Albert,
Thanks for the challenging scrutiny! I will answer back but can't do so
immediately, being up to my ears in collating a lot of signatures for
Paris on Tuesday.
For the moment, I'd like to clarify that the sign-on letter is not
necessarily a statement of my own views--it is a propaganda statement
borrowed from overseas and tailored by a local coalition committee to
obtain wide support from groups ranging from the Christian Brothers to the
Communist Party. It worked very well.
I agree that 'globalisation' means far more than the present manifestation
of corporate imperialsm. In fact, the MAI will probably be killed. without
any assistance from newspapers, TV or politicians, because of the strength
of a quite sophisticated global campaign which, in influence, can match
even the big multinationals. France, the OECD host nation, has already
pulled out of the negotiations (and wants them moved to the WTO!).
I also agree that the OECD is not the ideal forum. It is merely today's
target. Eventually, it is to be hoped that the debate will be hosted in a
different forum, eg, UNCTAD, and that poorer nations and civil society
will take their due place in negotiations.
As I say, I will come back later on a point-by-point basis.
Regards
Brian Jenkins
(Perth)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Albert wrote:
<snip>
|Not me thanks! (Though it's too late for the letter now anyway,
|not me for the ongoing campaign either.)
|
|Instead I'd like to start a debate here about MAI and globalization.
|
|Whereas I expect to be in a majority on a Vote No campaign for the
|Republic referendum, I expect to be in a minority, as usual, on the MAI
|and wouldn't be at all surprised or upset if you succeed in getting a
|Neither Project group going in support of it. But I enjoy arguing about
|politics, even when in a minority, so here goes...
|
|I'll quote bits of the letter you attached, followed by comments.
|
<etc>
