> From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The Fool wrote: > > > > > From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Julia Thompson wrote: > > > > > > > My husband is leaving a voice message for one of our senators this > > > > morning on the subject, as well. > > > > > > AND e-mailing the other senator, and our representative. > > > > > > The last time he got this worked up over legislation in Washington had > > > something to do with the CDA.... > > > > Probably never heard about the Multilateral Investor Agreement (MIA) then. > > What was that? (A link to a good article will do me fine.) 1984 on steroids. Basically it would have allowed corporations to become as powerful as governments. Clinton wanted to fast track it. It died a horrible death. -- http://www.citizen.org/trade/issues/mai/ -- Epitomized by MAI, the primary objective of the corporate "investment" agenda is to ensure the ability of speculators and multinational corporations to move capital in and out of countries without governmental involvement or public interests rules. We have seen the negative impacts of this model on the macroeconomic stability of nations, the sovereignty of governments, the well-being of workers and farmers, and the survival of small, independent businesses. In this system, worker rights, environmental protection, and necessary government regulation of the economy take a back seat to the interests of private capital. What rights do speculators and multinational corporations demand? the right to compete against domestic companies in all economic sectors; the right to acquire any business or property in any economic sector, including natural resources and strategic industries such as communications and defense; the right to convert currency and move money across borders without constraints, fostering the sorts of currency crises that collapses the Mexican peso and caused the 1997 Asian financial meltdown; the right to move production facilities without limit or penalty, regardless of the impacts on workers or the host community; freedom from conditions (called performance requirements) placed on investment to counter speculation and ensure that corporations meet basic rules of conduct; and the right to sue governments for cash damages (paid from public funds) for restitution if an investor claims its rights have been violated under the agreement. -- Background on the MAI How and When the MAI Started: In May 1995 the MAI negotiations began at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a Paris-based organization comprised of 29 mainly developed countries. The MAI would be the first binding international agreement negotiated by the OECD - traditionally a research arm for the finance ministers of member countries. MAI Based on NAFTA Model The MAI is similar to NAFTA's provisions on investment (Chapter 11). Like NAFTA, the MAI: Grants National Treatment and Most Favored Nation status to investors requiring all countries be treated alike (e.g. had South Africa been an OECD member under the MAI, sanctions to end apartheid would have been forbidden) and local and foreign investors be treated exactly the same. Provides direct Investor-to-State Dispute Resolution whereby foreign investors and corporations can directly sue governments if they suspect a violation of the agreement. MAI would apply this extraordinary right to enforce all MAI terms, whereas NAFTA allows private standing only for narrow circumstances. Several companies have already won judgments against governments with awards of tens of millions as of late 2001 and many more cases are pending. Protects investors from loss of profit due to expropriation including both direct or indirect expropriation and measures "tantamount to"expropriation. The MAI's language, which covers measures having "equivalent effect" to expropriation, appears to broaden NAFTA's language even further. In the case with Ethyl, the corporation filed suit against the Canadian parliament on the grounds that mere legislative debate of MMT-related risks constituted a measure "tantamount to" expropriation. Prohibits certain "performance requirements", or conditions for investment (e.g. the federal Community Reinvestment Act). MAI Based on GATT/ WTO The MAI broadens the GATT/WTO limitations on national sovereignty in favor of one set of global rules enforced by an unaccountable international tribunal. The OECD Goal Was to Complete MAI By 1998 U.S. officials negotiating the MAI have indicated that fast-track is the means by which they intend to push the MAI through Congress. The MAI would be a powerfully enforced consolidation of the OECD non-binding investment guidelines, the strongest provisions of NAFTA and GATT and the strongest features of various bilateral, regional and sectoral investment agreements. The proposed MAI would be a free standing agreement open to accession by any non-OECD member country. Imagine NAFTA-style investment and dispute resolution terms applied to the whole world. -- Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) Talking Points "We are writing the constitution of a single global economy" --Renato Ruggerio, World Trade Organization Director General (WTO Singapore Ministerial, December 1996) The MAI would forbid most remaining barriers to, and controls on international investment flows. If adopted, this agreement would dramatically undermine the ability of federal, state and local governments to shape economic and social policies that foster safe, healthy and equitable communities. The current MAI text gives private corporations and foreign investors legal standing to directly sue sovereign governments. If a corporation or investor feels they are not getting everything promised by the investment pact, they can demand payment from a government using a special MAI tribunal. The international tribunals that would hear the dispute could impose monetary fines on governments. The only other forum under international law in which this kind of "private standing" exists is pursuant to limited provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In 1997, the US-based Ethyl Corporation sued the Canadian government for $251 million dollars in damages over a public health and safety law that banned the known toxin MMT- a gasoline additive which Ethyl produces. According to Ethyl, the law constituted a measure "tantamount to expropriation" under the terms of NAFTA and thereby a violation. This pending case is a preview of coming attractions if the MAI goes into effect. The MAI mandates "National Treatment" to ensure that foreign investors and companies are treated the same as domestic companies. Therefore, tax incentives for small business and laws that are designed to nurture home-grown companies could be challenged because they inherently discriminate against large foreign investors and corporations. Corporations and investors from all member countries would also be granted "Most Favored Nation" status. Governments would no longer be allowed to distinguish between countries or companies based on human rights (e.g. MFN for China), labor, environmental or other "non-trade" criteria. The MAI proposes a ban on "performance requirements" which are conditions or terms governments require of investors. Examples of performance requirements include: contributing to the investment needs of the local community (such as in the federal Community Reinvestment Act), utilizing domestic goods or services (domestic content), hiring local employees or "speed bumps" on capital flight. This ban on performance requirements often "hurts" U.S. companies. Without the ability to place conditions on investments, governments will have limited control over capital flight and corporate accountability. There has been virtually no public or political scrutiny of the MAI, yet negotiations have already reached an advanced stage. MAI negotiations began in the OECD in 1995 and had an initial completion date of May 1997. Only a small handful of officials in the U.S. State Department, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and financial and corporate lobbies (such as the U.S. Council for International Business) are involved in the negotiations. Until January 1997, the MAI text was entirely secret. The Clinton Administration has made little effort to inform or engage citizens, elected officials, non-governmental organizations or the media. Contracting Parties are bound to the terms of the MAI for a minimum of 20 years. The MAI requires a commitment of 5 years before any member may withdraw. From that point, all then existing investments are still obliged to the terms of the agreement for 15 additional years.
