A-Infos (en) Activists occupy MAI-negotiators office

[elisa@tao.ca]

________________________________________________
     A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
           http://www.ainfos.ca/
________________________________________________

>Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 03:15:50 GMT
>X-Sender: allsorts@pop.gn.apc.org
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
>To: rts@gn.apc.org
>From: paxaran@antenna.nl (Olivier Hoedeman) (by way of "Allsorts (also rts)"
><allsorts@gn.apc.org>)
>Subject: ALLSORTS - Activists occupy MAI-negotiators office
>X-UIDL: 202a5bab4c45cc8afd06d4b250d7bf5a
>Status: U
>
>Short report from action at MAI negotiators Engerings office today (12/2):
>
>Earlier today activists occupied the entrance of MAI chief negotiator
>Engering's office, in the Ministery of Economic Affairs in The Hague, The
>Netherlands. Some 40 people from the Dutch anti-MAI action group "MAI niet
>gezien" (= MAI not seen/MAI not for me) went inside the ministery to
>protest against the MAI and to demand the negotiations to be extended with
>at least one year. After about an hour, in which a "factory" of cardboard
>boxes had been constructed in the main hall of the building, to indicate
>that investments would be out of control under the MAI, the activists met
>with Mr. Engering and negotiator  for The Netherlands Marinus Sikkel.
>
>In the presence of also several media people, the main point raised was
>that trying to finish an agreement by the end of April is undemocratic and
>dangerous. Critique on the MAI from civil society is growing day by day,
>more and more parliaments are demanding a thorough analysis of the impacts
>and both between and within governments conflicts are emerging as the
>negative impacts of the MAI become increasingly clear. To allow time for
>serious impact assesments of the MAI and for a genuine public debate to
>emerge, the only acceptable conclusion would be to expand the negotiations
>with at least another year. Another demand raised was a far more open and
>accessible negotiation procedure, with full information available and
>public participation. Engering answered that such decisions could only be
>taken by the governments and refused to promise to work for postponing the
>deadline for the negotiations.
>
>More actions against the MAI are expected in The Netherlands over the next
>weeks.
>===========================================
>forwarded email:
>
>                                OUT NOW!
>
>                              MAIGALOMANIA!
>
>                      Citizens and the Environment
>               Sacrificed to Corporate Investment Agenda
>
>=============================================
>
>   A BRIEFING ON THE MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT (MAI)
>                BY CORPORATE EUROPE OBSERVATORY (CEO)
>
>   A web edition of MAIGALOMANIA (including direct links to
>   information sources) is available on the ceo web site.
>   Point your browser to http://www.xs4all.nl/~ceo/mai/
>
>
>   We apologize for possible cross posting of this announcement
>
>==========================================
>   MAIGALOMANIA
>                               megalomania n.
>
>                               1. a mentall illness characterized
>                                  by delusions of power.
>                               2. informal: a craving for power.
>
>                               Harper-Collins English Dictionary
>
>
>   Secrecy, haste and intrigue have characterized the negotiations
>   around the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) -- the
>   latest plan of the economic globalization elite for dismantling
>   barriers to investment all over the world in the quest for a
>   progressively more open global economy. All of the regional and
>   global economic liberalization pacts born in the past decade --
>   the World Trade Organization, NAFTA, the European Union, Mercosur
>   and so forth -- will pale in the face of the mighty MAI.
>
>   MAIGALOMANIA exposes the strong involvement of corporate lobby
>   groups in the almost ten years the MAI has been under preparation.
>
>
>   Corporate Empowerment
>
>   A total of 477 of the world's 500 largest TNCs are based in OECD
>   countries and most of these are organized in groupings like the
>   International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the US Council for
>   International Business (USCIB) and the European Roundtable of
>   Industrialists (ERT). All of these corporate lobby groups have
>   been directly or indirectly involved in the shaping of the MAI.
>   The reason for their interest in a global investment treaty,
>   intended as much for Third World countries as for the OECD states
>   negotiating the agreement, can be found in the increasing
>   percentage of corporate investment that flows in a southerly
>   direction.
>
>   Furthermore, TNCs are tightly allied with the neoliberal
>   politicians governing most of their home countries, and generally
>   play a considerable role in both national -- and increasingly
