We waded through the esoteric economic language and put the Multilateral Agreement on Investment in terms everyone can understand- while telling you what's at stake for your community Near the five-year anniversary of the birth of the North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA), one company celebrated by suing the Canadian
government.
In April of 1997, the US-based Ethyl Corporation sought $251 million in
damages in a lawsuit against the Canadian government over their ban of
methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl (MMT).
MMT is a fuel additive that is mixed with gasoline to prevent engine
knocking. Many scientists believe that the manganese portion of MMT is
a dangerous neurotoxin that can cause nerve damage leading to
psychosis, memory loss, and death. MMT has also been known to damage
automobile emission control systems.
Before the lawsuit, Canada was the only country in the world where MMT
was sold - the demand is so low that Ethyl Corporation is the only
manufacturer of the substance worldwide. MMT is banned in some US
states and simply not stocked in others because of its dangerous
properties. After a long debate, the Canadian parliament voted to ban
the import and interprovincial transport of MMT.
Ethyl Corporation retaliated immediately by suing the Canadian
government before a NAFTA tribunal for the "expropriation" of its
assets - the profits it was denied because of the ban - and for the
damage such a lawsuit and even the mere debate over the issue would do
to its reputation. When the Canadian government realized that its MMT
ban would be ruled illegal under NAFTA' rules, they settled with Ethyl
Corporation in July of 1998. Canadian taxpayers paid the company $20
million in damages, and the government was forced to announce that MMT
"poses no health risk."
Similar lawsuits are beginning to multiply under NAFTA - including a
challenge to a Canadian export ban on PCB (a suspected endocrine
disruptor) that was slapped on the government a week after the Ethyl
Corporation settlement. And investor-favoring rules like the one that
made the Ethyl lawsuit possible are being written into other trade
agreements and appearing in international trade venues. However, the
trade agreement that has the most people up in arms is the Multilateral
Agreement on Investment (MAI).
Modelled largely on NAFTA, the MAI has been called "NAFTA on steroids"
by its detractors because, as they say, it' bigger and meaner. For
example, under the MAI, investors like Ethyl Corp. could sue
governments not just in North America, but around the world for any
actions that could be construed as restricting investment flows.
The MAI began in 1995, when the 29 mostly high-income countries that
make up the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) - a forum where governments conduct research and negotiate
policies on trade and investment - started negotiating the agreement in
secret. In fact, few scholars, citizens, activists, and even
legislators were aware of its existence until 1997, when a source
inside the OECD leaked a copy of the agreement to the Council of
Canadians, a non-partisan, independent citizens' group. The Council of
Canadians in turn passed the news on to several non-governmental
organizations. The media in many countries - particularly the US - has
responded to the MAI with a deafening silence.
Nevertheless, news spread through the Internet, bringing the MAI under
fire from a broad international citizens' movement - so much so that
negotiations have been stalled twice and France pulled out altogether
last October. Two months later, the OECD made a formal announcement
stating they are no longer conducting negotiations on the MAI. As
governments from the industrial countries search for a new venue under
which to reach consensus on the MAI, citizens around the world are
coming up with new, inventive ways to ensure that the MAI and treaties
like it will not be part of the world economy in the new millennium.
The MAI- a corporate bill of rights So
what is the MAI, and why has it warranted such secrecy? The overall
purpose of this agreement is to facilitate the movement of assets -
whether money or production facilities - across international borders.
Those who favor the MAI note that international trade is a powerful
engine of economic growth, which produces the goods and services people
desire the world over. The MAI would, in their view, increase investor
confidence and result in substantial increases in foreign investment
and international trade, which would in turn have beneficial effects on
worldwide employment and prosperity.
MAI opponents dispute many of the assumptions of the "free traders" and
maintain that the most important effects would be to accelerate the
"race to the bottom" in environmental and labor standards, increase
global financial instability, and further concentrate wealth and power
in large transnational corporations. They point to the effects of NAFTA
as evidence for concern.
Like most international treaties, "the MAI establishes a series of
rights and responsibilities," says Lori Wallach of Public Citizen'
Global Trade Watch. "Unlike other treaties, the rights go only to
foreign investors, while the responsibilities go only to governments."
Although governments must take care not to impose barriers to trade and
investment flow, the MAI does not include a reciprocal set of
obligations that would hold investors and multinational corporations
accountable to local and state governments, labor, communities, or
other businesses for their conduct. And unlike the NAFTA provisions,
the MAI would broaden the conditions under which foreign investors
could sue local governments throughout all signatory countries, whereas
NAFTA allows this privilege only under narrowly defined circumstances,
and only between Canada, the US, and Mexico. Some of the troublesome
provisions in the MAI include:
· Under the current draft of the MAI, investors and companies will have
the right to sue governments for losses caused by environmental or
health legislation, as in the case with Ethyl Corporation and Canada.
· The MAI draft text would also grant "Most Favored Nation" status to
corporations and investors from all signatory countries. Governments
would not be able to pick and choose with whom they would do business
based on human rights, environmental, labor, arms control, or other
concerns. For example, many US states have recently adopted "Burma
Laws," barring business transactions with Burma (now called "Myanmar")
because of the country' numerous human rights violations. These laws
could be struck down under the MAI, and the US might even have to pay
damages to companies who felt their profits were adversely affected by
the laws.
