Forwarded message:
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 17:31:22 -0700
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Sid Shniad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: NGOs say NO to MAI at WTO!
>Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 17:49:47 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Chantell Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>{[EMAIL PROTECTED]} at 6/03/98 4:19 pm
>>Original Recipient(s):
>>
>>Dear friends,
>>
>>As you know, a large number of MAI campaigners met in Geneva on
>>17 May 1998, prior to the second Ministerial Meeting of the World
>>Trade Organisation.
>>
>>Grave concerns shared by a majority of the group that a MAI-like
>>agreement may emerge at the WTO led to a statement of protest
>>that was circulated to government and non-government participants
>>at the WTO meeting (18-20 May). The statement calls for a
>>termination of the OECD MAI negotiations as there are no signs
>>that the MAI basic approach will be changed. It further rejects
>>the WTO taking up a MAI-like agreement. More groups signed on
>>during the ministerial meeting.
>>
>>Over the next few months we expect increasing pressure to
>>"upgrade" the work of the WTO study group on trade and investment
>>into possible negotiations. It is urgent that we act to prevent
>>the WTO from starting negotiations on an investment agreement.
>>
>>We therefore urge you to sign on to the statement below, and to
>>further circulate it to other groups/networks, etc.
>>
>>Yours sincerely,
>>
>>Martin Khor and Chee Yoke Ling
>>Third World Network
>>
>>228 Macalister Road
>>10400 Penang
>>Malaysia
>>
>>Fax: +604-226 4505
>>Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>CALL TO REJECT ANY PROPOSAL FOR MOVING THE MAI OR AN INVESTMENT
>>AGREEMENT TO THE WTO
>>
>>1. The Multilateral Agreement on Investment in the OECD has
>>been temporarily stalled because of strong public protests in
>>many OECD countries as well as objections from developing-country
>>groups and governments. Objections from the public include that
>>the MAI would grant new unprecedented rights for corporations
>>(whilst removing the authority of states to place obligations or
>>regulations on them), threaten national sovereignty and the
>>viability of domestic firms and farms, remove conditions for
>>development in the South and magnify environmental and social
>>problems. Since there is no sign that the OECD governments are
>>willing to consider a basic change in the premises and framework
>>of the MAI, we call for the termination of the negotiations and
>>the treaty in the OECD.
>>2. We are very concerned by the moves of some OECD governments,
>>including the European Union, to move the MAI process to the
>>World Trade Organisation (WTO). Some of them claim this will make
>>it fairer for developing countries and, moreover, environmental
>>and labour concerns will be taken care of in the WTO. We reject
>>these claims. Instead, shifting the investment issue to the WTO
>>will place great pressure on developing countries to negotiate
>>and eventually join an agreement that would have disastrous
>>effects on their development prospects. Moreover, promises to
>>include environmental and social concerns are likely to be only
>>an eyewash to co-opt the public to accept the basic tenets of the
>>MAI. The strong enforcement capability of the WTO through its
>>dispute settlement system will also mean that all countries,
>>especially developing countries, will be forced to comply.
>>
>>Domestic laws and policies in a wide range of issues will have
>>to be changed, even if these were to cause job losses, closure
>>of local enterprises and farms, financial instability, balance
>>of payments deficits and environmental deterioration.
>>
>>3. We therefore call on all governments, OECD and non-OECD
>>alike, to reject any proposal to negotiate an investment
>>agreement in the WTO. The trade and investment working group in
>>the WTO should be confined to only study the trade and investment
>>relation and should not be "upgraded" into a negotiation forum
>>for an investment agreement. The proposals by the EU and other
>>major countries to start a "Millennium Round" or a "comprehensive
>>future agenda" for the WTO should not be used as a devise to
>>sneak in an investment negotiation process in the WTO.
>>
>>4. On principle, we are against the kind of assumptions and
>>framework that the MAI represents. As public knowledge on the MAI
>>increases, many more people are rejecting this approach. We call
>>on governments, international agencies and NGOs not to accept the
>>MAI or a similar investment approach as inevitable or a "given"
>>but instead to choose a basically different approach in dealing
>>with the investment issue.
>>
>>5. Towards this alternative approach, we call for global and
>>national guidelines, rules and regulations to place obligations
>>on investors and corporations so that their activities and
>>products serve the needs of people within a framework of
>>internationally fair, socially just and environmentally sound
>>development.
>>
>>
>>Third World Network
>>ECOROPA
>>Observatoire de la Mondialisation
>>Coordination Centre L'AMI (French Coordination Centre against the
>>MAI)
>>Council of Canadians
>>Health Action International
>>National Campaign against the MAI in Canada
>>Global Trade Watch, Public Citizen (USA)
>>Friends of the Earth (USA)
>>International Coalition of Development Action
>>People's Decade of Human Rights Education
>>Habitat International Coalition
>>Citizens for a Democratic Renaissance (Ireland)
>>Women's Environment and Development Organisation
>>Red Thread (Guyana)
>>Friends of the Earth International
>>National Wildlife Federation (USA)
>>Eco News Africa (Kenya)
>>Alternative Information and Development Centre (South Africa)
>>Global Publications Foundation (Sweden)
>>Peoples' Forum 2001 (Japan)
>>Focus on Global South (Thailand)
>>WEED-World Economy, Ecology and Development Association (Germany)
>>Germanwatch, North-South Initiative (Germany)
>>Polaris Institute (Canada)
>>Consumers Association of Penang (Malaysia)
>>UBINIG (Bangladesh)
>>Council for Responsible Genetics (USA)
>>Washington Biotechnology Action Council (USA)
>>GATT WTO Campaign (Norway)
>>Network Women in Development Europe (WIDE)
>>Oscar Zamora, University of the Philippines Los Banos (the
>>Philippines)
>>All India Association of Industries
>>A-SEED Europe
>>Biowatch South Africa
>>Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN)
>>Institute for Sustainable Development (Ethiopia)
>>Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
>>Southern African Traditional Leaders' Council for the Management
>>of Natural Resources
>>C.I.I.R. (UK)
>>Gaia Foundation (UK)
>>
>>Forum of Parliamentarians on Intellectual Property and WTO Issues
>>(India)
>>National Working Group on Patent Laws (India)
>>Centre for Study of Global Patent System and Development (India)
>===== Comments by CTAYLOR@CITIZEN (Chantell Taylor) at 6/03/98 4:13 pm
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
