vote mean in the General Assembly?

It means very little, obviously, if it can be cancelled by a half dozen
countries that have no more population than the District of Columbia.

The only vote in the U.N. that has any importance for us is our vote on
the Security Council of the U.N. and they cannot remove that vote for not
paying dues.

What I do want to talk about is a lonely fight that I waged here for
several years to keep us from paying dues that we had already paid a
number of times over. What I am talking about is the enormous cost of
peacekeeping operations which we have borne. Three agencies of the
government have looked at these costs, the CRS, Congressional Research
Service; GAO, the Government Accounting Office; and the Pentagon.

They have all reached essentially the same conclusions, that we have spent
about $19 billion on peacekeeping activities since 1992. Now, we have been
credited with $1.8 billion of that against U.N. dues, so a precedent has
already been made, that if we spend money on an authorized U.N.
peacekeeping activity that those monies that we have spent there are in
lieu of dues; that is, they could replace dues. They only did that,
though, with $1.8 billion. There is about another $17 billion that is
still out there that we have received no credit for.

All I wanted was a very simple thing, which was an accounting of the dues
that we owe. I was not arguing whether 25 percent was too much or 31
percent of peacekeeping was too much; my only argument was that we needed
to get credit for what we have spent on legitimate peacekeeping
activities. I think that most Americans when they hear that argument say,
well, of course, it makes sense, that if we are sending our military
there, if we are using our resources there in the pursuit of a U.N.
resolution, an authorized U.N. activity, that we should be given credit
for the monies that we spend doing that. We have been given credit for
$1.8 billion, but what about the other roughly $17 billion?

Mr. Speaker, that needs to be accounted for before we pay another dime in
U.N. dues.

END


______________________________

3- World Bank - Global Development Gateway
____________________________________________________________

Below is an open letter to World Bank President Wolfensohn explaining the
concerns of many researchers and NGOs about the Bank's plans to develop a
major (60 million dollars over 3 years) internet initiative, supposedly
involving civil society as a key partner.

The World Bank is planning a major sales pitch for its Gateway plans at
its Prague Annual Meetings starting next week. The Bank's Gateway team is
claiming that just a few European malcontents still have problems with the
plans and so the Bank should move full steam ahead. If civil society
groups worldwide do not express their reservations/opposition clearly now,
the Gateway is likely to eclipse the independent web initiatives many of
us are involved in.

Undoubtedly some would phrase this stronger and some slightly weaker, this
aims to be quite neutrally-phrased to get a good, quick, range of
signatures. It does not aim to change Wolfensohn's mind but act as a
public statement.

** The final letter, plus signatories, will be posted on the Bretton Woods
Project website next week and circulated at the Prague meetings.**

FURTHER INFO/LINKS For official information about the Gateway plans, see:
www.worldbank.org/gateway For a civil society discussion on the Gateway
(where many of the letter's points are discussed), see:
www.bellanet.org/gdgprinciples Throughout October the Bank will hold an
electronic consultation on the Gateway on: www.worldbank.org/devforum

Alex Wilks, Bretton Woods Project, UK [The Bretton Woods Project works
with NGOs and researchers to monitor the World Bank and IMF. See:
www.brettonwoodsproject.org]

 Open joint letter of concern about the Global Development Gateway

19 September 2000

Dear Mr Wolfensohn,

The Bank, under your direction, is developing a major new internet
initiative which aims to become "the premier web entry point for
information about poverty and sustainable development". To achieve this it
would need to include all shades of opinion and be a broad,
multi-stakeholder initiative, including civil society. Many civil society
groups, including the undersigned, have held discussions with the Bank and
among themselves about the Gateway.

We are writing to inform you that many of the major issues we have raised
have not been addressed. It seems, especially from the report "Global
Development Gateway Issues Identified During Consultations" recently
produced by the Bank's Gateway team, that you and the Bank's Board may
have been misinformed about the extent and nature of civil society
concerns and our disappointment in the Bank's response.

