-- BEGIN included message
- To: hanzibra@svn.com.br
- Subject: Fwd: Fw: Oppose MAI shift to WTO! (fwd)
- From: "anita jones" <orcinus2@hotmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 20:15:24 PDT
- Cc: caveiras@hotmail.com, outlook@ihug.co.nz, knightp@musgrave.cqu.edu.au, Rupique@waveland.org, solobeach@winshop.com.au
----Original Message Follows---- Reply-To: <earth.cops@MCI2000.com> From: "Sherri Schelk" <ecocops@san.rr.com> To: <Orcinus2@hotmail.com> Cc: <Orcinus2@hotmail.com> Subject: Fw: Oppose MAI shift to WTO! (fwd) Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 18:20:17 -0700 Hello! Here's some more on the MAI... Orcinus2------ > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 09:14:58 -0400 (EDT) > TO: Those Interested in the MAI > FR: Martin Khor, Third World Network > > A CALL TO OPPOSE MOVES TO TRANSFER AN MAI-TYPE TREATY TO THE WTO > > Dear friends, > > Now that the MAI in the OECD is encountering problems, there is a > real possibility and threat that efforts will be intensified to > push for negotiations on a MAI-like investment treaty in the WTO. > > The EC and other countries are likely to go on the offensive to > persuade parliamentarians, NGOs and the media that the WTO is a > more friendly arena, that the developing countries will have a > greater say, and that environmental and labour concerns will be > better taken care of in the WTO. The European Parliament in its > resolution had in fact called for the talks to shift from OECD to > WTO. > > This is a false and dangerous argument that should be vigorously > opposed. I have written the following paper on why this is so. > Action should be taken urgently, as the moves to intensify a > parallel process in the WTO are likely to be stepped up decisively > in the run-up to the WTO Ministerial Conference on 18-20 May in > Geneva, and at the Conference itself. > > I would be grateful if you could read this paper and consider what > can be done. Please also CIRCULATE this paper through your own > network to as many persons and groups as possible. > > Could the points in this paper also be included in any future joint > or individual NGO statements on the MAI? Also, do you think it > worthwhile to have a joint statement on this specific issue? > > Do let me know any feedback you may have. > > Thanks for your cooperation, > > Martin Khor (Director, Third World Network) > 5 May 1998 > (E-Mail address: twn@igc.apc.org) > > > THE NEED TO OPPOSE THE EMERGENCE OF AN MAI IN THE WTO > > Martin Khor (Third World Network) > > The MAI is facing serious difficulties in the OECD. Many OECD > countries have submitted long reservation lists. Many issues also > remain unresolved. Citizen groups in many OECD countries have > launched strong protests against their governments entering an MAI. > > Due to these difficulties, the OECD ministerial meeting in Paris at > the end of April 1998 decided to suspend the negotiations for six > months. > > Whilst even mainstream newspapers like Financial Times and the > Globe and Mail (Canada) have acknowledged the role played by NGOs > in contributing to the derailing (temporarily at least) of the > OECD-MAI, there are no grounds for relaxing the campaign. > > Indeed, there is now a real possibility and danger that the centre > of negotiations will shift to the World Trade Organisation, a move > that seems to be favoured by the European Union (and especially by > the European Commission). The European Parliament, in their > critical resolution on the OECD-MAI, had also called for the > negotiations to shift to the WTO. > > The OECD ministerial declaration of April 98 states that OECD > governments "support the current work programme on investment in > the WTO and once the work programme has been completed will seek > support of all their partners for the next steps towards the > creation of investment rules in the WTO." > > More recently, a meeting of the trade ministers of the "Quads" (US, > Canada, EU and Japan) on 30 Apr-1 May in Versailles, concluded with > a chairman's statement that the WTO ministerial meeting (in May 19- > 20) should set in motion a process enabling decisions to be taken > in 1999 on the scope and modalities of further global trade > liberalisation. > > The EU is championing a new comprehensive "Millennium Round" > in the WTO, which presumably would include upgrading the investment > issue from the present working group (whose mandate is to "study > the relation between trade and investment") to a group negotiating > an MAI-like agreement. Japan has also come out in favour of such > a new Round. > > In recent statements, as the OECD-MAI encountered more problems, > the EC and Canada, have been saying that the MAI should now be > negotiated in the WTO. To boost this move, the EC has also claimed > that at the WTO the developing countries can also participate, and > this is thus more participatory. Proponents of an MAI in the WTO > can also be expected to claim that labour and environmental issues > will be taken care of, and also that suggestions to balance the > rights and obligations of corporations can be considered. > > NGOs not be taken in by such an argument and should reject any move > to get the WTO to negotiate an investment treaty. Getting the MAI > or a similar investment treaty in the WTO would be even worse for > developing countries. This is because: > > (1) Most developing countries are members in WTO and if a treaty > is concluded there they would have to join it. If the MAI is at > the OECD, each developing country can decide whether or not to > join. > > (2) The WTO is not democractic or transparent. Developing > countries in reality won't have much say in determining the final > outcome. Nor will most of them be able to participate in the real > negotiations, that often take place in "informal meetings" to which > a few key countries may be invited. For example, during the > Uruguay Round, although many developing countries opposed many > aspects of the TRIPS treaty, in the end the US had its way. > Although some developing countries may oppose a MAI-type proposal > in the WTO, eventually it is likely they could be isolated and in > the end an MAI will emerge. > > (3) The WTO's dispute settlement system will be effective in tying > down developing countries to implement an MAI there. Countries > that don't comply with some parts could face trade sanctions or at > least the threat of being taken to a WTO panel. Thus the WTO is > popular with the rich countries as they can use it to enforce the > rules on the South. > > (4) WTO is supposed to be a TRADE