permaculture

[Marsha Hanzi <hanzibra@svn.com.br>]

--- Begin Message ---

• From: "anita jones" <orcinus2@hotmail.com>
• To: hanzibra@svn.com.br
• Cc: caveiras@hotmail.com, outlook@ihug.co.nz, knightp@musgrave.cqu.edu.au, Rupique@waveland.org, solobeach@winshop.com.au
• Subject: Fwd: Fw: Oppose MAI shift to WTO! (fwd)
• Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 20:15:24 PDT

----Original Message Follows----
Reply-To: <earth.cops@MCI2000.com>
From: "Sherri Schelk" <ecocops@san.rr.com>
To: <Orcinus2@hotmail.com>
Cc: <Orcinus2@hotmail.com>
Subject: Fw: Oppose MAI shift to WTO! (fwd)
Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 18:20:17 -0700

Hello! Here's some more on the MAI...
Orcinus2------
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 09:14:58 -0400 (EDT)
> TO: Those Interested in the MAI
> FR: Martin Khor, Third World Network
>
> A CALL TO OPPOSE MOVES TO TRANSFER AN MAI-TYPE TREATY TO THE WTO
>
> Dear friends,
>
> Now that the MAI in the OECD is encountering problems, there is a
> real possibility and threat that efforts will be intensified to
> push for negotiations on a MAI-like investment treaty in the WTO.
>
> The EC and other countries are likely to go on the offensive to
> persuade parliamentarians, NGOs and the media that the WTO is a
> more friendly arena, that the developing countries will have a
> greater say, and that environmental and labour concerns will be
> better taken care of in the WTO. The European Parliament in its
> resolution had in fact called for the talks to shift from OECD to
> WTO.
>
> This is a false and dangerous argument that should be vigorously
> opposed. I have written the following paper on why this is so.
> Action should be taken urgently, as the moves to intensify a
> parallel process in the WTO are likely to be stepped up decisively
> in the run-up to the WTO Ministerial Conference on 18-20 May in
> Geneva, and at the Conference itself.
>
> I would be grateful if you could read this paper and consider what
> can be done. Please also CIRCULATE this paper through your own
> network to as many persons and groups as possible.
>
> Could the points in this paper also be included in any future joint
> or individual NGO statements on the MAI? Also, do you think it
> worthwhile to have a joint statement on this specific issue?
>
> Do let me know any feedback you may have.
>
> Thanks for your cooperation,
>
> Martin Khor (Director, Third World Network)
> 5 May 1998
> (E-Mail address: twn@igc.apc.org)
>
>
> THE NEED TO OPPOSE THE EMERGENCE OF AN MAI IN THE WTO
>
> Martin Khor (Third World Network)
>
> The MAI is facing serious difficulties in the OECD. Many OECD
> countries have submitted long reservation lists. Many issues also
> remain unresolved. Citizen groups in many OECD countries have
> launched strong protests against their governments entering an MAI.
>
> Due to these difficulties, the OECD ministerial meeting in Paris at
> the end of April 1998 decided to suspend the negotiations for six
> months.
>
> Whilst even mainstream newspapers like Financial Times and the
> Globe and Mail (Canada) have acknowledged the role played by NGOs
> in contributing to the derailing (temporarily at least) of the
> OECD-MAI, there are no grounds for relaxing the campaign.
>
> Indeed, there is now a real possibility and danger that the centre
> of negotiations will shift to the World Trade Organisation, a move
> that seems to be favoured by the European Union (and especially by
> the European Commission). The European Parliament, in their
> critical resolution on the OECD-MAI, had also called for the
> negotiations to shift to the WTO.
>
> The OECD ministerial declaration of April 98 states that OECD
> governments "support the current work programme on investment in
> the WTO and once the work programme has been completed will seek
> support of all their partners for the next steps towards the
> creation of investment rules in the WTO."
>
> More recently, a meeting of the trade ministers of the "Quads" (US,
> Canada, EU and Japan) on 30 Apr-1 May in Versailles, concluded with
> a chairman's statement that the WTO ministerial meeting (in May 19-
> 20) should set in motion a process enabling decisions to be taken
> in 1999 on the scope and modalities of further global trade
> liberalisation.
>
> The EU is championing a new comprehensive "Millennium Round"
> in the WTO, which presumably would include upgrading the investment
