A big question that has been on the minds of people here is that of the links between the WTO and Hong Kong. Perhaps this discussion is more in certain circles, but I seem to get the feeling that people are somewhat struggling to draw explicit connections between these two things and relate issues related to the WTO to the lives of people in Hong Kong.
I've been thinking about this, and personally I think there are at least three very general levels we could begin to discuss and act on this. I'd love to hear others' thoughts about these things, and if you can think of anything else...
One is the direct implications of this particular WTO ministerial in HK in December, and what will on the table at that meeting. A particular issue that could really affect us
has to do with the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), by way of which governments can 'request' other governments to 'open up' services in their countries (e.g.
health, provision of water, education, etc.) to control by transnational
corporations. The other day I went to a talk by Jane Kelsey, a WTO critic from New Zealand, who mentioned a document leaked by a
member of the EU delegation to the WTO. The EU governments' requests under
GATS are apparently outlined in this document, and they are supposedly asking
the HK government to open up the health, water provision, and electricity
sectors under their WTO commitments. So, I suppose this is one issue on one level of links, in terms of the
direct effects of the WTO on us.
However, I think it's crucial to bring up a second, wider link which has to do not so much with
effects on HK, but the role of HK in the WTO and in corporate globalization generally. After all, HK is not one of those areas of the world that was brought to adhere to a neoliberal program enforced on it by the IMF, World Bank, and WTO through debts or the threat of sanctions. Instead, participation in the spread of this program locally and globally has been quite zealously voluntary on the part of HK elites.
Jane Kelsey also mentioned that HK was part of the neoliberal vanguard of 'pure free trade' countries-
which more or less includes Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, and Chile. Since around the 1970s, elites in these countries have been quite consistently the most zealous, fundamentalist followers and supporters of the neoliberal doctrine. In turn, these countries domestically all had very aggressive programs of economic restructuring along neoliberal lines. This was particularly true after the 'collapse of
communism' and the ideological heyday of capitalism in the 1990s, a time when the
governments of these areas also became quite aggressive promoters of this
doctrine internationally, 'showing the way' by means of bilateral free trade agreements
among each other, and more recently through aggressive involvement in the WTO.
(I remember a particularly stunning example of HK's ideologically important role in global capitalism when an article in the business press mentioned the "success of the flat tax" in Hong Kong as an example of why this tax should be imposed on Iraq by the US occupation!)
In a similar vein, I suppose, a friend of mine mentioned that the issue was
probably more that Hong Kong is actually a MODEL for the WTO's global agenda,
since a lot of the neoliberal policies that the WTO promotes have already been
in place here for a long time...
So, in that light I would say that an important thing to do
is take things head on and debunk the ideology itself... to challenge the WTO as a symbol of neoliberalism and capitalism, and to
challenge the HK government's role in promoting this ideology
internationally- and doing this while challenging it as it exists here
and internationally. This is where links between these global institutions and people's lives exist in plenty.
And on a positive note in the action category, the HK People's Alliance is doing a series of community teach-ins this month, talking about the effects of neoliberal policies in HK on the streets...
The third level of links that we can't ignore has to do with the WTO and mainland China. I don't mean that so much because HK is a part of China politically, but because the HK economy is so dependent on the use of land and labor and resources in China that any discussion about the WTO and HK without this dimension would only tell a fraction of the story. Thus, the implications of capitalism and WTO membership for China need to be more fully examined. I for one don't really have a clue beyond some general, and expected observations- increases in inequality, for example, or increased migration and exploitation of migrant workers, backlashes in rural and urban areas by peasants and workers- and I don't think many people do.
The best site I've seen in English on these issues is the IHLO's site on China & The WTO. It's got some useful information, so check it out when you can.
I also think, though, that this boils down to the wider relationship between HK and mainland China, and not just on a purely economic level. One issue that has always struck me as going right to the heart of this this relationship has been the issue of the 'international border' between the two places. What a weird thing to have amidst all the state rhetoric of 'one country, two systems' (I guess the 'system' trumps the 'country' when you get your head out of the clouds)...
Anyway, this is perhaps related to capitalism in two ways... one is that in China, as people get pushed off the land by way of 'development', more people try to come to Hong Kong seeking work and a livelihood. Another is that in HK these people are subsequently regarded as undocumented by the government, and thus constitute a very marginalized, exploited sector of the population that in turn earns increased profits for their HK employers. But I'd also bring in another aspect and say that using these people and others as scapegoats bolsters the 'security' apparatus of the state in HK, and increases possibilities for domestic repression in the name of 'immigration' control.
I guess the bottom line of what I'm trying to say is, perhaps we need to look more at our own histories and current links between HK and China, and come up with ideas how this could be a different, more desirable relationship.
Some links related to the last post. Here is a report from the business press on petrol & diesel rationing in Southern China, from earlier in the month... and here's a link to the original China Daily article referenced in that piece. This section reprinted from the latter: 
