>Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 16:37:59 -0500
>From: Eric Fawcett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: s4p all lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Book Review of "Multilateral Agreement on Investment"
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Precedence: bulk
>
>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
>Content-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>From: Rose Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Book Review of MAI
>
> THE MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
> AND THE THREAT TO CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY
> by Tony Clarke and Maude Barlow
> (Stoddart 1997, 206 pages, $19.95)
>
> Corporate invasion into the lives of ordinary people is nothing new
>but the incredible pace at which it is accelerating is clearly illustrated
>in this probing analysis of the latest and most wide sweeping of global
>investment treaties ever contemplated. Written by Tony Clarke, director of
>the Polaris Institute of Canada and chair of the committee on corporations
>for the International Forum on Globalization and Maude Barlow, national
>volunteer chair of the Council of Canadians, it is required reading for
>everyone committed to the preservation of our basic freedoms and
>fundamental rights.
> The Multilateral Agreement on Investment was drafted by the 29
>industrial countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
>Development (OECD) for the purpose of establishing rules for all global
>investors. Approval in principle is expected in May, 1998.
> Few ordinary Canadians, Europeans, Americans or other citizens of the
>global community who will be drastically affected by it are even aware of
>its existence. What it amounts to is a global charter of rights for
>transnational corporations with Canadian government officials among its
>most ardent promoters.
> The book is a tool for public education on how this Agreement is a
>systematic attack on democratic governments at all levels - national,
>provincial and municipal. For the first time in history, corporations will
>be granted equal legal standing with nation states along with access to
>domestic courts. They will be able to challenge any legislation such as
>labour laws, copyright protection, environmental regulations, Canadian
>content rules - literally anything that would be seen to be contrary to
>the interests of foreign investment.
> Barlow is no stranger to the pernicious spread of corporate rule. She
>helped to spearhead citizen opposition to the U.S./Canada Free Trade
>Agreement, followed by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
>Having closely monitored both the promises that preceded these agreements
>and the dismal outcomes which followed, she is in a unique position to,
>once again, help mobilize Canadian opposition to this assault on our
>economic, human and democratic rights.
> The authors give us a brief historical review of events leading up to
>the birth of the MAI. Since World War II, several United Nations Human
>Rights Covenants, Declarations and Conventions have been adopted, such as
>the one on the Rights of the Child in 1990. All of these have contributed
>to Canada's social programs and transformation into a "social" nation
>state with a regulatory framework to protect our resources, culture and
>social programs. Other developing nations have followed suit.
> Parallel to this process, Clarke and Barlow explain, additional
>trends were launched by the financial elites of the world involving
>economic globalization with a different vision for humanity. These began
>in 1944 with the Bretton Wood institutions. Plans for post war recovery
>which gave rise to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund,
>apart from stated goals for alleviation of poverty, included an underlying
>mandate for expansion and integration of a global financial system and
>market mirrored on the U.S. economic model.
> In the 1970's pressure from developing nations resulted in a Code of
>Conduct enshrined in the United Nations Charter of Economic Rights and
>Duties of States which gave member nations the "inalienable right" to
>regulate and exercise authority over foreign investment.
> Conversely, at about the same time a global forum for CEOs called
>the "Trilateral Commission", now known as the "Washington Consensus", met
>to discuss what records show was referred to as "an excess of democracy".
>Since then, the collapse of communism has fuelled the ideology that puts
>the needs of capital and transnational corporations ahead of the needs and
>rights of nation states and their citizens.
> Chilling statistics in the book, gathered by the United Nations,
>underscore the urgency of the problem. Twenty years ago there were 7,000
>transnational corporations in the world. Today there are more than 40,000.
>The top 200 have annual sales which are larger than the combined economies
>of 182 of the 191 countries in the world.
> Up until 1983, according to Canadian University Services Overseas
>(CUSO), the amount of capital transferred south was greater than the
>amount sent north. Since then, the trend has been reversed. This has
>resulted in the serious erosion in national sovereignty of more than 80
>countries, all of which have watched their standard of living go down as
>corporate investors promote deregulation and more punitive conditions for
>workers.
> This profit driven agenda worldwide brought together 108 countries
>for the Uruguay Round of negotiations for the General Agreement on Tariffs
>and Trade (GATT) in the mid-1980's. The purpose was to "stem the tide of
>protectionism". These negotiations have, in turn, led to the MAI. GATT
>rules were loosened in Uruguay with limits placed on trade-related
>investment measures by host countries. The U.S. position at the table was,
>of course, greatly strengthened by the newly minted U.S./Canada Free Trade
>Agreement in 1989 and NAFTA signed in 1993.
> The Uruguay Round of GATT led to creation of the World Trade
>Organization (WTO) in 1995 to monitor the movement of goods and capital
>across state borders and to ensure state compliance with GATT rules.
>Ironically, given our traditions, one of the most ardent supporters and
>promoters of global free trade without tariff barriers to international
>investment and trade, codes to protect the environment, labour rights,
>social programs or cultural diversity is Canada.