These concerns are not only serious in how they relate to the missed
opportunity of the Gateway, but also because they have the potential to
confuse potential funders, people asked to be Topic Guides, site visitors,
and many others. It is not the case that, as hinted in the above report of
the consultations, that these views are only held by opponents of the
World Bank or groups based in Europe. In fact a wide range of NGOs,
academics and also officials are extremely sceptical about the initiative.

Among the key problems identified with the Bank's Gateway plans are:

1) insufficient independence of Gateway governance.  The Gateway global
and national governance structures do not adequately protect civil society
interests. Whilst an independent foundation has been established, the
constitution of the Board and Advisory Committee do not give grounds for
confidence that the Gateway will be truly independent of the Bank,
national governments and big business. Particular concerns are the role of
the Bank in making appointments relating to the Global Gateway,
governments' leading roles in Country Gateways and companies's ability to
buy Gateway Board membership (and "co-branding" opportunities) with annual
payments of a million dollars. Creating a nominally independent entity has
thus not solved the acute accountability issues around the Gateway, issues
which are very sensitive in portal development, essentially an editorial
activity similar to publishing newspapers.

2) alternative design options rejected. Very early in discussions about
the Gateway a number of civil society groups suggested an alternative
design approach which would use the latest spidering software to allow
distributed, user-driven topic aggregation. This would overcome the
difficulties of the chosen Gateway design which gives power and impossible
judgements to individual editors, and empower groups across the world to
post and group information according to their needs. Yet the Gateway still
favours a vertical, edited approach which will cause many problems of
credibility and useability.

3) communication/consultation insufficient.  Whilst there have been a
number of consultation exercises, it appears that the Bank has
overemphasised the production of pilot sites and fundraising rather than
communicating with diverse audiences about the GDG's intentions and what
might best meet their needs. Many important groups still know nothing
about the Gateway and many who do have tabled questions which have not
been answered.

4) overambition and unfair competition; The Gateway, whilst based on good
intentions to increase coordination of web activity, is too ambitious and
cannot meet all of its goals. At the same time its huge budget (60 million
dollars over three years) and marketing reach are likely to have huge
opportunity costs for the many existing and planned portal ventures in
this area. It is not appropriate for the heavily subsidized Gateway to
compete with these (for profit and non-profit) initiatives, including in
many of the "pilot" countries. This approach clearly contradicts normal
World Bank policy advice.

At present, because of the above concerns and others, it is unlikely that
a Civil Society Committee for the Gateway will be formed soon, despite two
months of discussion about it. In fact a large number of civil society
groups are likely to continue with independent initiatives to improve
electronic information coordination rather than join the Gateway.

We ask you to provide full responses to the above points as soon as
possible.

Yours sincerely,

INITIAL SIGNATORIES

Alex Wilks, Bretton Woods Project, UK

Lawrence Surendra, environmental economist, India, formerly Director,
Asian Regional Exchange for New Alternatives

Roberto Bissio, Executive Director, Third World Institute, Uruguay

Mark Lynas, UK Editor, Oneworld.net


______________________________

4- WTO Tidbits
____________________________________________________________

"My conclusion is that launching a new round is getting extremely
difficult, and could only come about if permanent pressure on governments
evoked the political will necessary to take a stand on sensitive areas."
(Mike Moore, Conference given with the support of the Kansas City Fed.,
August 2000).

The WTO complains about the UN report describing it as "a nightmare".

The Vice-President of the WTO complained about the terms, the methodology
and the principal conclusions of the report.  He recalled that at the WTO
all decisions are taken by consensus, and that 2/3 of the members are from
developing countries.  He expressed surprise that the WTO had not been
consulted during the preparation of the report, and proposed an informal
meeting with the two authors.  Replying, the High Commission on Human
Rights stressed that the report came from two independent experts and was
under examination.

Does the new South American Free Trade Area represent a threat to the
future FTAA?

