Corporatism Is an Ideology. in This Regard It

KC & Associates On Corporatism

By Craig B Hulet

Corporatism is an ideology. In this regard it is not unlike any other secular religion. It too has its Priests and flock, its missionary zeal, its Jesuits and Scribes, and its strength comes from the masses’ collective will to adhere to its doctrines. What is less understood by most, if not all of its adherents is that it is a religion. And every religion becomes tyrannical in its own defense when it is threatened. The time it takes for Corporazione to become established on a Global scale remains the only open question; Globalization is Corporatism’s means to its own end. Its strategy is interdependence.

KC & Associates P.O. Box 710, Amanda Park, WA 98526 (360) 288-2652 National Treatment and The World Trade Organization Ralph Nader’s Endorsement By Craig B Hulet

Whenever we speak to the issues of world trade and world finance, we are speaking of National Treatment as defined within every International Governing Organization (IGO). National Treatment is the cornerstone of every Agreement. National Treatment is the very foundation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and National Treatment was the centerpiece of the former Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI).

When we discover the definition of National Treatment in legal terminology within these agreements we find the following:

Each Contracting Party (each Nation-State) shall accord to investors of another Contracting Party and to their investments, treatment no less favorable than the treatment it accords to its own investors and their investments with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, operation, management, maintenance, use, enjoyment, and sale or other disposition of investments.

Definitions include language that specifically accords investors:... the better of the treatment, whichever is the more favorable to those investors or investments. Now this is crucial to any understanding of these agreements like the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which is now the WTO, and any MAI type agreement.

Further understanding what is defined as investor itself is of some importance: This definition includes the obvious... the natural person, the flesh and blood person that might invest in some country that is a signatory to these agreements and international bodies. But it also includes the following:

...a legal person or any other entity constituted or organised under the applicable law of a Contracting Party, whether or not for profit, (I repeat, whether or not for Profit), and whether private or government owned or controlled, and includes a corporation, a trust, partnership, sole proprietorship, joint venture, association or organization.

I am not going to focus on the further implications covering where these investors might invest in each of the nation-state's, or Contracting Party's, territory, land, internal waters etc., ... as we get the picture: wherever and whatever they choose to invest in, is the point.

They may buy public utilities, media outlets, technology firms, and automobile manufacturers. All they need is their Paperwork in order. For those bored with this most important element of these agreements and their consequences I shall say it in plain English: The Ford Motor Company shall be treated as a full citizen of each of the 130 nations it invests in, with all the often hard fought rights and hard fought privileges of each natural person of that country. The paper person of Ford Motor Company becomes the operative flesh and blood citizen of any country it invests in. The paper person of any tax-exempt non- governmental organization like, say, the Ford Foundation, becomes the operative flesh and blood citizen of any country it operates in. The Paper Person is treated "the better" or most favored, wherever National Treatment is defined within the respective agreements.

Corporatism and the Corporate State never implied Democracy. The corporations, whether for profit, like Ford, or not for profit, like Ford, becomes the only true global citizens. And Ford, the former, and Ford the latter, become the true sovereigns.

This sovereignty and let us be clear here ...this power, and this is about power, exceeds even the expectations of Henry Ford himself. When, of the 100 largest economies of the world, 51 are corporations, we all must see the importance of this transformation. When, 45 percent of all global trade is intra-firm trade, between Ford of Detroit and Ford of Bonn, not between countries at all, the consequences are clear.

This is not about trade between countries as is so often thought when National Treatment is treated in the media, if it is treated at all. National Treatment in these agreements is about one thing ...one thing, Power, and therefore sovereignty. Just as progress has always been about one thing ...one thing, Progress for whom?

One must be dismayed by what has gone on in this country, in the media, in the House of Representatives, regarding this most fundamental transformation of our own country and its sovereign people and its sovereign representatives. Congress is not authorized to delegate these powers to the WTO, and rest assured, PNTR's passage under H.R. 4444, (Permanent Normal Trade Relations) in behalf of China (and Ford), was always the necessary step to bringing China into the WTO's Protocol of Accession, with full standing in world trade. Even while it has, at this writing, not been passed in the Senate under S-2277, the Clinton Administration’s negotiators are pressing for China’s accession into the world body before the end of the year 2000; ignoring the Senate vote altogether and granting China accession may not be entirely illegal but once again, under our tattered Constitution only the Congress may negotiate trade with foreign nations.