> As a leading proponent, the Chretien government has negotiated a
>number of international treaties on trade and investment since coming to
>power and is in the process of negotiating one more with China. All of
>this is happening while Statistics Canada tells us that disparities in
>levels of income in the country and world wide are widening. In the last 5
>years they have doubled with the richest 20 percent of the world now
>receiving 83 percent of the world's income. These trends continue despite
>the fact that WTO members are also signatories to the United Nations
>Charter of Economic Rights and the Duties of States.
> A key message in the book is that the MAI is not yet a done deal.
>Formal approval in principle by the 29 OECD countries is not expected
>until May, 1998, after which ratification by each national legislature is
>required.
> The outright war on cultural rights raises the point that cultural
>sovereignty is rapidly becoming the new battle field for security and
>freedom. Despite this observation and conclusion on the part of Canadians
>for several decades now, the tendency on the part of the last two
>administrations has been to shift away from policies and regulations that
>promote a vibrant domestic cultural identity. Instead, the emphasis has
>shifted to advancing the export potential of individual artists and
>products. Efforts to carve out niche markets in a global economy have also
>led to increasing reliance on cheap industrial ingredients of sex and
>violence because they sell well and translate easily into any language.
> Canadian media giants such as CanWest Global are specifically cited
>as promoting an acceleration of foreign ownership of Canadian broadcasting
>companies with no visible opposition from the Canadian Association of
>Broadcasters. Meanwhile, Franoise Bertrand, chair of the Canadian Radio-
>Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) sits by, benignly
>promising to "strengthen the cultural sector" before it is fully
>deregulated and she is out of a job. The authors remind us that we have
>already seen the consequences of such globalization in July, 1997 when
>Canada lost its appeal to keep policies to protect its magazine industries
>with 80 percent tariff excise tax on split-runs and postal subsidies for
>Canadian magazines. The ruling has left Canadian cultural policy in legal
>limbo as the U.S. threatens to retaliate with measures of "equivalent
>commercial effect" if Canada insists on exemptions for cultural products.
>As they point out, the U.S. has become the accuser, umpire and enforcer.
> Limited provisions for cultural protection negotiated under NAFTA
>have been largely wiped out by the current regulation of full compliance
>with GATT rules administered through the WTO. Under the MAI, a U.S.
>publishing giant could buy up a major Canadian publisher and refuse to
>produce any creative works by Canadians at all but still qualify for
>industrial incentives offered by the Canadian Government.
> Throughout the book Clarke and Barlow focus on the fact that Canada's
>energetic federalism is being drawn further and further into the American
>constitutional orbit. Examples cited include the manner in which the
>Canadian Charter of Rights was invoked in 1995 to declare as
>unconstitutional a ban on mandatory health warnings and promotional
>advertisements for tobacco. Business rights, they say, are rapidly being
>transformed into moral rights. In the process, the political rights of
>corporations are beginning to take precedence over both the rights of
>nation states and their citizens. The MAI would reinforce these trends in
>spades.
> We are reminded, however, that we can say no. At least a dozen
>recommendations are offered along with the entire text for a citizens'
>charter. It is meant to ward off cries of helplessness and resonates with
>similar charters adopted within the Cultural Environment Movement launched
>at Webster University in St. Louis, Missouri in 1996. A key starting point
>is the need to draw attention to and insist upon global adherence to the
>UN Charter of Economic Rights and the Duties of States, which gives
>national governments the right to regulate and exercise authority over
>foreign investment, with appropriate modifications to comply with changes
>in the global economy in the last twenty years.
> A new model for public discussion and debate is proposed. It would
>include a clear set of investment criteria for transnationals that
>contribute to economic, social, cultural and ecological goals for national
>development. International performance standards in all of these areas
>must be established and carefully monitored for adherence.
> The authors call for a re-introduction of anti-trust legislation to
>replace the Competition Act drafted by the Business Council on National
>Issues (BCNI), a tax system to avoid corporate tax evasion through
>off-shore investment. The latter should be developed in harmony with close
>monitoring of global capital to restrict laundering of drug money by
>returning it to its country of origin.
> Building resistance to the MAI in the coming months must, they say,
>become a strategic priority in constituencies likely to be affected such
>as women, the unemployed, low income Canadians, senior citizens,
>educators, health and child care givers, public servants, artists and
>other members of the cultural sector, farmers, small businesses and First
>Nations People. In short, all those who work in social,
>cultural,environmental, labour advocacy and international development with
>further study undertaken on impact in every area.
> A key strategy involves unmasking and challenging vested interests at
>stake for Canadian based transnationals. Who precisely are the corporate
>CEOs driving power behind the scenes? In other words, we are cautioned to
>avoid focusing on politicians alone. As the authors demonstrate, links
>with counterparts in other countries are necessary and already well
>underway. We need to strengthen and build on them.
>
>Reviewed by Rose Dyson, Ed.D., a Toronto based writer, researcher and
>consultant on media education, and member of Science for Peace
>