>   international -- policy-making. The 1994 completion of the
>   Uruguay Round and the creation of the World Trade Organization
>   (WTO) was a great victory for TNCs, which together with their
>   governments lobbied for the removal of national barriers to the
>   flow of goods and services. The next logical corporate challenge
>   has been the creation of a treaty which, by dismantling barriers
>   to investment, would provide investors with a so-called "level
>   playing field" across the globe. The various provisions of this
>   Multilateral Agreement on Investment would ensure the most ideal
>   investment conditions for TNCs -- including homogeneous and
>   transparent legal and regulatory frameworks, the standardization
>   of diverse local and national conditions, and best of all, the
>   right to recourse when corporate profits or reputations are
>   damaged.
>
>
>   The Losers
>
>   The agreement will grant TNCs with extensive new powers while at
>   the same time denying governments the right to control foreign
>   direct investment in their countries. The rules and regulations
>   which hinder foreign investment and will be dismantled under the
>   MAI are often those that protect workers and jobs, public
>   welfare, domestic businesses, the environment and culture. By
>   subverting national and local priorities to the needs of foreign
>   investors, the MAI poses a dangerous threat to democratic
>   political processes. The impacts would be the most devastating on
>   poorer countries, which would have no chance to build up a
>   balanced economy or break their reliance upon commodity export
>   and resource extraction in the service of industrialized
>   countries and their corporations. Consequences within OECD
>   countries will be different but also dramatic.
>
>
>   Third World Under Siege
>
>   Third World Opposition against the MAI and other attempts to
>   impose MAI-style policies has been considerable. Simultaneous to
>   the launching of OECD MAI negotiations, the EU-led attempt at a
>   flying start for a MAI-clone treaty, called MIA, within the World
>   Trade Organisation was obstructed by countries like India and
>   Malaysia. They could not, however, prevent the creation of a WTO
>   working group on investment -- in which the EU and others
>   continue to push for the commencement of MIA negotiations. The
>   OECD countries have adopted a multifaceted strategy to reach
>   their aim of investment deregulation in the South, including
>   tempting Third World countries to sign on to the MAI, keeping an
>   investment treaty on the burner in the WTO, and using other
>   international institutions like UNCTAD and the IMF to further
>   their objectives.
>
>   The most recent offensive for investment deregulation was
>   announced by EU Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan, who in early
>   February of this year informed the world that negotiations on
>   a Trans-Atlantic free trade zone, involving the EU and the US,
>   might be launched already in May 1998.
>
>
>   Race Against Time
>
>   After a smooth first year and a half of negotiations, the MAI
>   entered a far rockier phase in early 1997. Problems arose due to
>   demands by OECD countries for an increasing number of
>   reservations and sectoral carve-outs, and also with the high
>   speed emergence of anti-MAI campaigns in one OECD country after
>   another. Although serious preparations for the MAI had already
>   begun in 1991, non-governmental organizations representing
>   environment, development, women and other sectors sure to be
>   impacted by the MAI were not consulted until October 1997. The
>   negotiators are now embroiled in a race against time in order to
>   avoid another postponement of negotiation deadlines, a delay that
>   might mean the kiss of death for the MAI. That would be a happy
>   ending indeed for a treaty that would tie its signatory countries
>   to the unfettered "free" global market economic model for 20
>   years. There would be every reason to celebrate the failure of a
>   treaty that would increase competitive pressure on wages and
>   policies, facilitate relocations, and ban many of the policies
>   desperately needed to strengthen local economies and reduce
>   general dependency on transnational corporations.
>
>
>==========================
>   CEO stands for Corporate Europe Observatory. We are an Amsterdam-
>   based non-profit organisation set up to monitor and report on the
>   political activities of European corporations and their lobby
>   groups. For comments, question and suggestions, contact:
>
>   Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO)
>   Prinseneiland 329
>   1013 LP Amsterdam
>   The Netherlands
>   Tel/fax: +31-30-2364422
>   E-mail: <ceo@xs4all.nl>
>   Web site: http://www.xs4all.nl/~ceo/
>  
>================================
>
>



     ****** A-Infos News Service *****
  News about and of interest to anarchists

Subscribe -> email MAJORDOMO@TAO.CA
             with the message SUBSCRIBE A-INFOS
Info      -> http://www.ainfos.ca/
Reproduce -> please include this section