China receives National Treatment just like Ford. China's publicly owned or controlled entities become American citizens in America just like Ford shall become a Chinese citizen in China. Both become sovereign global citizens over and above the less well treated citizens of each other's nations. Once China begins the process to gain its Protocol of Accession to the World Trade Organization, it can easily soften or ignore the provisions as the WTO body itself and has yet to agree to any such additional encumbrances. In fact, the terminology throughout the text of H.R. 4444 was this: WTO Members this, WTO members that ...wherever there exists each and every dispute.

A quote from the text:

Under TITLE IV, Subtitle A, Review of Membership of the People's Republic of China in the WTO...under Sec. 401. REVIEW WITHIN THE WTO - It shall be the objective of the United States to obtain as part of the Protocol of Accession of the People's Republic of China to the WTO, an annual review within the WTO of the compliance by the PRC with its terms of accession to the TWO. (This appeared in both H.R. 4444 & S-2277) Everywhere in the media, now, after the vote, we read that what China is really interested in is importing U.S. investment, not U.S. goods. And of course we knew this going all the way back to the early 1990s when China was the leading borrower at the World Bank during 1992 and 1993 and other years as well. The United States has, since 1992, been the number three or four supplier of Foreign Direct Investment in China from the private sector, behind Hong Kong, Taiwan and Japan.

In the most recent issue of The National Interest Zbigniew Brzezinski would go even further: Knowing H.R. 4444 passed even before the vote was in, (the journal had already gone to press) Brzezinski is even now calling for China to be brought into the G-8 (formerly the G-7 until Russia gained a place) making it the G-9. After admitting that "the forum is no longer a forum for democracies nor a conclave of the most advanced economies," since the inclusion of Russia, quoting Brzeznski further, then

Similar political expediency, therefore, should dictate the inclusion of the economically much more dynamic China, with the G-9 thereby becoming a more genuine global power forum. That would propitiate China's quest for status while also enhancing its stake in the emerging global system.

Corporatism and especially global corporatism never implied democracy, as I have stated often. And here we have it made clear. And let us make this clear to those 237 China lobbyists that voted for H.R. 4444 - the WT0 and the G-9 are about power not freedom, power not democracy, power not trade. The WTO will clearly enhance the power of some at the risk of others. U.S. private banks and all lending institutions will gain further access to the lucrative investment opportunities. The multinational corporations shall gain immensely as shall their stockholders.

We must draw further attention to the notion of National Treatment for the multinational corporations, which, as I shall point out below, even Ralph Nader and Lori Wallach of Public Citizen unwisely and irresponsibly defend. Only by denying National Treatment to these same corporations, which would de-fang this supposedly evil menace, in Nader's and Wallach's view, could Wallach and Nader effectively put forward any proper argument against Corporatism and its global base, the WTO. What of the American citizen? the American worker? From the U.S. News and World Report, which also declared victory before the votes were cast (even to correctly predicting the Ayes at 237, though they missed the nays by only four), and bears repeating: "China is more interested in importing U.S. investment, not U.S. goods."

Investment in China, and there is more Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) going to China now than anywhere in the world, which may go somewhat to explain their 70 billion dollar trade surplus with the United States, and explain their booming economy while not even one percentage point can point to gains for American workers. It does not take a genius to understand what happens when three quarters of a billion (of the 1.3 billion population) brand new fresh faced young Chinese enter the international labor pool, and they will not be working at AFL/CIO wage levels Mr. Sweeney, but ordered to work. They will work in industries in China, financed by western investment in China, producing products in China, manufacturing American multinational corporation's products in China; so Chinese enterprises, joint ventured with American firms, can sell what they made to Americans. Their labor pool is easily twice the size of the entire United States population. That is if we add our aging population and our wee toddlers, who are today begging Grandparents to buy them stuffed animals made in China. Nader and Wallach: The Artful Deceit

And where were the protests against Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China? Where was the protest that passing nondiscriminatory status meant nothing whatsoever unless and until China is granted its Protocol of Accession into the WTO? There was none because nobody actually read the infamous H.R. 4444. Not even the Avant Guard of the progressive left that protested the WTO in Seattle and Washington D.C.

When Ralph Nader's band leader Lori Wallach of Public Citizen was interviewed by the journal Foreign Policy she was asked this question: “You want to prevent China from joining the WTO"? - Her answer?