· The draft MAI text also mandates the principle of "National
Treatment," which means that governments would have to treat foreign
investors and multinational corporations as well or better than
domestic companies. Tax incentives and laws designed to grow small,
domestic businesses could be challenged because such laws discriminate
against foreign investors and corporations. In
awarding contracts for health and social services, such as garbage
collection or water and sewage, local governments couldn't favor local
companies and non-profit organizations without the fear of being sued
under the MAI. Therefore, foreign corporations could end up managing a
community' health care, running the municipal water system, or taking
municipal contracts from local nonprofits, such as a Meals on Wheels
program.
· The MAI also prohibits local, state, and federal governments from
setting up "performance requirements" under which foreign investors are
required to operate to protect the interests of the country' citizens.
Such requirements might include: hiring a minimum number of local
people in a foreign firm, reinvesting a minimum amount in the local
community, or using a certain percentage of domestic products.
· Finally, if a country decided that the MAI wasn't in its best
interests, it would still be bound to MAI obligations for 20 years.
Countries are locked into the MAI for five years, after which all of
its existing foreign investments are still locked into the agreement
for 15 additional years.
Grassroots opposition links up on the Web Although
the MAI was scheduled to be ratified at the OECD by May of 1997, its
exposure and the ensuing outcry of protest worldwide was instrumental
in postponing negotiations on several occasions - first until April
1998, then again to the following October - when the MAI was ultimately
derailed at the OECD. The people who had the power to stop the momentum
of this agreement weren't high-powered politicians or CEOs with a
conscience, but ordinary citizens armed with computers and access to
the Internet.
When the MAI text was initially leaked onto the Internet, hundreds of
non-governmental organizations around the world read it and launched
protest campaigns within days of its posting. Grassroots organizations
from Canada to Malaysia - many of whom are in regular contact through
the International Forum on Globalization - have linked their efforts
via the Web, trading information and tactics with the click of a mouse.
"We are in constant contact with our allies in other countries," says
Maude Barlow, chair of the Council of Canadians. "If a negotiator says
something to someone over a glass of wine, we'll have it on the
Internet within an hour, all over the world."
In Europe, the effort to break down the wall of media silence
surrounding the MAI has been so successful that people have filled the
Op-Ed pages of their local papers with anti-MAI editorials and have
even taken to the streets to voice their opposition to the agreement.
This type of protest was what caused French prime minister Lionel
Jospin to pull out of the final round of MAI negotiations at the OECD.
The backdoor MAI Though
the MAI may look dead, it' actually very much alive. Already, Japan and
the European Union - including France, whose departure so weakened the
MAI discussion at the OECD - are pushing to have negotiations of
MAI-like investment liberalization rules moved to the World Trade
Organization (WTO).
In addition, several MAI provisions are finding their way into other
trade agreements under negotiation, such as the Free Trade of the
Americas (FTAA) between North and South America, the Asia Pacific
Economic Cooperation forum (APEC) which includes most Pacific Rim
countries, and the proposed TransAtlantic Economic Partnership (TEP),
which links economies in the US and Europe.
Furthermore, the International Monetary Fund is campaigning to amend
its Articles of Association so it can demand that member countries open
themselves up to liberalized investment. Several critics have named
this effort the "backdoor MAI."
And in the US, the Clinton administration has been fighting to pass
Fast Track negotiating authority, which would restrict congressional
debate on international trade agreements like the MAI. Under Fast
Track, Congress would be required to hold a yes/no vote, with no
amendments and a limited amount of discussion. Though Fast Track has
been defeated twice in the House of Representatives - due in part to
the efforts of US NGOs and activists - the Clinton administration
doesn't intend to give up on it. While the mainstream media has been
preoccupied with the Lewinsky/Clinton scandal and the afternoon
impeachment hearings, a Senate committee has devoted its mornings to
hearings on Fast Track and the Crane Sub-Saharan Africa Trade Bill,
which passed the House last summer amid protests from NGOs and even the
Reverend Jesse Jackson. This bill would cut off existing African trade
and aid benefits unless African countries meet a list of MAI-like
conditions, such as providing national treatment to foreign investors.
"Because of the way the MAI is being broken up and spread out to other
venues, we have to broaden our efforts and relate the MAI to the Africa
Bill, to Fast Track, and to all of these other trade agreements," says
Margrete Strand-Rangnes, MAI Campaign Coordinator for Public Citizen.
"The people who are trying to pass these bills have the same agenda as
those who want to ratify the MAI."
Welcome to Olympia - MAI-free since 1998 Local
governments have been among the first to understand the message of the
anti-MAI activists - no surprise since the agreement would dictate how
and with whom local communities could do business.
Several municipalities in Canada, Australia, Switzerland, and the US
have been so concerned about the agreement that they've passed anti-MAI
resolutions, declaring themselves "MAI-free zones" with the aim of
generating local press and educating the public about the MAI and how
it could affect local communities.