The 10 countries of the South Cone of America, including the Mercosur
countries (Brazil, Argentine, Uruguay and Paraguay; Bolivia and Chile
being associates) and those of the Andine Community (Venezuela, Colombia,
Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia) have indicated in a joint communiqué their
ambition to achieve a single free trade area uniting the two blocks,
starting from January 2002. President Cardoso of Brazil declared that the
countries of the regiion were not prepared to open their economies any
further unless negotiations afforded them better access to the rich
countries, whose protectionism has been cruelly felt by Latin American
economies.  The trade authorities have been trying to quell fears that
this regional integration might appear as a threat to the future FTAA
(Free Trade Area of the Americas), which should cover the whole of the two
hemispheres and be launched in 2005.  The development of infrastructures
in this area where considerable geographical barriers will need to be
overcome is a particular concern in this agreement - a fact which has
alarmed environmentalists, who fear over-exploitation of the regions's
natural riches and biodiversity. Incidentally, Mexico, which is already a
member of ALENA, wishes to strengthen its links with its Southern
neighbours, especially in political, cultural and strategic areas.

Agreement on TRIPs (Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property rights)

After a visit from Mr Moore, the military government of Pakistan announced
that it had finalized the text of its Patents Law.  Mr Moore had assured
the Pakistani government that financial aid would be forthcoming to help
build up the country's capacity to implement WTO agreements. Local NGOs
demand that civil society be given a bigger part in the process, since
these laws could affect supply of foodstuffs and make the price of
essential medicines prohibitive.  In the meantime, the US has indicated
that, although it would not oppose re-opening discussions on TRIPs, its
main concern would be to make sure other countries honour their pledges on
this subject. It is true that developing countries are pushing to obtain a
revision of these agreements - a revision which would redress serious and
widely-noted inconsistencies with regard to the development objectives of
the Uruguay Round.

Whale war between the US and Japan

The US has threatened to boycott a certain number of international
meetings and to apply trade sanctions to Japan, which has just recommenced
whale hunting in the North-West Pacific. The US President can impose
sanctions on countries violating the rules of the IWC (International Whale
Commission) or the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species. These penalties could touch a large number of Japanese sea
products, imported into the United States to the tune of about 800 million
dollars per year. However, to become effective, they need to be
"sanctioned by the GATT". Although the whale hunting is claimed to have a
"scientific aim", the sale of whale meat, after the research laboratories
finished with it, brought in 6.7 million dollars to the Japanese
government in 1998.

Mexico loses its case in a dispute on dangerous products, brought before
ALENA

For the first time since the creation of ALENA, a private company has won
its case in a dispute with a foreign government.  This US company,
Metalclad Co., has been able to obtain 16.7 million dollars in
compensation from the Mexican government (instead of the 90 demanded). The
government of a regional State had refused to allow the company to exploit
the site of a local discharge for contaminated waste. The Mexicans pleaded
that, although Metalclad had obtained permission to buy the land on
condition it got rid of the waste, this permission was withdrawn when it
decided to enlarge the site, and when complaints about infant sickness
poured in from the local population. Subsequently, the site had been
transformed into an ecological reserve by the State government. As
compensation, the ALENA tribunal only accorded the company the real costs
of its original investment. But this case can have repercussions in other
prosecutions for expropriation. For instance, Methanex, a Canadian
company, is suing the US for prohibiting MTBE, a methanol-based petroleum
additive.  SD Mayers, a US manufacturer of PCB, is suing the Canadians for
their ban on PCB.  In the meantime, Greenpeace and the Bâle Action Group
have demanded that Canada put a total stop to imports of PCB from the US,
in conformity with the Bâle Convention (which provides that these products
should not be imported to countries in which the "necessary technical
capacities and facilities" are not available). This caution comes after
the US mission of the Logistics Agency of the Defense Ministry was sent to
Canada last month to study the possibility. Different Canadian authorities
(Ontario, the Port of Vancouver and the Ministry of Environment) have
already rejected the prospect.

Meeting of a FAO contact group on plant genetic resources

The session has laid foundations upon which, in harmony with the
Convention on Biodiversity, technical elements could be provided for WTO
discussions on the TRIPs concerning plant genetic resources in food and
agriculture (PGRFA).  This group (of which Brazil, Canada, China, Japan,
Malaysia and the USA are not members) has the aim of ensuring that plant
genetic resources (especially those of economic importance in the present
or the future) are explored, collected, preserved, estimated, used and
made available for scientific purposes.

