-----Original Message----- From: John Hermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: John Hermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, 25 May 1999 5:35 PM Subject: WATCH OUT FOR MAI MARK TWO >ERA EMAIL NETWORK > >Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 19:28:19 +1100 >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Valerie Yule) >Subject: LL:ART: MAI Mark 2 needs watching > >Published in LE MONDE DIPLOMATIQUE, May 1999 >Transatlantic wheeling and dealing > > >WATCH OUT FOR MAI MARK TWO >by Christian De Brie >Observatoire de la mondialisation (Globalisation watch) > > >Sheltered from the hubbub of war and crisis, Europe, the United States and >the World Trade Organisation (WTO) are devising agreements that will remove >the final obstacles to the free play of "market forces" and require >countries to submit to the unfettered expansion of the multinationals. >Learning from the failure of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment >(MAI), big business and technocrats are trying to force through a decision >before the end of 1999. > > >Translated by Malcolm Greenwood > >The corpse of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) hardly had >time to get cold in the vaults of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation >and Development (OECD) (1) before the ultra-liberal Dr Jekylls led by Sir >Leon Brittan, the outgoing European Commission vice-president and >Thatcherite die-hard, have tried to clone it, excitedly hoping to see new >Draculas emerge from their test tubes by the year 2000. > >This urgent work is being carried out in two secret laboratories with "keep >out" signs to deter anyone not wearing a lab coat: the Transatlantic >Economic Partnership (TEP) and the Millennium Round of the World Trade >Organisation. > >The first of these, which opened on 16 September 1998, is dedicated (though >it will not admit it) to that favourite project of the British and the >Americans - seeing the European Union dissolved in a free trade area with >the United States. Following the failure of the first attempt in 1994, a >rehashed version presented by the European Commission on 11 March 1998 >under the name NTM (New Transatlantic Marketplace) was thrown out by the >foreign ministers of the Fifteen on 27 April. > >As he had done before, Brittan went back to his drawing board (without >seeking a mandate) to come up with a disguised version of his pet scheme. >If the 27 pages of the Commission recommendation on the negotiation of >agreements in the field of technical barriers to trade between the EU and >the US (2) are anything to go by, the outcome promises to be instructive. >(An abbreviated version was approved by the Council, empowering it to >negotiate on behalf of the member states, then by the European parliament >in September and November 1998). > >On the pretext of removing "technical barriers to trade", which include >health, social and environmental protection regulations, the ultimate aim >is to "reach a general commitment to unconditional access to the market in >all sectors and for all methods of supply" of products and services, >including health, education and public contracts. In the inimitable jargon >of the Commission, states and local authorities are required to make all >derogations explicit in the form of "a negative freedom" given that the >agreements negotiated apply to all the territory of the parties, regardless >of their constitutional structures, at all levels of authority. This is >very restrictive for the local authorities of the European countries, but >of little risk to the US, where the federal states are not bound by >Washington's signature in the matter. > >The aim is gradually to draw up common minimum regulations "based on the >recommendations of enterprises" in order to "create new outlets" for them - >all this in "a spirit of conviviality". Involved in the TEP talks from the >outset, the multinationals have greatly influenced the content thanks to a >powerful lobby that has been institutionalised for four years: the >Transatlantic Business Dialogue (TABD) bringing together the upper crust of >big business on both sides of the North Atlantic. Its last two-yearly >meeting took place in Charlotte (North Carolina) in November 1998. > >Big business to call the tune > >In order to allay suspicion, they are trying to rush through the >establishment of a Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue, a Transatlantic Labour >Dialogue and a Transatlantic Environment Dialogue for consumers, trade >unions and ecologists respectively, who will have to stay firmly within the >bounds set by big business in the TABD. The latter has no intention of >giving anything more than a half-hearted commitment to optional codes of >conduct with no sanctions attached. > >Thus "hemmed in", talks proceed behind closed doors, using salami tactics >to avoid alerting public opinion, so that everything can be sewn up by >December 1999. Industrial goods, services, public contracts, intellectual >property, etc. - in a dozen fields, slice by slice, "mutual recognition >agreements" (MRA), apparently technical but in fact political, seek to >reduce standards and regulations to the lowest common denominator. The >outcome is that the safeguards that Europe has built up, in food, the >environment and health in particular, are being dismantled. > >Once agreement has been reached, governments will be obliged to abolish any >laws that conflict with the MRAs. And it is no surprise to find that the >procedures