The track record of governments resisting the transnational agenda has not
been good so far. Is there any evidence (besides this) that the pendulum is
beginning to swing in the other direction?
At 01:42 PM 1/22/98 PST, pete wrote:
> Michael Gurstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> forwarded:
>
>>From: Andrea Durbin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: [csdgen] Financial Times Article on MAI
>
>[...]
>
>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Source: Financial Times, Monday January 19, 1998 (page 5)
>>Title: Worries over planned investment accord
>>Author: Guy de Jonquieres
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>Leading business organisations in the US and Europe are concerned
>>that a planned agreement to promote foreign direct investment seems
>>likely to dismantle few international barriers and may create costly
>>new ones.
>>
>[...]
>
>>But business representatives said they were disappointed the talks
>>had failed so far to achieve any real liberalisation and worried the
>>agreement might impose restrictive labour and environmental
>>standards on multinational companies.
>
>[...]
>
>>Many of the demands are supported by the US, which is pressing hard
>>for tighter environmental provisions in the MAI. Although business
>>groups say they can accept some US goals, they oppose a proposal to
>>require environmental impact assessments of certain planned
>>investments.
>
>>Some business lobbyists are worried that strengthening labour
>>standards provisions in the MAI could make it harder for governments
>>to adopt policies designed to create more flexible labour markets.
>
>This is the best news I've yet heard in this long sordid saga.
>If the eventual agreement is universally condemned by multinational
>corporate investors, I would regard that as an almost unassailable
>argument for its adoption.
>
> -Pete Vincent
>
>
>
