From: "V.ravichandran" <ravi-AT-md2.vsnl.net.in> Subject: M-I: Dangerous manifesto for Global Capitalism Part 2 Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 22:42:15 +0530 This is the second part of the article on the above subject. Dan > Take the case of Ethyl Corporation. This US-based company is > using the much more limited North American Free Trade > Agreement (NAFTA) expropriation provisions to sue the > federal government of Canada for US$251m. In April 1997 the > Canadian government banned a particular gasoline additive > called MMT - a suspected neurotoxin that damages pollution > systems in automobiles. Ethyl is the world's only > manufacturer of MMT, which is banned in some US states. The > US Trade Representative's office refused to pursue the case, > through the governmental dispute resolution system of NAFTA. > So Ethyl filed its own suit against the Canadian government > claiming that the very act of the Canadian parliament > debating an MMT ban constituted an expropriation of the > company's assets. > > Unbelievably, the case is proceeding towards a ruling. If > Ethyl wins, the taxpayers of Canada will owe the private > corporation US $251m. Such a mechanism within MAI would have > the power to paralyse government action to protect the > environment, conserve natural resources, ensure fair > treatment and safe conditions for workers, or shape > investment to suit community interests. > > Another investor right that could trigger an expropriation > action is "protection from strife". Under this provision, > governments are liable to investors if there is "civil > disturbance" - to say nothing of "revolution, states of > emergency or any other similar events". This means that > governments owe an obligation to foreign investors to ensure > there is no "strife" that could undermine their > profitability, such as protests, boycotts and labour > strikes. This is likely to encourage governments, under > cover of MAI rules, to restrict social freedoms. > > Meanwhile, MAI does not include an attendant set of > obligations or accountability for investor conduct. > Governments would be prohibited from treating foreign > investors differently from domestic investors. Whatever your > opinion of the concept that foreign and domestic investors > must always been treated the same, the MAI goes one step > further. Under the MAI, it is the impact of a policy - not > its intent or a law's textual meaning - that is considered. > Thus, apparently neutral laws that can be shown to have an > unintended discriminatory impact on foreign capital would be > forbidden. This means that neutral laws, placing limits on > the expansion of extractive industries, such as mining or > forestry, would be vulnerable on the grounds that, in > effect, they discriminate against foreign investors trying > to gain new access to resources, relative to domestic > investors who already have access. > > Similarly, policies benefiting small business throughout the > world, or preferential treatment aimed at fostering > development of certain categories of investors or > investments, such as the European Union's programme > promoting development in economically-stressed regions, can > come under attack if a disparate impact can be shown. There > is the same risk for land redistribution programmes in > developing countries. Under NAFTA, on which the MAI is > modelled, Mexico was required to change the land reform > provisions of its national constitution. These reforms, > created after the Mexican revolution, were eliminated to > allow US and Canadian investors to buy up large tracts of > land. In four years of NAFTA, this change has resulted in > massive dislocation of peasant farmers as agribusiness > companies have accumulated large plantations. > > The "national treatment" rules also cover privatisation. > Thus, if the French government decides to sell off the water > utility, bidders worldwide must be given the same access as > French investors, including for instance any local, > democratically-controlled cooperative. Ready to call Tokyo > when your water is cut off? How about privatisation of > educational services and health care? > > The MAI also includes a broad ban on "performance > requirements." These are measures many countries use to > shape investment to benefit public interests. This clause > could result in many environmental laws and standards being > challenged. In particular, the MAI could threaten the unique > laws of many US states that are designed to protect natural > resources, for example, the requirement that glass or > plastic containers are made from a minimum percentage of > recycled content and the preferential purchasing of > materials made with recycled content. > > The treaty's ban on performance requirements could > especially threaten national laws in developing countries > that are designed to strengthen domestic economic growth. > For example, laws requiring foreign investors to form > partnerships with local firms. The MAI also would apply the > principle of "Most Favoured Nation" treatment to investment > rules, requiring equal treatment among all foreign investors > and target countries. This would prevent governments from > distinguishing between foreign investors or foreign > investment targets based on countries' human rights, labour > or other records. It would also eliminate the sorts of > preferential treatment the EU now grants its former colonies > in Africa, the Pacific and the Caribbean through the Lome > Convention. If the MAI had been law in the 1980s, Nelson > Mandela might still be in jail! This is because the MAI > would require the revocation of investment boycotts or > restrictions - like those in force against South Africa > during the days of apartheid - except those defensible under > a narrow "essential security" exception. > > The MAI stands to transform governance around the world by > literally replacing many roles now performed by governments > with direct corporate rule. Included is the enforcement of > international treaties. The MAI would thus confer on private > investors and corporations the same rights and legal > standing as national governments to enforce its terms. In > particular, the right to take governments to court, when > they choose and at the tribunals of their choice. Including > the arbitrage panel of the International Chamber of > Commerce! Before such inherently biased arbiters, investors > are granted the power to claim compensation because they > have not obtained all the benefits promised under the > treaty. > > How are governments to be brought before such 'courts' or > made to pay up? The MAI text includes a provision that binds > governments to "unconditional consent to the submission of a > dispute to international arbitration". Only investors and > corporations, not citizens or communities, have such private > rights of action. The MAI also provides for state-to-state > dispute resolution through international tribunals modelled > on the WTO - with no conflict of interest or transparency > rules, due process guarantees or other basic judicial > safeguards. > > Government and industry supporters of MAI have resorted to > broad generalities: "Don't worry", they argue, "there's > nothing new in this treaty. It's just about 'rationalising' > existing investment practices". Yet, the MAI, like a > political Dracula, simply cannot survive sunlight. The > sudden revelation of the MAI text in Canada ignited > political turmoil greater than that of the decade-old fight > against free trade with the US. New Zealand's parliament > exploded into fury against the government when word leaked > out. In the US, the MAI was attacked on the floor of > Congress. > > Ironically, the constituency that should be most up in arms, > the world's labour movements, which are represented at the > heart of the OECD, have simply called for a "social charter" > to be added to the treaty, rather than its underlying rules > to be replaced. This position is dismissed by environmental, > human rights and consumer experts - and now a growing number > of US unions - who consider the suggestion to be like > putting icing on a cake laced with strychnine. --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005