> issue from the present working group (whose mandate is to "study
> the relation between trade and investment") to a group negotiating
> an MAI-like agreement. Japan has also come out in favour of such
> a new Round.
>
> In recent statements, as the OECD-MAI encountered more problems,
> the EC and Canada, have been saying that the MAI should now be
> negotiated in the WTO. To boost this move, the EC has also claimed
> that at the WTO the developing countries can also participate, and
> this is thus more participatory. Proponents of an MAI in the WTO
> can also be expected to claim that labour and environmental issues
> will be taken care of, and also that suggestions to balance the
> rights and obligations of corporations can be considered.
>
> NGOs not be taken in by such an argument and should reject any move
> to get the WTO to negotiate an investment treaty. Getting the MAI
> or a similar investment treaty in the WTO would be even worse for
> developing countries. This is because:
>
> (1) Most developing countries are members in WTO and if a treaty
> is concluded there they would have to join it. If the MAI is at
> the OECD, each developing country can decide whether or not to
> join.
>
> (2) The WTO is not democractic or transparent. Developing
> countries in reality won't have much say in determining the final
> outcome. Nor will most of them be able to participate in the real
> negotiations, that often take place in "informal meetings" to which
> a few key countries may be invited. For example, during the
> Uruguay Round, although many developing countries opposed many
> aspects of the TRIPS treaty, in the end the US had its way.
> Although some developing countries may oppose a MAI-type proposal
> in the WTO, eventually it is likely they could be isolated and in
> the end an MAI will emerge.
>
> (3) The WTO's dispute settlement system will be effective in tying
> down developing countries to implement an MAI there. Countries
> that don't comply with some parts could face trade sanctions or at
> least the threat of being taken to a WTO panel. Thus the WTO is
> popular with the rich countries as they can use it to enforce the
> rules on the South.
>
> (4) WTO is supposed to be a TRADE organisation. Its mandate
> should not be expanded to INVESTMENT policies and rules. If an
> MAI-type treaty is negotiated in WTO, then the existing principles
> of the WTO such as NATIONAL TREATMENT could quite easily be
> extended to INVESTMENT (it applies now to goods).
>
> The history of MAI-type investment rules in the WTO is that the
> rich countries, especially the US, tried to introduce in as part of
> the TRIMS (trade-related investment measures) negotiations during
> the Uruguay Round. This attempt failed as there was strong
> opposition from many developing countries to introduce investment
> policies and rules per se in the negotiations.
>
> Therefore the TRIMS agreement is now limited only to preventing
> trade-related investment measures, such as requiring investors to
> follow a requirement to have a minimum level of local content in
> their product. (It is argued that local content policy would
> adversely affect imports and thus distorts trade). Investment
> policies per se (such as a country's policy on foreign investment,
> such as criteria for entry of firms, the conditions for their
> establishment, whether or not to grant national treatment) are thus
> excluded from TRIMS. Most developing countries thus maintain their
> regulatory control over foreign investment.
>
> In 1995-96 the EC led a campaign within the WTO to get a
> negotiation process going for a MIA (multilateral investment
> agreement). Many developing countries (including India, Indonesia,
> Malaysia, Tanzania, Uganda) opposed it. Investment became the
> biggest and most controversial issue in the run-up to the WTO's
> first Ministerial Conference in 1996. In the face of the strong
> opposition from developing countries, the rich countries (including
> Japan and Canada) then downgraded their demand to creating a
> working group to STUDY the relation between trade and investment.
>
> This working group for a study process was agreed to at the WTO
> Ministerial Conference (Singapore - December 1996). There was an
> explicit agreement that the working group on trade and investment
> would only STUDY the relation, and WOULD NOT BE ENGAGED IN
> NEGOTIATIONS for an investment agreement.