will consist of meetings "at cabinet level in order to maintain >political impetus" and between "top officials assisted where necessary by >ad hoc or specialist groups" who will take care of everything together with >consultants from the world of business. > >Talks conducted behind closed doors without democratic control aim for a >hastily signed final agreement: the TEP follows the same aims as the MAI - >to hand over all human activities to capital, without let or hindrance, >thereby stripping the EU, member governments and local authorities of their >ability to pursue their own policies, be they economic, social, cultural or >environmental. > >But the document signed at the London transatlantic summit on 18 May 1998 >has another aim: to establish a US-EU condominium capable of imposing its >will on the rest of the world, and in particular the countries of the South >in the talks due to open at the WTO in December. The war being prosecuted, >with the support of their governments, by transnational corporations on >both sides of the Atlantic for the conquest and domination of world markets >is becoming increasingly brutal and has no regard for laws. Witness >America's extraterritorial Helms-Burton and D'Amato-Gilman acts that are >contrary to international law; the banana war lost by the EU despite the >LomT agreements that are no longer worth the paper they are written on; the >disputes over hormone-contaminated meat and genetically modified organisms >(GMOs) that contravene health regulations, to name only a few recent >examples that have made the headlines. > >For example, the US food industry organisation Grocery Manufacturers of >America has decided to challenge the European "eco-labelling" directives >and other consumer protection legislation said to reflect "local cultural >values" and be discriminatory in terms of international competition (3). It >is precisely the role of the MRAs negotiated under the TEP to settle such >disputes in the best interests of business, even if the agreement makes an >ass of the EU (4). > >Encouraged by the work of his first laboratory, the insatiable Brittan, far >from being content to deal with the outgoing Commission's current business, >is actively preparing for the success of the second: the Millennium Round. >The idea is to convert the meeting of the ministerial conference of the 131 >WTO member countries in Seattle in December 1999 into an enormous >globalisation fair, where the removal of the final obstacles to capital's >freedom of action would be negotiated pell-mell. Without any prior decision >to that effect, public contracts, competition, product controls and >investment would be added to the initial agenda for the revision of the >1994 Marrakesh accords on agriculture, services and industrial property. In >other words, it is the MAI Dracula. > >In the case of intellectual property and farming, for example, this would >mean absolute compliance with patent rights in seed, especially soya and >transgenic rice, in which American corporations hold a monopoly, and strict >limits on member countries' rights to hold buffer stocks against the risk >of famine. In the case of public contracts, foreign firms would have the >same rights as national ones for all local, regional and national public >contracts, with the contract going to the most "efficient". In competition >matters, countries would no longer have any control over public purchase >offers and mergers. In the name of trade facilitation, controls in ports >and airports would be restricted to one sample or container. For investment >the proposals are the same as the MAI, except for arbitration. > >The multinationals intend having their way in everything: apart from the >Transatlantic Business Dialogue and the European Round Table of >Industrialists, a new lobby , the Business Investment Network, is hard at >work. The Seattle meeting looks set to be a Millennium Merry-Go-Round; come >next June, the International Chamber of Commerce will be rallying public >opinion in its support, while Sir Leon Brittan will be touring Southeast >Asia, trying to win over such recalcitrant countries as India, Pakistan and >Indonesia. But, crisis-stricken and closely dependent on the International >Monetary Fund (IMF), most countries of the South will put up little >resistance. The scene seems to have been set in advance for the US and the >EU to call the tune. > >The WTO's negotiating methods and practices lend a hand here. Countries are >supposed to submit their lists of requests, concessions and requests for >debate by the end of June 1999. After that, the WTO's executive body, the >General Council, will work behind closed doors planning the content and >proceedings of the ministerial conference. The details of the agreements >will be worked out in a large number of informal meetings (not even the >list of participants will be published) and the silence of the weakest >countries will be taken to signify acceptance. > >"Transparency", "deregulation", "liberalisation", "opening of markets", >"good governance" are only matters for countries and their citizens, never >for large corporations. There is no draft international agreement to put an >end to what is common practice in the jungle of big business: secret >agreements and cartels, dumping and transfer price manipulation; >speculation and insider dealing; financial crime, tax evasion and money >laundering; spying and piracy; surveillance and exploitation of workers, >banning of trade unions; plundering and embezzlement of collective >resources and common property, endemic corruption of economic channels, >major markets and state machinery. > >So there seems to be nothing to prevent the transnational corporations >taking possession of the planet and subjecting humanity to the dictatorship >of capital. Almost all of them are based in the most powerful countries of >the North (the US, Canada, the EU, Japan) where large-scale mergers and >concentrations continue apace with the unconditional support of governments >and international bodies given over to their cause. Controlling virtually >all the means of information and communication, they meet with only >localised and sporadic resistance as they compete relentlessly for monopoly >control of the markets. > >Making people submit to the implacable logic of profit is now the only >policy of the great powers and the organisations they control, especially >the OECD, IMF and WTO. The havoc they cause is terrible and they do it with >impunity: accelerated impoverishment and destruction of the social >structures of entire populations, who are deprived of the most basic >rights, driven from their homes and left fighting for survival; the weakest >state collapse under the weight of structural adjustment policies and debt, >unable to guarantee their people's security or provide a minimum of working >public services. The consequences are a return to barbarism and ethnic >conflict; ever more crises bringing plummeting living standards and soaring >unemployment (5); a widespread increase in inequality and poverty, even in >the supposedly richest countries, especially that shop window of >liberalism, Tony Blair's Britain (6). > >In order to crush any thought of organised resistance to the supporters of >this new world order, tremendous police and military forces are being used >to establish a doctrine of repression: poverty itself is made a crime on >the domestic front just as recalcitrant states are internationally vilified >(7). > >Able in a few hours to find the billions of dollars necessary to save from >bankruptcy the few robber barons who have eaten their fill at a speculative >fund (LTCM), these new master of the world cannot spare even one tenth that >amount to provide over a billion human beings with clean drinking water, >even though 25,000 people die every day for want of it (8). They are >streaks ahead of the tyrants of the Middle East, the Balkans or elsewhere, >against whom we are regularly roused to great humanitarian tirades. "Water >is life!" proclaims Vivendi (formerly GTnTrale des Eaux) in a lavish >advertising campaign, building its wealth on organising its scarcity. > >In the urgency of the situation, resistance is being organised to meet the >forthcoming onslaught. Drawing on the experience of the successful fight >against the MAI, an international campaign of information and action is >being organised and coordinated with the support of the trade union, social >and community movements and questions are being asked of elected >representatives (9). The immediate aim is a moratorium on all trade talks >with, ultimately, supervision of the transnationals, the establishment of >an international economic court of justice and the "deratification" of the >agreements already signed. This is not to forget reform of the WTO which >operates in permanent violation of the basic principles of democratic >societies. > > >(1) See "A dangerous new manifesto for global capitalism" by Lori M. >Wallach, Le Monde diplomatique in English, February 1998. > >(2) "Recommendation for a Council decision, presented by the Commission" >(undated); and "Resolution of the European Parliament", Bulletin of the >Communities (COM.98.0125) and "Opinion of the Economic and Social >Committee" (CES 1164.98). > >(3) Testimony of a leader of Grocery Manufacturers of America to the US >Senate trade subcommittee, 28 July 1998. > >(4) See Jean-Claude Lefort and Jean-Pierre Page, "Double jeu autour de >l'AMI", Le Monde diplomatique, October 1998; Jean- >Claude Lefort, Europe-Etats-Unis: quelles relations Tconomiques?, rapport >prTliminaire, AssemblTe Nationale, rapport d'information No. 1150. > >(5) To take just one example, the crisis resulted in 25 million people >being made unemployed in East Asia. > >(6) "La Grande-Bretagne s'alarme de la pauvretT croissante et introduit le >Smic horaire", Le Monde, 31 March 1999. > >(7) See Ignacio Ramonet, "Social democracy betrayed", Le Monde diplomatique >in English, April 1999. > >(8) According to the World Health Organisation (Le Journal du dimanche, 4 >April 1999) > >(9) For more information, see "L'AMI clonT a l'OMC", pamphlet produced by >Coordination contre les clones de l'AMI, Observatoire de la mondialisation, >40, rue de Malte, 75011 Paris. > > >********************************** >In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is >distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest >in receiving the included information for research and educational >purposes. > >Margrete Strand Rangnes >MAI Project Coordinator >Public Citizen Global Trade Watch >215 Pennsylvania Ave, SE >Washington DC, 20003 USA >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >202-546 4996, ext. 306 >202-547 7392 (fax) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general discussion. To unsubscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe To subscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe For information on [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm For archives http://www.mail-archive.com/public-list@neither.org
