Dear All,
I would like to see discussed here the Multilateral Agreement on Investment
(MAI) that is presently being negotiated by the 27 countries of the OECD.
There is growing recognition amongst progressive political interests that
this treaty has the capacity to cause great environmental and social harm
in both the member countries of the OECD, and those outside this privileged
circle, especially developing nations.
In essence, the MAI would 'open' all sectors of countries' economies, strip
nations and localities of their right to differentiate between local and
foreign companies, and let corporations directly challenge national laws.
It has been dubbed, rightly I believe, by its many and growing critics as a
"charter for multinationals".
For the interest of forum members, I have included below some basic
information about the MAI, extracted from various sources, including the
web pages listed at the end of the message. Many of you will doubtless
already know much about the MAI.
I hope we can discuss this issue and also do something about it. In
Australia, the central government is presently having an inquiry into the
MAI and we are mobilising submissions from critical social scientists here.
There must be equivalent opportunities for action in other countries.
Regards to all,
Brendan Gleeson
WHAT WILL THE MAI DO?
1. Open all sectors of nations' economies to foreign companies.
2. Require countries, including states and localities, to treat foreign
investors the same as local companies.
3. Ban performance requirements. Some states and localities require
companies who get public money to hire labour locally or pay a living wage.
These type of accountability measures may be struck down by an MAI.
4. Set binding dispute settlement rules. The MAI allows investors to
directly challenge laws and seek monetary damages.
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE MAI?
1. Closed secretive negotiations. The MAI has been negotiated with little
public or parliamentary input in any of the OECD countries. The wide range
of concerns raised by international capital mobility - sustainability,
labour right, financial stability - have largely been ignored.
2. Opens developing countries. OECD members are the source of 85% and
destination of 65% of foreign investment, but increasing amounts of money
go to developing countries. OECD countries will pressure developing nations
to join the MAI, an agreement they had no role in
drafting.
3. Preemption of local, state and national laws. All OECD countries may
have to change some laws to join the MAI. For instance, Australia's
controls on foreign ownership (weak as they are) and a plethora of other
environmental and social regulations may be threatened by this treaty.
Foreign companies can use the MAI dispute system to challenge laws that
affect their investments.
4. All rights, no responsibility. Corporate investors get new rights, but
there are no mechanisms to hold them accountable to the social and
environmental concerns of the countries they came from, or the countries
they invest in.
5. Effects on sustainability. The MAI will contain weak, non-binding
environmental provisions. Meanwhile, the agreement will let corporations go
everywhere and buy everything, allowing us to temporarily live beyond our
ecological limits and worsening an already inequitable distribution of
resources.
IN SUMMARY
Andrea Durbin and Mark Valliantos of the Friends of the Earth (USA) have
observed that:
"The winners in this agreement will be the Transnational Corporation; the
losers will be the public, the environment and any hopes for sustainable
and equitable development. This is because this agreement will establish
and codify unprecedented rights for corporations with no
word about their responsibilities and obligations to operate in an
environmentally sound manner, to be more transparent and provide
information to communities in which they operate, to abide by worker
protection laws and fair labor standards, and to respect human rights. The
environmental and social obligations of corporations has not even made it
on to the agenda in any serious way" (Durbin & Vallianatos, 1997:1,
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/bwi-wto/mai1.htm).
WHAT CAN WE DO?
The international news media report that the MAI negotiations have stalled.
This is doubtless due to the rising tide of concern about the MAI in member
countries and the increasing pressure being placed on legislatures to
scrutinise this heretofore secretive treaty negotiation process.
Nonetheless, the OECD still hopes that countries will meet the April (1998)
deadline for signing the agreement.
So, there appears to be something of an opportunity - albeit a limited one
- to pressure national legislatures to delay, and perhaps even abandon, the
treaty negotiation process. There is a need for action now.
MORE INFORMATION ON THE MAI
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/bwi-wto/mai1.htm
http://www.web.net/coc/maiad.html
http://www.nassist.com/mai/
Dr Brendan Gleeson Telephone: 61-2-6249-4603
Research Fellow
Urban Research Program Fax: 61-2-6249-0312
Research School of Social Sciences
The Australian National University
CANBERRA ACT 0200
AUSTRALIA
email: [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|