organisation. Its mandate > should not be expanded to INVESTMENT policies and rules. If an > MAI-type treaty is negotiated in WTO, then the existing principles > of the WTO such as NATIONAL TREATMENT could quite easily be > extended to INVESTMENT (it applies now to goods). > > The history of MAI-type investment rules in the WTO is that the > rich countries, especially the US, tried to introduce in as part of > the TRIMS (trade-related investment measures) negotiations during > the Uruguay Round. This attempt failed as there was strong > opposition from many developing countries to introduce investment > policies and rules per se in the negotiations. > > Therefore the TRIMS agreement is now limited only to preventing > trade-related investment measures, such as requiring investors to > follow a requirement to have a minimum level of local content in > their product. (It is argued that local content policy would > adversely affect imports and thus distorts trade). Investment > policies per se (such as a country's policy on foreign investment, > such as criteria for entry of firms, the conditions for their > establishment, whether or not to grant national treatment) are thus > excluded from TRIMS. Most developing countries thus maintain their > regulatory control over foreign investment. > > In 1995-96 the EC led a campaign within the WTO to get a > negotiation process going for a MIA (multilateral investment > agreement). Many developing countries (including India, Indonesia, > Malaysia, Tanzania, Uganda) opposed it. Investment became the > biggest and most controversial issue in the run-up to the WTO's > first Ministerial Conference in 1996. In the face of the strong > opposition from developing countries, the rich countries (including > Japan and Canada) then downgraded their demand to creating a > working group to STUDY the relation between trade and investment. > > This working group for a study process was agreed to at the WTO > Ministerial Conference (Singapore - December 1996). There was an > explicit agreement that the working group on trade and investment > would only STUDY the relation, and WOULD NOT BE ENGAGED IN > NEGOTIATIONS for an investment agreement. > > Any decision, if any, to start a negotiation process has to be > EXPLICITLY taken by consensus. After 2 years (Dec 1998) the > working group will decide how to proceed. The group has been > meeting in Geneva for discussion but not for any negotiation. > > Now that the OECD process has slowed down, it is likely that the EC > (led by Sir Leon Brittan), Canada, the WTO Director General (Renato > Ruggiero) will now PUSH VERY HARD to intensify the WTO process. > They will push to intensify the discussion in the working group on > trade & investment and will propose that this be upgraded to a > NEGOTIATION for an investment treaty. > > The treaty they have in mind is THE SAME AS THE MAI. This is clear > from the EC paper "A Level Playing Field for Foreign Investment > Worldwide" (1995) which describes the EC strategy of pushing for an > MIA/MAI at both the WTO and the OECD. The main features (including > the right to establishment, national treatment, banning of > performance requirements, right of entry and exit of funds, etc) > are similar to what emerged in the OECD-MAI. > > Therefore NGOs should not be swayed or taken in by arguments from > the EC, Canada or other countries, that public concerns (such as > labour or environmental issues) and the South's interests would be > better taken care of by initiating an agreement at the WTO. > > In reality, it would be WORSE for developing countries and for the > world because an MAI in the WTO would have over 130 countries > involved. > > > PROPOSALS: > > 1. Therefore NGOs should OPPOSE strongly now any proposal or > pressure to upgrade the present STUDY GROUP in the WTO into a > NEGOTIATING GROUP. > > 2. This opposition should be made clear during the Second WTO > Ministerial Conference in Geneva on 18-20 May 1998. There is a > possibility the EC and others could use this occasion to PUSH for > negotiations on new issues including INVESTMENT, perhaps through a > Millennium Round to start in 1999 or 2000. > > 3. NGOs involved in the MAI issue should take this up as their > main issue in the WTO Conference. They could press their Trade > Ministers before the meeting to commit that they would not press > for the investment issue. > > 4. NGOS can also contact members of the media covering the event > to brief them on the issue and make clear to them that NGOs oppose > shifting the MAI to the WTO. > > 5. Moreover, NGOs should also campaign that the existing working > group on trade and investment conclude their discussions with a > decision that the WTO should not take up investment policy or rules > as part of their mandate, and that the working group itself should > be wound up. > > 6. The European Parliament members should be persuaded to withdraw > from their stand (in their resolution on the MAI) that the MAI > negotiations should shift to the WTO. In fact, Parliamentarians, > citizen groups, municipalities etc should be informed of the > greater dangers of an MAI in the WTO and asked to also oppose such > a development from taking place. > > > P.S. BEWARE ALSO OF THE IMF > > The IMF Secretariat and some G7 want to amend the IMF Articles of > Association to introduce "CAPITAL ACCOUNT LIBERALISATION" as part > of the IMF's objectives or operations. This would allow IMF to > discipline and pressurise developing countries to increasingly open > their doors to capital flows such as portfolio investment, FDI, > loans, bonds and the outflow capital funds. This is another route > for MAI-type rules on investments. This proposal will continue to > be discussed at IMF meetings this year. THIS AMENDMENT SHOULD ALSO > BE OPPOSED. (Such an amendment would among other things enable the > IMF to have a much stronger hand to discipline developing countries > to deregulate financial flows and open up their financial markets, > a process that was largely responsible for the East Asian financial > crisis. There will be more Mexican and Asian type crises if the > IMF amendment is carried). > > > For more information or clarification, contact Martin Khor at > fax: 60-4-2264505 or email address twn@igc.apc.org. > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from SEAC+ANNOUNCE send a message to > seac+announce-request@earthsystems.org with the word > unsubscribe in the subject. If you have any problems > please write to: seacnet@earthsystems.org > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
-- END included message