No. Basically, our goal is to prevent the granting by the United States of permanent most- favored-nation trading status to China.

So Nader and Wallach want China in the WTO but they do not want China to receive permanent nondiscriminatory trade status. Their argument is so convoluted it is no wonder Nader & Co. disappeared during the last few weeks before the vote, ending any lobbying efforts against H.R. 4444. They could not oppose PNTR without interfering with China's guaranteed accession into the WTO, the quid pro quo of H.R. 4444. It seems Nader may have read the bill after all, but failed to get Wallach a copy before her self-aggrandizing ambitious interview with Foreign Policy. I say that because Nader's other group Global Trade Watch and its Deputy Director, Michael Dolan, opposed House Joint Resolution 90, which would have withdrawn America from the World Trade Organization. He suggested in an E-mail that the sponsors of HJRes. 90 were part of a conspiracy orchestrated by the corporate WTO Killers (his words not mine). Dolan stated he wouldn't support HJRes 90 and the red-herring strawman ambush by the WTO-Killers! (his words not mine) Although these progressives opposed the WTO in street protests, gaining for themselves much notoriety and funding from the Ford Foundation, which supports the WTO, they want China in the WTO: they did not want permanent trade status for China but opposed opposing WTO status which would only then grant China permanent trade status? People this confused should really be ignored.

During the interview with Wallach in Foreign Policy she was asked about her vision, and I use the word very reluctantly, of an alternative trade regime, she oddly noted this:

I would keep the notion of National treatment, the notion of competition between countries without discrimination based on where something is made, but I would eliminate all these subjective decisions that have been patched onto the trade system.

There is, of course, nothing more subjective than national treatment! Here we find the country’s main progressives, Nader, Wallach and Public Citizen endorsing the very thing they have, for years, claimed they are opposed to -- the corporations becoming ever more powerful, in the face of declining democratic institutions? But it really is not such a strange set of bedfellows when one understands that not only Ford Motor Company gains global sovereignty, but The Ford Foundation as well. And the Ford Foundation is the non- governmental organization (NGO) that funded the NGO Public Citizen in their protests against the WTO in Seattle and elsewhere. Indeed, Wallach admits this during the interview while endorsing National treatment. So with some clarity of vision one finds Ford, Ford and Public Citizen all being granted National Treatment, that is to say, Nader, Wallach and Henry Ford III all become the global sovereigns right along with GE and ATT etc., and who could refuse such an offer as that? Intoxicated with her own rhetoric and being a smart, sassy, and strong progressive woman, who better to reign as global sovereign.

House Joint Resolution 90 is something we must reconsider now more than ever. We need hearings, not red-herrings, now more than ever; granted, HJRes 90 failed, and H.R. 4444 was passed, and S-2277 ( will) pass before the present session of Congress 2000, so what! it is never too late to rewrite badly written unconstitutional law.

Because...it couldn't be clearer what they voted for in the House of Representatives. We have already voted for an annual review of the status of China in the WTO with that vote ...and we did this with China not even in the WTO as of this writing. Clearly the fix was in for China over at the WTO and 237 Representatives, 164 Republicans and 73 Democrats, voted for precisely that. They are now merely lobbyists for China.

After the vote on Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) was cast, articles appeared in the Wall Street Journal, U.S. News & World Report, The National Interest, etc., each author proclaiming the victory and pointing out the alleged losers and probable winners. Admitting that the trade negotiations (referred to as the deal) were in fact worked out at the World Trade Organization rather than via the customary procedures (Trade Representatives, State, Congress? and Commerce Departments, etc.) it is clear now that PNTR was the necessary deal for getting China into the world body. Representatives attached additional measures and pork before they would consider its passage cannot be included in the actual negotiations over China's role, as Congress had no say in those negotiations. The Arguments For PNTR & WTO

In the articles that appeared at the time most of the authors utilized sources to argue that the state was not through as a political unit, that the state was stronger than ever, that the nation- state remains the true and only arbiter of interdependence and the process known as globalization. Kenneth N. Waltz clearly believes that the state remains the process, and that globalization is merely the newest version of procedures long understood in International Relations Theory. Waltz quotes sources I have used, but in an extremely abbreviated form, in my opinion, not just to make his case, but to eliminate these sources from our discourse, as they no longer are valid in his view.