The inclusion of a "safeguard clause" regarding intellectual property
rights - which would make the FAO committee subject to already existing
international agreements, such as the WTO rules - gave rise to a sharp
debate in the group, and its conclusions still have to be discussed before
the scheduled final date, fixed at November, 2000, for the 119th FAO
Council.  The biggest obstacle to be surmounted before that date is the
finalization of the list of crops covered by what is called the
"Multilateral System", to facilitate access to the PGRFA.

Work group "International Treaties", omc.marseille@attac.org Wherever you
are, you can help the work of this group. Just contact it. Translation:
Barbara Strauss newsletter@attac.org


______________________________

5- Hell's Kitchen
____________________________________________________________

That's the WTO Dispute Settlement Body. Not only we don't know who are
sitting in the panels, not only the whole procedure is obscure, not only
its judgments affect our lives directly, not only the civil society is put
aside completely, not only their decision is final with no possible
appeal, not only the WTO because of this Body at work and without formal
democratic decision has set a somewhat international court of justice that
far exceed the boundaries of "commerce", not only the same body has in its
own hands the judicial, legal and executive powers, not only a review of
the consequences is not possible... not only do we hear from time to time
a settlement issued, but the kitchen is full and many pots are cooking.

Just to have a chance to grasp a sense of the reality of this not enough
publicized body and to say the least his lack of transparency, here is the
full list of what's is cooking today. I guess no need to comment
further... it goes everywhere! But they have a technique: liberalization.
Just one recipe for a lot of dishes... Careful you might eat one of them!

"The WTO's procedure for resolving trade quarrels under the Dispute
Settlement Understanding is vital for enforcing the rules and therefore
for ensuring that trade flows smoothly." (WTO website)

ACTIVE PANELS

European Communities - Measures Affecting the Prohibition of Asbestos and
Asbestos Products, complaint by Canada (WT/DS135). // Australia - Measures
Affecting the Importation of Salmonids, complaint by the United States
(WT/DS21). // Argentina - Measures on the Export of Bovine Hides and the
Import of Finished Leather, complaint by the European Communities
(WT/DS155). // Argentina - Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear,
complaint by the United States (WT/DS164/1). // Guatemala - Definitive
Anti-dumping Measure regarding Grey Portland Cement from Mexico, complaint
by Mexico (WT/DS156). // European Communities - Anti-Dumping Duties on
Imports of Cotton-Type Bed-Linen from India, complaint by India
(WT/DS141/1). // (a) United States - Safeguard Measure on Imports of
Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb from New Zealand, complaint by New Zealand
(WT/DS177/1). // (b) United States - Safeguard Measure on Imports of Lamb
Meat from Australia, complaint by Australia (WT/DS178/1). // Thailand -
Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles, Shapes and Sections of Iron or Non-Alloy
Steel; H-Beams from Poland, complaint by Poland (WT/DS122/1). // United
States - Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils and
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Korea, complaint by Korea (WT/DS179).
// United States - Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel
Products from Japan, complaint by Japan (DS184/1). // Nicaragua - Measures
Affecting Imports from Honduras and Colombia (I), complaint by Colombia
(WT/DS188/1). // United States - Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed
Cotton Yarn from Pakistan, complaint by Pakistan (DS192/1). // India -
Measures Relating to Trade and Investment in the Motor Vehicle Sector,
complaint by the United States (WT/DS175/1) // United States - Measures
Treating Export Restraints As Subsidies, complaint by Canada (WT/DS194/1).

PENDING CONSULTATIONS (most recent listed first)

