Subject: MAI - Internationall Corporate Coup? From: further@*spamnot*inh.co.jp (Doug Bartley) Date: Sun, Oct 5, 1997 19:57 EDT Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Multinationals pull off a fast one from regular Japan Times newspaper column Our Planet Earth August 12, 1997 by Stephen Hesse quoted in accordance with Fair Use... "Last month the Japan Environment Monitor's home page carried a piece by Don E. McAllister of the Canadian Center for Biodiversity, criticizing the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. The article, "MAI: Global power swinging to transnationals?" stopped me cold. "An immense swing in the balance of global power is quietly taking Place," McAllister writes. "The Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) threatens to turn over powers held by democratically elected governments and their citizens to international corporations." The piece was startling for several reasons. First, I had never heard of MAI. Second, McAllister suggests that the agreement is effectively a given, and yet, as he notes, MAI portends such significant impacts on international trade and the environment that one wonders why it has received so little attention. According to McAllister of the Canadian Center for Biodiversity, a conspiracy of sorts is at work. "The main principles of MAI," he writes, "have been drawn up and agreed to behind closed doors at the OECD." Under MAI, governments would be less able to use investment policy to pursue social, economic or environmental objectives. Corporations would acquire new powers including the freedom to move capital and profits unhindered by policies to which domestic companies have to adhere. The United States and the European Commission originally planned to introduce MAI as the centerpiece of the World Trade Organization (WTO), explains McAllister. Since it was feared that developing countries would "water down" MAI principles, however, a confidential draft was circulated among government and corporate officials at the OECD headquarters in Paris. The OECD, he points out, comprises nations that are home to 95 percent of the 500 largest transnational corporations. Ever wary of conspiracy hyperbole, I clicked over to Keidanren's home page for a different take on MAI. The Japan Federation of Economic Organizations presents a much more benign view. The Multilateral Agreement on Investment, which is under negotiation in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, is the first comprehensive and binding multilateral framework on investment liberalization and protection, the page explains. It is expected to contribute to the sound development of the global economy by facilitating international flows of investment. McAllister, however, sees danger. Under MAI, corporations are to be given equal rights with contracting parties, he explains; in short, corporations will be on equal footing with sovereign nations. MAI will also guarantee that an investor is compensated for an expropriated investment (broadly defined, according to McAllister) and corporations may sue for non-compliance with MAI, yet governments are not given reciprocal rights. Thus MAI re-writes not only corporation-government relationships and rights, placing corporations on an equal of greater footing, but constitutional power relationships within national governments as well. McAllister notes that the proposed changes may seem innocuous, but he call for caution, citing a lawsuit by Ethyl Corporation against the Canadian Governmentunder NAFTA clauses which will be included under MAI. Ethyl is suing for $251 million, claiming that when the Canadian Parliament banned MMT (a toxic fuel additive), Ethyl's rights were infringed. The government, McAllister explains, is concerned over the effects of MMT on health, and the environment. Ethyl argues that such measures are tantamount to expropriation. By strengthening and globalizing corporate powers, he argues, governments will have limited capacity to guard the health of their environment and citizens. If MAI is as threatening as McAllister claims, no wonder the negotiation process has been so secretive. A look at Keidanren's position statement suggest that McAllister's worries may be justified. Here is just a sampling: - "MAI will enhance investment protection. Keidanren acknowledges that clearcut provisions guarantee general protection of investment, payment of prompt, adequate and effective compensation in case of expropriation, and free, prompt transfers of profit, dividends, etc. in a freely convertible currency." Corporations apparently want even more freedom to dine and dash, while taking less local-community responsibility. - "Production, investment, sales, employment and R&D requirements, native employment requirements, joint venture requirements and local equity requirements have a great investment-distorting effect and therefore should be abolished." Again, corporations seek to exploit resources and markets without answering to the needs of local communities. - "Exceptions for 'public order" and 'preservation of culture" should not be permitted in principle, for their definitions are too ambiguous. If these exceptions should be permitted, they should be strictly limited to avoid arbitrary application." Corporate culture in; social, political and cultural diversity out?... ...Conspiracy, it seems is too naive a term. Perhaps dogged corporate lobbyists have simply convinced tired politicians to abdicate sovereignty over the rights and property of citizens in exchange for the panacea of free markets. So the world ends, with neither a scream or a whimper, but with a well-intended corporate taking." Japan Environmental Monitor home page http://www.yin.or.jp/user/greenstar/ more on MAI at OECD's home page http://www.oecd.org/daf/cmis/faqmai.htm and http://www.island.net.com/plethora/ So, to implement this crap we should be giving our so-called leaders "Fast-Track" (or any other) Authority? I don't think so. Regards, Doug Bartley Hamamatsu, Japan -- "Keep your ammonium nitrate dry, and don't fire till you see the black of their choppers."