The sources he quotes at length to argue his case are those of authors that we might consider, say, of the popular genre, rather than those scholars arguing the real issue itself. That issue being, is sovereignty an issue? is sovereignty being diffused over International Governing Organizations (IGOs)? is sovereignty of the nation-state slipping away? Nobody of merit argues sovereignty of the nation-state has not been affected at all, it has, but argue instead that it is not as relevant as before or during the Cold War; after the Cold War everything has changed, so we are calmly informed.

To some degree that is my argument. Everything has changed except the disingenuousness of the dialectic on domestic and foreign affairs. To argue only whether the state is losing sovereignty is to miss the mark: to argue only whether the state remains the most powerful institutional body that actually decides important issues, including trade issues, misses the mark; to argue that globalization is not as comprehensive, not as encompassing, not as threatening to state sovereignty, well, misses the mark. We know national sovereignty is being diffused over to, into, international bodies; NATO, the United Nations and the World Bank may be the better examples, especially where security issues are in the forefront, or bailouts and humanitarian aid. But the application of those examples' terminology to trade issues is blatantly erroneous. Using the language of security issues to argue economic globalization and interdependence muddies the waters, not distills.

Quoting excessively from Thomas Friedman's book The Lexus and the Olive Tree Kenneth N. Waltz in the Spring 2000 issue of The National Interest, first points out Friedman's argument then demolishes it: to barely paraphrase - The herd (of investors) do not threaten the state by simply moving assets around the globe electronically, as states, and particularly the United States, intervene often to bailout countries devastated by such global actors. Good argument. But even though I would argue the same, because it remains an accurate depiction of his closed argument, I would stress something else subsequently ignored.

Here is my problem: If one argues the sovereignty issue one is decried as a protectionist of the Pat Buchanan ilk, and ugh! we don't want that slung upon our special suit: or one is appropriately scuttled for being a left-protectionist like the new Nader and ugh! that cannot be easily washed off either. Both of these points were elaborated upon in the same issue of The National Interest by Lawrence Kaplan. Almost everyone follows these arguments in this fashion.

Here is my point: Globalization and interdependence are not the same thing except in security matters, not trade matters. No amount of interdependence between nations, between nation's trading with each other, creates any loss of sovereignty. Nations have always been interdependent, and arguably as interdependent as ever in the past. Interdependence in trade does not threaten sovereignty. Only when the regime of trade and interdependence creates a new kind of authority can sovereignty by considered threatened. Michael Williams, an International Relations theorist, regards globalization as being distinct in its effects from those of interdependence or integration, in that

...increased transactions will not in themselves pose a problem to sovereignty unless it can be demonstrated that new authority patterns have emerged or are nascent in this process.

Today nobody can argue that the WTO does not create a new authority pattern for the United States and the Congress of the United States, whose authority over trade matters is reserved to Congress alone. A power argued by some, including the Supreme Court, that cannot be allocated or discharged by Congress to some other body or authority. Clearly the WTO hashed-out the deal on PNTR and Congress was then allowed to vote on the matter. But Congress did not negotiate the deal, did not author the deal, did nothing except vote on the deal. And their vote for permanent trade relations does not go into effect, as I have pointed out before until, and unless, China is granted accession into the world Trade Organization. Let me give another quote.

Globalization is not simply about the diminution of sovereignty in the sense of the state's ability to manage its own affairs. More fundamentally, it is about the reconstitution of sovereignty 'pari passu' with reshaping of the state itself.

In the above quote Ian Clark in his new book Globalization and International Relations Theory Oxford University Press makes his point further regarding what is happening to state sovereignty, as it is

the shadow-play of the transformations that the state is currently undergoing.

Clark goes on suggesting a triangular interrelationship between the concepts of sovereignty, statehood and globalization, all three, “of necessity, are synchronized in their movements.”

Stephan Krasner in the volume International Rules goes into more detail by explaining global regimes as functional attributes of world order: environmental regimes, financial regimes and of course trade regimes.

In a world of sovereign states the basic function of regimes is to coordinate state behavior to achieve desired outcomes in particular issue-areas .... If, as 'any have argued, there is a general movement toward a world of complex interdependence then the number of areas in which regimes can matter is growing.