Olympia, Washington, was one of the first US cities to pass such a
resolution. "The city council heard a talk on the MAI, took one look at
the document, and went crazy," says Sally Soriano of the Washington
Fair Trade Campaign. "The anger of those people when they heard about
what the MAI could do to our communities was astounding."
Last December, Soriano took the issue to the mostly Republican King
County Council in Seattle and asked them to pass an anti-MAI
resolution. "This is the county where Microsoft and Boeing are
headquartered, but the vote was unanimous against the MAI," says
Soriano.
Councilmember Maggi Fimia, who co-sponsored the measure, says, "The
agreement could inhibit many normal local government functions. For
example, if lands owned by a foreign investor were rezoned, that
investor could presumably bring a lawsuit before an international
tribunal."
The King County Council sent out press releases to every newspaper in
Washington about their resolution, but only one paper - the independent
Seattle Weekly - published an article on the action. Soriano blames
some of the media reticence on the obscurity of the conversation around
the MAI.
"People' eyes just glaze over when you talk about the MAI. There's so
much super-legalese, and it's so abstract. If we don't translate it
fast enough, and the media doesn't grab ahold of it soon enough,
MAI-like rules are going to be passed quickly and without much
discussion." The citizens' inquiry With the Eyes Glaze
Over factor in mind, the Council of Canadians took an MAI Inquiry on
the road last fall, aiming to translate the MAI and other trade and
investment issues into understandable terms while educating Canadian
citizens about potential repercussions.
More than 15,000 Canadians in the eight provinces have participated in
the Inquiry process. Council chair Maude Barlow and several prominent
Canadian and US citizens - including PFN chair David Korten
– acted as "commissioners" during the hearings, speaking about the
MAI and its potential consequences for local communities. But what was
different about the hearings was that interest groups - including
representatives from labor, healthcare, education, environmental,
aboriginal rights, entertainment, and religious groups - and average
citizens took up most of the time presenting their own testimony about
how the MAI would affect their communities and livelihoods.
For example, the Canadian Teachers' Federation had this to say about
the treaty: "The MAI in its present form remains a seriously flawed
document. ... Some schools have developed guidelines to regulate the
involvement of big business in education. Under the MAI, such rules
could be challenged as unfair investment restrictions."
But the Inquiry didn't end with anger and opposition. "Not only was it
clear that participants wanted to stop the MAI," says Anna Dashtgard,
MAI Campaign Officer for the Council of Canadians, "but they want this
movement to monitor and push for limits on corporate control at the
local, national, and international levels."
In addition, the Inquiry participants felt that their agenda should
include devising alternatives to the global economy. Canadians aren't
alone in this regard. Organizations around the world are now creating
alternate versions of the MAI to give concrete weight to what fair and
just trade and investment rules would be like.
"We've spent the past two years opposing the MAI," says Dashtgard.
"We've temporarily set back negotiations, and we have a voice now.
Inquiry participants felt that it's time to create new, human-based
terms for trade and investment that we can recommend to government and
corporations, instead of just saying, ‘No, no, no.'"
In a joint statement, several labor groups who attended the hearings
– including the Canadian Autoworkers Union and the Canadian Labour
Congress -; noted, "What we do need are much stronger controls on
transnational corporations to ensure that they operate in the interests
of communities by creating jobs, respecting human rights, protecting
the environment, conserving our resources, and paying their fair share
of taxes."
Dashtgard says that participants have followed up in every province
with community events and demonstrations around the MAI and trade and
investment issues. The Council plans to conduct similar hearings and
events in rural areas during the next phase of the campaign.
Nurturing hope One
thing that activists from all parts of the globe seem to have in common
is the belief that the MAI, free trade agreements, and economic
globalization are not inevitable. "People are becoming savvy on the
MAI because they're facing the hard consequences of, for example,
NAFTA," says Public Citizen's Strand-Rangnes. She notes that the most
powerful thing people can do is talk to others. "A woman in Michigan
called me because she was outraged by what she'd heard about the MAI
and wanted to learn more. Two days later, she called again and said she
was starting an anti-MAI chapter in her community. When I asked her how
she did it, she said, ‘Well, I started talking to the pizza delivery
woman about the MAI, and she was outraged too. So we got some people
together.'"
Anna Dashtgard feels that this kind of organizing goes beyond merely
creating new guidelines for trade and investment. "It's a very
powerful, very spiritual movement. It taps into a collective spirit of
hope and faith that we can construct something different; that we're
not just a global community based on profit, but on something more
fundamental. Every major change that has taken place throughout history
has had this type of collective spirit behind it."
Tracy
Rysavy, YES! associate editor, encourages people to distribute this
article and use it to combat the econo-speak surrounding the MAI. For
more information, contact: Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, 215
Pennsylvania Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20003; 202/546-4996; www.citizen.org/trade/; and The Council of Canadians, Suite 502, 151 Slater St., Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5H3; 613/233-6776; www.canadians.org
Reprints/Reposts :: Contact Us :: 206-842-0216 :: Toll-Free Subscriptions 1-800-937-4451
YES! is published by the Positive Futures Network, 284 Madrona Way NE, Ste 116, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110-2870