Mexico - Measures Affecting Telecommunications Services, complaint by the
United States (WT/DS204/1). // Mexico - Measures Affecting Trade in Live
Swine, complaint by the United States (WT/DS203/1 // United States -
Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon Quality
Line Pipe from Korea, complaint by Korea (WT/DS202/1 // Nicaragua -
Measures Affecting Imports from Honduras and Colombia (II), request by
Honduras (WT/DS201/1). // United States - Section 306 of the Trade Act of
1974 and Amendments Thereto, complaint by the European Communities
(WT/DS200/1) // Brazil - Measures Affecting Patent Protection, complaint
by the United States (WT/DS199/1). // Romania - Measures on Minimum Import
Prices, complaint by the United States (WT/DS198/1) // Brazil - Measures
on Minimum Import Prices, complaint by the United States (WT/DS197/1) //
Argentina - Certain Measures on the Protection of Patents and Test Data,
complaint by the United States (WT/DS196/1). // Philippines - Measures
Affecting Trade and Investment in the Motor Vehicle Sector, complaint by
the United States (WT/DS195/1) // Chile - Measures Affecting the Transit
and Importation of Swordfish, complaint by the European Communities
(WT/DS193/1) // Ecuador - Definitive Anti-Dumping Measure on Cement from
Mexico, complaint by Mexico (DS191/1). // Argentina - Definitive
Anti-Dumping Measures on Carton-Board Imports from Germany and Definitive
Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of Ceramic Floor Tiles from Italy,
complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS189/1). // Trinidad and Tobago
- Provisional Anti-Dumping Measure on Macaroni and Spaghetti from Costa
Rica, complaint by Costa Rica (WT/DS187/1) // United States - Section 337
of the Tariff Act of 1930 and amendments thereto, complaint by the
European Communities and their member States (WT/DS186/1). // Trinidad and
Tobago - Certain Measures Affecting Imports of Pasta from Costa Rica,
complaint by Costa Rica (DS185/1). // Brazil - Measures on Import
Licensing and Minimum Import Prices, complaint by the European Communities
(DS183/1) // United States - Reclassification of Certain Sugar Syrups,
complaint by Canada (DS 180/1) // United States - Section 211 Omnibus
Appropriations Act, complaint by the European Communities and its member
States (WT/DS176/1). // European Communities - Protection of Trademarks
and Geographical Indications for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs,
complaint by the United States (WT/DS174/1). // (a) European Communities -
Measures Relating to the Development of a Flight Management System,
complaint from the United States (WT/DS172/1). // (b) France - Measures
Relating to the Development of a Flight Management System, complaint by
the United States (WT/DS173/1) // Argentina - Patent Protection for
Pharmaceuticals and Test Data Protection for Agricultural Chemicals,
complaint by the United States (WT/DS171/1) // South Africa - Anti-dumping
Duties on the Import of Certain Pharmaceutical Products from India,
complaint by India (WT/DS168/1). // United States - Countervailing Duty
Investigation with respect to Live Cattle from Canada, complaint by Canada
(WT/DS167/1) // Hungary - Safeguard Measure on Imports of Steel Products
from the Czech Republic, complaint by the Czech Republic (WT/DS159/1). //
European Communities- Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of
Bananas II, complaint by Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, and the
United States (WT/DS158/1). // Argentina - Anti-Dumping Measures on
Imports of Drill Bits from Italy, complaint from the European
Communities.(WT/DS157/1). // European Communities - Measures Affecting
Differential and Favourable Treatment of Coffee, complaint by Brazil
(WT/DS154/1). // European Communities - Patent Protection for
Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Products, complaint by Canada
(WT/DS153/1). // India - Measures Affecting Custom Duties, complaint by
the European Communities (WT/DS150/1) // India - Import Restrictions,
complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS149) // Czech Republic -
Measure Affecting Import Duty on Wheat from Hungary, complaint from
Hungary (WT/DS148/1) // Japan - Tariff Quotas and Subsidies Affecting
Leather, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS147/1). // India -
Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector, complaint by the European
Communities (WT/DS146/1). // Argentina - Countervailing Duties on Imports
of Wheat Gluten from the European Communities, complaint by the European
Communities (WT/DS145/1). // United States - Certain Measures Affecting
the Import of Cattle, Swine and Grain from Canada, complaint by Canada
(WT/DS144/1). // Slovak Republic - Measure Affecting Import Duty on Wheat
from Hungary, complaint from Hungary (WT/DS143/1) // European Communities