But we are not here speaking of changes within an existing regime whereby elected representatives of free people make adjustments to new technologies, new ideas and further the betterment of their people: the first duty of elected representatives is to look out for their constituency. The World Trade Organization does not represent changes within the existing regime but an entirely new regime. It has assumed an unprecedented degree of American sovereignty over the economic regime of the nation and the world. Then who are the sovereigns? Is it the people, the nation in nation-state? I do not believe so. I would argue that who governs rules: who negotiates rules: who decides rules: who negotiates, decides and rules is therefore sovereign. And the people of America and their elected representatives do not rule nor govern at the WTO but corporate diplomats (a word decidedly oxymoronic). Senate Vote on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China S-2277

According to the Bureau of National Affairs WTO Reporter, French President Jacques Chirac said October 23, that early all the remaining issues keeping China from entering the World Trade Organization this year have been ironed out. Chirac stated, "We do feel that accession could take place before the end of this year." Chirac is also the president of the European Union. Also reported was the date of November 2 for the latest round of negotiations with China and the WTO. This working party session is hopeful all issues can be resolved and China granted permanent status as a full member of that world body. This is taking place at the request of the present Administration of the United States, even though the U.S. Senate has yet to vote on S-2277, which would grant Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with that country. Clearly the American people have no say; the House voted in favor of H.R. 4444, granting PNTR to China, while the majority of Americans were opposed. Now without the Senate vote in place the Administration has moved ahead with pressing for China's accession in the WTO which would grant the same thing without the Senate vote, a vote which will likely come, but come after the fact, making the vote moot, the issue settled.

The Senate vote on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China passed the House of Representatives by a wide majority. Yet 197 members voted against the measure. Far more than anyone expected. Those members that voted against the measure were not against trading with China, were not against improved relations with China, and nobody wants to see China not become more democratic, free, prosperous and become a true member of the world community of nations. I along with the others that voted with me on this were/are in favor of trade, we never proposed sanctions and tariffs, never proposed restrictions and protectionism. I argued that regulating trade with foreign nations falls clearly under the enumerated powers of Congress; I argued then, and still, that bi-lateral negotiations are the way to deal with each nation. I argued against delegating these most important powers, which should never be delegated, to some international governing organization such as the World Trade Organization, an organization which clearly governs. Which clearly governs. But governs without the legitimacy granted this Congress by our unique Constitution.

Many that voted on H.R. 4444, the House version of S.2277, never bothered to read nor fully understood the bill. Had they read it they could have made different arguments for and against it. The Senators face the same conundrum. Even while voting for permanent relations, they are voting for non-discriminatory treatment; while voting for no annual review, they are voting for National Treatment; while voting to open up China’s economy, they concede China already has full access to the US. This vote is about language and dates. This vote is about looking out for American citizens and American business here at home. This vote should not be about, and only about American multi-national, trans-national, global corporations and what they want.

Look at the language and understand my fellow representatives in the Senate.

 Permanent Normal Trade Relations are not even granted after your vote in favor of it until the date of accession into the World Trade Organization. Congress did not negotiate, that is to say, regulate, trade with this foreign nation - the WTO did. And only when China meets the WTO’s standards of conduct, only when what the WTO wants is achieved, does your vote mean anything at all. A vote which may not even matter as the Administration has moved their schedule ahead for this November 2 with China's accession in any case, thus maybe before Congress even reconvenes. This is the quid pro quo of all time. America delegates another small piece of its once unique Constitution to another unelected governing group.  Non-discriminatory treatment applies, not to China, not to the Chinese people, not the Chinese government. It means US corporations, many which no longer even see themselves as American, but some special mythical global citizenry. It means these corporations want to be treated with non-discrimination while opening facilities of their own on China’s vast soil. And Chinese firms, public and private, shall be granted the same on our soil.

 National Treatment, the legal terminological cant that describes the above, is a two way street without annual Congressional review. Once China gains accession into the World Trade Organization, this Congress, and our unique Constitutional mandate to regulate foreign trade, is forever relinquished. The WTO allows China non-discriminatory status here in America. Not the Chinese Government you say? yes, that part of the Chinese governing body that represents state-owned, for profit enterprises. China’s corporations, private and public, must be treated as equals with American citizens that own and operate private businesses. They shall be allowed to buy businesses, acquire businesses, merge with business, just as any American citizen can, with full citizenship legally approved. Not by Congress, but WTO approved.

True, Americans that own American companies may do the same in China under WTO guidelines. That would be presumably the forty Industrials and the thirty largest high technology firms. Once again Corporatism gains its foothold in another targeted market. But this shall do little to help smaller - large American firms to compete with massive state- owned enterprises - both American based and now Chinese.

