---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 13:19:32 +1300 From: janice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: fwMAI--BHAGWATI ON THE MAI-Great !!! Jagdish Bhagwati: "If you think I'm crazy for opposing the MAI, just read the thing!" "Every lobby has put their two cents in. There are all kinds of restrictions on host countries that are unacceptable." "The MAI treads on a nation's political and civic rights." "We must remember that the world does not exist for business alone." On Tuesday, November 24, at a free trade rally (well, more like a panel discussion) at the American Enterprise Institute, one of the worlds foremost gurus of Free Trade, Jagdish Bhagwati, explained why the MAI is not only a failed document, but a failed concept. Bhagwati explained that the MAI places far too many restrictions on host countries because of the power of the business lobbies who drafted it. As an example, he felt that it was outrageous for the MAI to restrict the ability of a nation to require the use of local labor in production. Bhagwati said that if there is to be an agreement on international investment, it should be a minimalist document that deals with the core issues of establishment. He emphasized that it should not be a mandatory agreement. Most members of the panel agreed that it would be suicide to move the MAI to the WTO. The rest of the discussion was also of note. The panelists in addition to Bhagwati were: Claude Barfield, resident fellow at AEI John Jackson, professor of international economic law at Georgetown Sylvia Ostry, former Canadian Ambassador to the Uruguay Round of GATT Robert Lawrence, New Century Senior Fellow at Brookings and author of "Globaphobia: Confronting Fears about Open Trade." The discussion centered around the power of the NGOs and how to deal with that strength. The panelists and the audience of prominent free traders came to the conclusion that the NGOs were here to stay, were gaining in strength and would have to be reckoned with. As an example of the NGO strength, they noted how overwhelmed the OECD was when it received a letter in February from nearly 700 organizations from 68 countries in opposition to the MAI. They blamed the defeat of the MAI and of Fast Track on the power of the NGOs and "protectionist fears." Ostry noted that of the 19 Members of Congress backed by Sierra, 17 won. They decided that "linkage" - the combining of social issues with trade agreements (they focused on labor and the environment)- was the inevitable way of the future. The one dissension, however , was Bhagwati who believes that there is still time to try to delink\ the two. He believes that all interests would be better served if the President advocated for stand alone agreements to address social issues directly. He argued that many in the NGO community shared this belief but for now trade agreements are the "only game in town" so linkage is the only way to go. Lawrence came up with the radical notion that to counter the NGOs they would need to start providing proof - cost benefit analyses - that actually proved that trade agreements were worth while and a good deal for those involved (what a radical notion!). The only discussion of Lawrence's idea was from one member of the audience who said that such an analysis was impossible because it was too difficult to measure the social aspects in a cost/benefit analysis. What was so interesting was the sense of "what is the world coming to that we have to listen to these greens and these peaceniks?!" It was rather humorous. But, on a serious note, it was interesting that no one picked-up on Lawrence's idea. What they all seemed to miss was that the NGOs represent real people -- people who are doubting the benefits of free trade. In a discussion of the demise of Fast Track, no one mentioned that the many Americans saw Fast Track as a referendum on NAFTA and that few had seen any benefits from NAFTA. If the American public is going to support trade agreements in the future, they are going to need to see some sort of benefit for themselves and others -- their jobs, their air, their water, their food and their brothers and sisters across the world. If it turns out that there are more costs than benefits, the public will not support free trade and the NGOs that represent them will fight against free trade agreements that are written with the belief that the world exists for business alone. SO, KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK - THE RESULTS ARE CLEAR AND THE WORLD IS TAKING NOTICE! Margrete Strand Rangnes MAI Project Coordinator Public Citizen Global Trade Watch 215 Pennsylvania Ave, SE Washington DC, 20003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 202-546 4996, ext. 306 202-547 7392 (fax) To subscribe to our MAI Listserv send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], or subscribe directly by going to our website, www.tradewatch.org janice -- For MAI-not (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and links to other MAI sites please see http://mai.flora.org/
