-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Saturday, 17 October 1998 2:56 AM
Subject: RE: MAI sign-on letter
>[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?
YES!
>
>[BJ]
>In sincerity and trust
>
>
>
>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
>(Signed and Dated)
>
>[AL] Trust? ;-)
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list send an email to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject.
>
>For help with this mailing list, look at
>http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm
>