- Measures Affecting Imports of Wood of Conifers from Canada, complaint by
Canada (WT/DS137/1) // European Communities - Measures Affecting Import
Duties on Rice, complaint by India (DS134) // Slovak Republic - Measures
Concerning the Importation of Dairy Products and the Transit of Cattle,
complaint by Switzerland (WT/DS133/1). // France - Certain Income Tax
Measures Constituting Subsidies, complaint by the United States
(WT/DS131/1). // Greece - Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting
Subsidies, complaint by the United States (WT/DS129/1). // Netherlands -
Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies, complaint by the
United States (WT/DS128/1) // Belgium - Certain Income Tax Measures
Constituting Subsidies, complaint by the United States (WT/DS127/1). //
(a) European Communities - Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights for
Motion Pictures and Television Programs, complaint by the United States
(WT/DS124/1). // (b) Greece - Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights
for Motion Pictures and Television Programs, complaint by the United
States (WT/DS125/1). // Argentina - Safeguard Measures on Imports of
Footwear, complaint by Indonesia (WT/DS123/1) // India - Measures
Affecting Export of Certain Commodities, complaint by the European
Communities (WT/DS120/1). // United States - Harbour Maintenance Tax,
complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS118/1). // Canada - Measures
Affecting Film Distribution Services, complaint by the European
Communities (WT/DS117/1) // Brazil - Measures Affecting Payment Terms for
Imports, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS116/1). // Peru -
Countervailing Duty Investigation against Imports of Buses from Brazil,
complaint by Brazil (WT/DS112/1). // United States - Tariff Rate Quota for
Imports of Groundnuts, complaint by Argentina (WT/DS111/1). // Chile -
Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, complaint by the United States (WT/DS109/1).
// Pakistan - Export Measures Affecting Hides and Skins (WT/DS107/1) //
European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution
of Bananas (WT/DS105/1) // Mexico - Anti-Dumping Investigation of
High-Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) from the United States, complaint by the
United States (WT/DS101/1) // United States - Measures Affecting Imports
of Poultry Products, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS100/1) //
United States - Countervailing Duty Investigation of Imports of Salmon
from Chile, complaint by Chile (WT/DS97/1) // Denmark - Measures Affecting
the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, complaint by the United
States (WT/DS83/1) // (a) Ireland - Measures Affecting the Grant of
Copyright and Neighbouring Rights, complaint by the United States
(WT/DS82/1) // (b) European Communities - Measures Affecting the Grant of
Copyright and Neighbouring Rights, complaint by the United States
(WT/DS115/1) // Belgium - Measures Affecting Commercial Telephone
Directory Services, complaint by the United States (WT/DS80/1) // United
States - Safeguard Measure Against Imports of Broom Corn Brooms, complaint
by Colombia (WT/DS78/1) // Canada - Measures Affecting the Export of
Civilian Aircraft, complaint by Brazil (WT/DS71) // Japan - Measures
Affecting Imports of Pork, complaint by the European Communities,
(WT/DS66) // United States - Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of Solid
Urea from the Former German Democratic Republic, complaint by the European
Communities (WT/DS63) // United States - Import Prohibition of Certain
Shrimp and Shrimp Products, complaint by the Philippines (WT/DS61).  //
Mexico - Customs Valuation of Imports, complaint by the European
Communities (WT/DS53) // (a) Brazil - Certain Automotive Investment
Measures, complaint by Japan (WT/DS51). // (b) Brazil - Certain Measures
Affecting Trade and Investment in the Automotive Sector, complaint by the
United States (WT/DS52) // (d) Brazil - Measures Affecting Trade and
Investment in the Automotive Sector, complaint by the European Communities
(WT/DS81/1) // Japan - Measures Affecting Distribution Services, complaint
by the United States (WT/DS45) // Brazil - Countervailing Duties on
Imports of Desiccated Coconut and Coconut Milk Powder from Sri Lanka,
complaint by Sri Lanka (WT/DS30) // (a) Turkey - Restrictions on Imports
of Textile and Clothing Products, complaint by Hong Kong (WT/DS29) // (b)
Turkey - Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products,
complaint by Thailand (WT/DS47) // (a) Korea - Measures Concerning the
Testing and Inspection of Agricultural Products, complaint by the United
States (WT/DS3) // (b) Korea - Measures Concerning Inspection of
Agricultural Products, complaint by the United States (WT/DS41)






#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net