[BJ]
I'll be available to help in WA. Just now, I'm up to my ears in the MAI
campaign.
[AL]
Great! So far we've got potential organizers for WA, SA, Sydney and
Armidale.
[BJ]
In case you guys have not seen it, I'm attaching a sign-on letter which
is
self-explanatory.
Please endorse it yourselves and also send it out to relevant networks.
It's already been endorsed by ACF, Beatrice Faust, Helen Caldicott, the
Human Rights Council, many unions, academics in all fields, etc. Friday
16th is the cut-off date.
Cheers
Brian Jenkins
[AL]
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.
[BJ]
The Chairman, MAI Negotiating Group, OECD
Paris, France
through
The Hon John W Howard, Prime Minister of Australia
Parliament House, Canberra.
Dear Sir,
We consider the draft Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) to be
damaging to Australians' sovereignty and parliamentary independence. We
urge that it not be proceeded with.
The purpose of the MAI is to regulate governments as a means of
liberalising investment. The draft MAI treaty unacceptably elevates the
rights of transnational corporations above those of elected governments,
communities, citizens, workers and the environment. This is totally
unacceptable.
[AL]
Why do you support national sovereignty and Parliamentary independence.
Why not "One World"?
Essentially the MAI establishes complete "free trade" between
nations in the same way as Federation established it between the
Australian States. That meant the elected governments of the
Australian states lost their right to regulate trade between the
States. Of course this was mainly of interest to the people who
conducted such trade - namely capitalist corporations, as is the
case with international trade today. But it broke down artificial
barriers between the people of different states and established a more
modern and less provincial nation.
Why resist the natural extension of that same process, which has already
occurred in the European Union? Why not push for world government rather
than "State rights"?
[BJ]
MAI negotiations have been conducted by governments representing the 29
OECD countries, which are the richest countries in the world.
Participation of non-OECD countries and organisations representing the
interests of workers, consumers, farmers, the environment, social
justice
and human rights has been minimal.
[AL]
Much the same could be said of the negotiations between the States at
Federation. Why not push for wider involvement in building a global
society rather than resisting that inevitable development?
[BJ]
WE CALL ON THE OECD AND THE GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRALIA TO:
* Undertake an independent and comprehensive assessment of the social,
environmental and developmental impact of the MAI with full public
participation. The negotiations should be suspended during this
assessment;
[AL] So you call on governments of the 29 richest countries, including
Australia, to act as "independent" assessors? You must be kidding!
The real point is the suspension of negotiations. Why not call for the
poorer countries and the public to take the lead in pushing for an end
to provincial barriers?
[BJ]
* Require multinational investors to observe established standards of
environmental protection, labour, health, safety and human rights;
[AL]
My understanding is that the MAI simply requires that exactly the
same standards be applied in these areas to multinational capitalists as
to local capitalists. What's wrong with that? Why tolerate lower
standards for environmental protection, labour, health, safety and human
rights when dealing with local capitalists?
[BJ]
* Put into place open dispute-resolution mechanisms for determination in
Australian courts of law;
[AL]
My understanding is that the MAI requires courts of law to strike down
discrimination between "local" and "multinational" capitalists in the
same way that Federation required the Courts of the various States to
strike down discrimination between the capitalists of any State and
those of (previously) "foreign" Australian States. What's wrong with
that?
[BJ]
* Give the community effective new powers to hold investors to account;
[AL]
What does this mean? What kind of power can a community have to
"hold investors to account" if the investors own everything and we just
work here. Why ask the Governments of the 29 richest countries to "Give
the community effective new powers" when you already know whose side
they are on. Why not ask the community to take power from the investors
and their governments?
[BJ]
* Ensure that governments do not have to pay for the right to set
environmental, labour, health and safety standards, even if compliance
with such regulations imposes financial obligations and losses on
investors;
[AL] The Commonwealth government has generally set far higher standards
for environmental, labour, health and safety than the provincial
governments did (and would still do if they could).
[BJ]
* Reject any terms which restrict the right of elected governments to
improve standards and/or to effect withdrawal from the MAI under
reasonable notice, e.g., six months.
[AL] Why should "improved standards" not be applied equally to local and
multinational capitalists? Should WA have been allowed to secede when
its elected government wanted to?
[BJ]
In sincerity and trust
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(Signed and Dated)
[AL] Trust? ;-)
