[203.17.236.1]) by beeoro.pair.com (8.9.1/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA11444 =
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 11:49:49 -0500 (EST)
X-Envelope-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from brian.nettrek.com.au (dial99.nettrek.com.au [203.38.37.99]=
) by enterprise.nettrek.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.9) with SMTP id AAA09923; Mon, =
26 Oct 1998 00:47:52 +0800
Message-ID: <010201be0037$99df44a0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Brian Jenkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MAI sign-on letter
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 00:49:52 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=3D"iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Apologies for delay in following this through. The sign-on letter
attracted in one week about 500 signatories representing 140
organisations, many of which provided formal corporate endorsement. Copie=
s
of the letter were personally delivered to the Chair of the MAI
Negotiating Group and to John Howard's office at Parliament House. To
date, over $1000 in donations have been received towards advertising the
issue in The Australian.
Listers seeking more info on the MAI can access most of the pros and cons=
from the Australian site http://www.avid.net.au/stopmai
Now, my responses to Albert's remarks.
Albert Langer wrote on Saturday 17 October:
[quoting the top MAI sign-on letter]
|
|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"?
Australians possess sovereignty under our constitution. As citizens of th=
e
world, we are still awaiting it. The MAI counterpoises the rights of
multinationals against the rights of citizens. At this time, I would
choose the laws of the Commonwealth as a basis for regulation of
development and exploitation rather than the interests of the world's
wealthiest corporations.
|
|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.
The same has happened in Mexico under the paradigm NAFTA. The effects
include transfer of many jobs from the US to Mexican workers who are paid=
1/30th of the rate paid to former US workers. For some reason, emigratio=
n
of Mexicans to the US has not declined in popularity. NAFTA allows the
unimpeded passage of capital across the border but not (as under our
Federation) freedom of human passage. Your analogy is therefore not very
apposite.
|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"?
In my case, I go for minimal government and maximal citizen participation=
=2E
If it can be demonstrated that world government is feasible and promises
more efficacious participation, I might consider it. I'm not yet ready t=
o
choose world government by IBM, Nestl=E9, MacDonalds and their ilk.
|[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?
The anti-MAI coalitions are indeed proposing a global society--but one
founded on established principles of sustainable ecology, human rights,
democracy, etc, rather than the primacy of money and usury. I'll be happ=
y
to email a copy of our alternative "Citizens' Public Trust Treaty" to
anyone on request. It could be said that the market forces of our ideas
are in competition with those of the greedy few who are promoting the MAI=
=2E
|[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!
I presume that here "independent" means "independent of the MAI
proponents' special interests and values". The 29 richest countries are
also very well endowed with ecological, legal, philosophical, humanitaria=
n
and other cultural values which would not have been called on prior to
signing the treaty. (In Australia, Treasury has carriage of the
negotiations. Its officers were castigated by the Joint Standing Committe=
e
on Treaties for not even bothering to explain whether the MAI offered any=
benefits to the nation.) France, one of the few countries to embark on
systematic consultation with its civil society, in fact withdrew from the=
MAI October talks. Its prime minister said he would not relinquish
national sovereignty to private interests.
|
|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?
|
Indeed, why not? But why do so at a time when more was to be achieved by=
forcibly reminding the OECD (and the Australian executive government) tha=
t
there was mounting public concern and opposition? This was one of the
paramount considerations in France's decision to withdraw, if one can
judge from the report on which the decision was based. See (in French):
http://www.finances.gouv.fr/pole_ecofin/international/ami0998/ami0998.htm=
In any event, the OECD negotiations have now collapsed and, according to
the British Trade Minister, are "very unlikely" to reach their intended
conclusion.
[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?
|
The MAI also gives special privileges to multinationals which are not
available to locals, eg, the right to sue the Federal Government for
compensation in an offshore MAI tribunal in respect of "expropriation",
or, eg, any legislation which may cause losses and therefore be tantamoun=
t
to expropriation. The Government and citizenry of Australia would have n=
o
reciprocal right to invoke the tribunal, eg, in an event such as that in
which the multinational Ashanti pulled out of Cobar leaving huge debts an=
d
unpaid termination pay, etc.
|[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?
This clause in the Stop MAI letter is an indirect objection to the
one-side tribunal provision which I have just mentioned, and which is
unacceptable. There is nothing wrong with courts striking down
discrimination under the laws of the Commonwealth, especially when such
courts are accessible by any offended party.
|[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?
For starters, most multinationals don't pay tax on their profits made in
Australia and ferried overseas. Howard has promised that corporations
(eg, miners, woodchippers) engaged in exporting will be 100 per cent
exempt from his new GST. One small way of empowering the community is to=
raise its awareness of such issues by means such as sign-on letters.
(Vouched for by the popularity and success of this one--in the complete
absence of any media publicity.)
|[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).
Precisely why we we prefer to trust the Commonwealth Government in the
matter of foreign investment and development--rather than the boards of
Exxon, Union Carbide, etc. Since we have higher standards than Romania
and Indonesia, we don't want the playing field levelled down in their
direction, or to maintain our standards at a big cost in compensation.
|
|[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?
Again, the MAI has no reciprocal requirement for a multinational investor=
to commit his capital for a minimum of five years and then to honour
pre-existing arrangements for 15 more years before withdrawing. The
people of Australia would be saddled with this burden through the life of=
8 or 9 successive governments!
Personally, I would support a democratic WA secession decision, just as I=
support the state's democratic (referendum) decision on (no)
daylight-saving. I would not regard a government decision as necessarily
democratic.
Brian Jenkins
