The following gives no sense of what the US government found objectionable
in the MAI treaty as it now stands. Anyone have any more information or
thoughts? I am sure the problem was not the objections of labor and
environmental groups -- interesting the way the last sentence is tacked
on.
Marty Hart-Landsberg
On Fri, 13 Feb 1998, Sid Shniad wrote:
> > Friday February 13, 11:34 am Eastern Time
> >
> > U.S. will not sign global investment treaty-Barshefsky
> >
> > WASHINGTON, Feb 13 (Reuters) - The United States will not sign a
> > multilateral investment agreement being negotiated by the 29-member
> > Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, U.S. Trade
> > Representative Charlene Barshefsky said on Friday.
> >
> > ``This agreement at this stage is simply not good enough,'' Barshefsky said
> > at a news conference announcing a new trade compliance center. ``We do not
> > envision signing on to this agreement this April.''
> >
> > OECD representatives are set to meet next week in Paris to decide the fate
> > of the investment agreement and whether or not negotiations would be
> > completed in April as had been planned.
> >
> > Barshefsky said that, from the U.S. point of view, the agreement was
> > unbalanced and would require ``very substantial work to make it something
> > the United States will sign.''
> >
> > She told reporters the United States was not alone in its objections to the
> > agreement, which the OECD hoped would promote global investment.
> >
> > Environmental and labor groups around the world are strongly opposed to the
> > investment agreement, arguing that it gave too much power to investors at
> > the expense of taxpayers.
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Copyright © 1998 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or
> > redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior
> > written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or
> > delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon
> > See our Important Disclaimers and Legal Information.
> > Questions or Comments?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