>
> Any decision, if any, to start a negotiation process has to be
> EXPLICITLY taken by consensus. After 2 years (Dec 1998) the
> working group will decide how to proceed. The group has been
> meeting in Geneva for discussion but not for any negotiation.
>
> Now that the OECD process has slowed down, it is likely that the EC
> (led by Sir Leon Brittan), Canada, the WTO Director General (Renato
> Ruggiero) will now PUSH VERY HARD to intensify the WTO process.
> They will push to intensify the discussion in the working group on
> trade & investment and will propose that this be upgraded to a
> NEGOTIATION for an investment treaty.
>
> The treaty they have in mind is THE SAME AS THE MAI. This is clear
> from the EC paper "A Level Playing Field for Foreign Investment
> Worldwide" (1995) which describes the EC strategy of pushing for an
> MIA/MAI at both the WTO and the OECD. The main features (including
> the right to establishment, national treatment, banning of
> performance requirements, right of entry and exit of funds, etc)
> are similar to what emerged in the OECD-MAI.
>
> Therefore NGOs should not be swayed or taken in by arguments from
> the EC, Canada or other countries, that public concerns (such as
> labour or environmental issues) and the South's interests would be
> better taken care of by initiating an agreement at the WTO.
>
> In reality, it would be WORSE for developing countries and for the
> world because an MAI in the WTO would have over 130 countries
> involved.
>
>
> PROPOSALS:
>
> 1. Therefore NGOs should OPPOSE strongly now any proposal or
> pressure to upgrade the present STUDY GROUP in the WTO into a
> NEGOTIATING GROUP.
>
> 2. This opposition should be made clear during the Second WTO
> Ministerial Conference in Geneva on 18-20 May 1998. There is a
> possibility the EC and others could use this occasion to PUSH for
> negotiations on new issues including INVESTMENT, perhaps through a
> Millennium Round to start in 1999 or 2000.
>
> 3. NGOs involved in the MAI issue should take this up as their
> main issue in the WTO Conference. They could press their Trade
> Ministers before the meeting to commit that they would not press
> for the investment issue.
>
> 4. NGOS can also contact members of the media covering the event
> to brief them on the issue and make clear to them that NGOs oppose
> shifting the MAI to the WTO.
>
> 5. Moreover, NGOs should also campaign that the existing working
> group on trade and investment conclude their discussions with a
> decision that the WTO should not take up investment policy or rules
> as part of their mandate, and that the working group itself should
> be wound up.
>
> 6. The European Parliament members should be persuaded to withdraw
> from their stand (in their resolution on the MAI) that the MAI
> negotiations should shift to the WTO. In fact, Parliamentarians,
> citizen groups, municipalities etc should be informed of the
> greater dangers of an MAI in the WTO and asked to also oppose such
> a development from taking place.
>
>
> P.S. BEWARE ALSO OF THE IMF
>
> The IMF Secretariat and some G7 want to amend the IMF Articles of
> Association to introduce "CAPITAL ACCOUNT LIBERALISATION" as part
> of the IMF's objectives or operations. This would allow IMF to
> discipline and pressurise developing countries to increasingly open
> their doors to capital flows such as portfolio investment, FDI,
> loans, bonds and the outflow capital funds. This is another route
> for MAI-type rules on investments. This proposal will continue to
> be discussed at IMF meetings this year. THIS AMENDMENT SHOULD ALSO
> BE OPPOSED. (Such an amendment would among other things enable the
> IMF to have a much stronger hand to discipline developing countries
> to deregulate financial flows and open up their financial markets,
> a process that was largely responsible for the East Asian financial
> crisis. There will be more Mexican and Asian type crises if the
> IMF amendment is carried).
>
>
> For more information or clarification, contact Martin Khor at
> fax: 60-4-2264505 or email address twn@igc.apc.org.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from SEAC+ANNOUNCE send a message to
> seac+announce-request@earthsystems.org with the word
> unsubscribe in the subject. If you have any problems
> please write to: seacnet@earthsystems.org
>



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com



--- End Message ---