By Martin Khor, Third World Network Features
April, 1998
As delegations from the 29 rich OECD countries met in Paris in February 1998 to continue negotiations on a Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), citizen groups staged protest actions demanding the treaty talks be suspended or scrapped altogether. In recent weeks, there has been an upsurge of activities from a broad coalition of consumer, environmental, development and public citizen groups in Europe, the United States, Canada and Australia, challenging the rationale and effects of the MAI in their own countries as well as on developing nations. This is a new and significant development, as previously the concerns about the MAI have come mainly from NGOs and governments in developing countries.
Recently, however, since the full text of the draft MAI was leaked to a Canadian group, many Northern NGOs have been expressing outrage at what they see as the devastating effects of the treaty on their own societies, including on national sovereignty, the environment and consumer interests. Concern and protests against the MAI have thus spread to the OECD countries themselves. Groups in many countries launched a series of actions in an 'International Week of Action' on 7-17 February 1998.
Partly due to this public opposition, the MAI negotiations are facing difficulties. Many countries have placed a long list of reservations, asking for exemptions from the treaty's obligations for several sectors or activities. After the recent meeting, there are now doubts that the treaty will be concluded this year as scheduled. This gives developing countries, which are suspicious of the MAI and concerned about its potential effects, more breathing space and time to study the treaty.
'The MAI would give foreign corporations unprecedented power to directly challenge Governments' environmental, health, worker and other laws, or circumvent them entirely,' said a circular letter sponsored by an international coalition of NGOs. In a statement addressed to the OECD, endorsed by 565 environmental, development, labour, consumer, church and women's organisations from 67 countries, the coalition of groups called on the OECD to suspend the negotiations for the MAI. The NGOs said that the MAI does not deserve to gain democratic approval in any country. 'It does not respect the rights of countries - in particular countries in transition and developing countries - including their need to democratically control investment into their economies. 'The level of liberalisation contained in the MAI has already been opposed as inappropriate by many developing countries. However, non-OECD countries are under increasing pressure to join,' said the statement.
Public campaigns launched by these groups have already had significant results in some countries. In Canada, where the 100,000-strong citizen group the Council of Canadians has been campaigning across the country, three provincial governments have declared that they would not recognise the MAI even if it is signed by the federal government. In the US, a lobby campaign spearheaded by Public Citizen (led by consumer advocate Ralph Nader) and environmental groups like Friends of the Earth-US, has won support from many members of the Congress who are already sceptical about new trade agreements.
Recently, citizen groups staged an anti-MAI demonstration on the steps of the Capitol building, where members of Congress were presented with handcuffs symbolising the MAI's restrictions on their law-making authority. The NGOs also organised 'national call-in days' with phone calls from members of the public to Senators and US Negotiators urging them to reject the MAI. A letter from many national environmental organisations was also sent to the US Administration. In several European countries, there has been a flurry of citizen actions since the MAI's last negotiating session in October 1997.
According to a senior official of an international NGO based in Switzerland, who has been following these activities: 'It appears that all hell has broken loose in some European Union member countries, with a combination of street protests, NGO critiques, outraged parliamentarians and inter-agency fights within governments on key issues. The word "war" has even been applied to the situation in both Finland and Sweden. Things are also moving fast in Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands and the UK.'
In the Netherlands, activists on 12 February 1998 occupied the entrance of the office of the Chairman of the OECD's MAI negotiation group, Mr Engering, at the Hague. Some 40 people from the Dutch anti-MAI action group 'MAI niet gezien' ('MAI not seen/MAI not for me') went inside the Ministry of Economic Affairs to protest against the MAI and to demand the negotiations be extended by at least a year. The protesters constructed a 'factory' of cardboard boxes in the main hall of the building, to indicate that investments would be out of control under the MAI. After an hour, the activists met with Mr Engering and negotiator for the Netherlands Marinus Sikkel.
In the presence of several media personnel, the protesters made the point that trying to finish an agreement by the deadline of the end of April 1998 was 'undemocratic and dangerous'. They said that since criticisms against the MAI from civil society are growing day by day, more and more parliaments are demanding a thorough analysis of its impacts. The activists demanded that to allow time for serious impact assessments of the MAI and for a genuine public debate to emerge, the MAI negotiations should be postponed for at least another year. They also called for a far more open and accessible negotiation procedure, with full information made available and public participation. Mr Engering told the protesters that such decisions could only be taken by the governments and also declined the request that he postpone the deadline for the treaty's conclusion.
In London, a demonstration was organised by several NGOs on 13 February 1998 in front of the Department of Trade and Industry whilst other actions were taken by local activists including in Oxford, Brighton and Essex. Director of the UK development advocacy group, World Development Movement, Barry Coates, described the MAI as 'the biggest corporate takeover in the history of the world'. In a campaign letter to the public, Coates said the MAI was secretly negotiated to give multinational companies more rights but fewer responsibilities. 'Unscrupulous companies would be free to act unethically and would actually be able to sue governments who try to stop them,' he said.
The London Guardian has been carrying several reports and letters on the MAI recently. A full-page article by the paper's Economics Editor gave a critical analysis of the treaty, to which the UK Minister of Trade and Industry Lord Clinton-Davis replied, defending the MAI. The next day a letter by leaders of the World Development Movement, Friends of the Earth and WWF-UK responded to Lord Clinton-Davis, stating that 'there is a real danger of the MAI leading to a reduction in environmental and labour standards for the sake of more foreign investment. The effects on the poorest countries are likely to be devastating.'
In another letter in the Guardian, the founder of the Right Livelihood Award (popularly known as the Alternative Nobel Prize) Jakob von Uexkull, also responding to the UK Minister, said: 'Transnational corporations are already more powerful than many nation states 'To describe them as victims of discrimination needing more protection is another example of the Orwellian Newsspeak of global corporate rule. A democracy which abdicates the right to favour its citizens over foreign corporations will soon lose its public legitimacy, with potentially disastrous consequences.'
NGO actions have also taken place in Finland, Sweden, Australia and France. Meanwhile, the coalition of 565 groups has made the following demands on the OECD countries' governments:
** Suspend the MAI negotiations and extend the 1998
deadline to allow time for public input and participation.
** Increase transparency in the negotiations by releasing
the MAI texts and organising public meetings and hearings in both
member and non-member countries.
** Renegotiate the terms of withdrawal to enable
countries to more easily and rapidly withdraw from the MAI when
they deem it in the interest of their citizens. Developing
countries which have not been a party to the negotiations must not
be pressured to join the MAI. -
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C íŸ 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
