By Noam Chomsky
Le Monde DiplomatiqueJanuary 1999
The suspension of negotiations on the Multilateral Agreement on
Investment (MAI), which had taken place within the framework of
the OECD over the last three years, spelled an undeniable victory
for the various associated campaign groups, led by France, which
had mobilised to prevent the signature of the agreement. However,
this is not necessarily the last we have seen of the MAI. Noam
Chomsky charts the major developments since Bretton Woods.
Liberalising the movements of capital worldwide has proved a
powerful weapon against democracy and the social contract, much
as was anticipated by the framers of the (Bretton Woods)
international economic order in the 1940s. Unregulated capital
flow can be used very effectively to undermine attempts by
individual governments to introduce progressive measures. For
instance, any country trying to stimulate its economy or increase
its health spending is likely to find this deviant behaviour
instantly punished by a flight of capital.
This capital mobility since the Bretton Woods system was
essentially dismantled from the early 1970s has led to what some
economists have called a "Virtual Senate" of financial capital
that is able to decide social and economic policy just because
they can shift funds around. The volume of transactions on world
finance markets has grown to the point where it is now estimated
in the range of $1,500 billion a day. It has also changed in
character: whereas 30 years ago about 90% of foreign exchange
transactions was related to the real economy (trade and long term
investment), by now well over 90% of a vastly greater sum
consists of short-term flows, about 80% less than a week in
duration, often much shorter, speculating against currencies or
exchange rate fluctuations. Markets have become increasingly
volatile and less and less predictable and financial crises are
occurring with increasing regularity.
A small tax on short-term speculation was proposed in the early 1970s by James Tobin, Nobel prize-winner for economics. It was conceived as a way of introducing "grains of sand" into the cogs of the speculative process and encouraging long-term productive investment (1). It was not until the 1970s and 1980s that major economies abandoned capital controls. South Korea was compelled to drop them in the early 1990s, widely regarded as a factor in the current crisis. Some countries - Chile, for example - still impose controls to penalise short-term investment.
The Tobin tax has been on the agenda for nearly a quarter of a century now, but the world's major financial institutions simply don't want the Tobin tax and other such ideas to be considered. They have profited enormously from the recent arrangements - even if it means a slowdown in the real economy and major crises. Though they are potential beneficiaries of such a measure, manufacturers and industrialists have also generally opposed it. Presumably they are not unhappy about the way in which financial liberalisation counteracts social policies and exercises a downward pressure on labour costs. So it is no surprise that a major book about the Tobin tax (2) published two years ago was boycotted by the press, under pressure from international bodies and financial circles - notably American, including, it has been reported, the Clinton administration.
Concealing alternative economic measures becomes necessary because public opinion is strongly opposed to policies of "free trade" - a misleading concept, when we take a closer look - and financial liberalisation. In autumn 1997 the Clinton administration was obliged to back down on attempts to secure Congressional agreement for renewal of the so-called "fast track" procedure for negotiating trade agreements (3). Politicians had come under substantial popular pressure from trade unions and other constituencies, and the White House realised it would be impossible to obtain majority support.
Also underway at the time were preparations for the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) which has been under negotiation behind closed doors since 1995 within the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The mobilisation of citizens' movements, particularly in Canada, finally was able to break the "veil of secrecy", as it was described by the former Chief Justice of the Australian High Court when the barriers were broken early this year. It has delayed and may now have contributed to undermining the project (4).
However, that's not the end of it: negotiations are certain to resume in one way or another, perhaps within the World Trade Organisation (WTO), but more probably still farther away from the public gaze. One idea advanced by supporters of financial liberalisation is that the Articles of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) should be changed to incorporate something like MAI principles as conditions for credits. The "advantage" of such a solution is that the IMF operates out of sight and is unaccountable to the public.
(This article is a transcript of an interview in April 1998 edited by Normand Baillargeon, who is also responsible for the footnotes.) Noam Chomsky is Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Boston, USA.
Translated by Ed Emery
(1) See Howard M. Wachtel, "Trois taxes globales pour maitriser le capital", Maniere de voir no. 42, "Anatomie de la crise financiere" November-December 1998.
(2) Mahbub Ul Haq, Inge Kaul, Isabelle Grunberg, The Tobin Tax: Coping with Financial Volatility, Oxford University Press, 1996. On this subject, see Ibrahim Warde, "La taxe Tobin, bOte noire des spTculateurs, cible des censeurs", Le Monde diplomatique, "Rating agencies, the new superpowers?", English Internet edition, February 1997,.
(3) This would have given the president the right to sign trade agreements which Congress would then be unable to alter. They would have the choice only of ratifying or rejecting the texts as they stood.
(4) Mr Jospin's government bowed to pressure and withdrew from the negotiations on 10 October last.
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
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
202-546 4996, ext. 306
202-547 7392 (fax)
http://www.tradewatch.org
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.