These issues are about American citizens; about American’s well-being; about all Americans that own and operate businesses and corporations here in America. These decisions we take in Congress are not just meant to improve the well-being of those majestic monopolies that mitigate and manipulate each nation’s sovereignty. We are making the world safe for Corporatism.

We seem to be able to only speak to these issues of trade under the legal language offered up to us in legislative legalese. We speak of fairness and level playing fields - for the monopoly multinationals; we speak of better products for the consumer - made by monopoly multinationals; we speak of gaining access to the vast Chinese consumers, 1.3 billion strong, but it is not some sentimental Us referred to - but the same monopoly multinationals!

We stand by and witness the truth everyday. More and more products are made in China. More and an ever greater percentage of multinational’s products are manufactured in China. More and more American jobs shall quietly slip away to China. No, we cannot say it has happened yet - we say, “look, Alan Greenspan says we have nearly full employment.” But we know who isn’t counted, who remains permanently unemployed and we thus know what the future has in store for more workers working - when American multinationals finally get what they want in China.

That is the only reason the Workers argument falls on deaf ears in both Houses of Congress. We can only hear what we want to hear. We have less vision in Congress than the homeless.

We need to become Earwitnesses; we need to hear what we cannot yet see; we need some little vision to see consequences that are constantly clouded by words, words, words. Appendix: Of the 100 Largest Economies, 51 are Multinational Corporations

51 Largest Corporations Source: Forbes 100 Largest Corporations

RANK MARKET VALUE 2000 1999 Billions of U.S. dollars ______1 2 GENERAL ELECTRIC U.S. $520.25 2 8 INTEL U.S. 416.71 3 9 CISCO SYSTEMS U.S. 395.01 4 1 MICROSOFT U.S. 322.82 5 4 EXXON MOBIL U.S. 289.92 6 70 VODAFONE AIRTOUCH Britain 277.95 7 6 WAL-MART STORES U.S. 256.66 8 27 NTT DOCOMO Japan 247.24 9 38 NOKIA Finland 242.19 10 5 ROYAL DUTCHISHELL Neth/Britain 213.54 11 15 CITIGROUP U.S. 209.86 12 10 BP AMOCO Britain 207.51 13 122 ORACLE U.S. 204.01

14 3 IBM U.S. 192.49 15 13 NIPPON TELEGRAPH & TELEPHONE Japan 189.16 16 23 DEUTSCHE TELEKOM Germany 187.25 17 16 LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES U.S. 183.34 18 17 AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP U.S. 173.50 19 12 MERCK U.S. 172.87 20 18 PFIZER U.S. 171.52 21 32 TOYOTA MOTOR Japan 170.52 22 77 LM ERICSSON Sweden 158.05 23 84 NORTEI NETWORKS Canada 152.39 24 31 SBC COMMUNICATIONS U.S. 149.03 25 43 FRANCE TELECOM France 148.71 26 11 COCA-COLA U.S. 131.97 27 82 EMC U.S. 126.19 28 21 JOHNSON & JOHNSON U.S. 124.55 29 20 AMERICA ONLINE U.S. 121.76 30 33 HEWLETT-PACKARD- U.S. 120.14 31 91 SUN MICROSYSTEMS U.S. 119.62 32 96 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS U.S. $118.23 33 141 TOTALFINAELF France 116.32 34 41 HOME DEPOT U.S. 112.38 35 37 DELL COMPUTER U.S. 111.55 36 7 AT&T U.S. 109.10 31 19 BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB U.S. 108.80 38 14 WORLDCOM U.S. 107,57 39 29 NOVARTIS Switzerland 105.96 40 76 WARNER-LAMBERT U.S. 105.92 41 42 TIME WARNER U.S. 103.65 42 30 6LAX0 WELLCOME Britain 102.12 43 24 BANK OF AMERICA U.S. 94.86 44 171 VIACOM U.S. 94.41 45 26 BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS Britain 93.70 46 34 HSBC HOLDINGS Britain 93.30 47 28 ROCHE HOLDING Switzerland 92.38 48 25 BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY U.S. 89.13 49 36 BELLSOUTH U.S. 87.88 50 69 WALT DISNEY U.S. 87.66 51 22 PROCTER & GAMBLE U.S. 87.49