Government, Corporations, People, and MAIs:
“Accountability and Responsibility”
MAI Developments - As of 6/3/98
See also UN Partnerships
See Sony Corporation
See Globaloney
Something New to watch...MAIs
The MAI - Multilateral Agreement on Investment being drafted by the OECD. The MAI aims to liberalize international investment by severely restricting the ability of the communities and governments to control and challenge the actions of the multinational companies. Negotiated by OECD countries and brokered by big business, the treaty is open to Developing Countries who will be bound by its rules, despite the fact that they have not been party to the negotiations. Kind of rewriting the rules established by the 52 years of negotiations and agreements of the UN. Monitoring the MAI and the WTO will give you a good look at the fairness of Globalization. The World Bank's record on "structural adjustment" might give you an indication of how things are going.
The Corporations and the Governments side of MAIs is at http://www.oecd.org
The people and the other side of the coin is at
http://news.flora.org/flora.mai-not/3264
GPF - Global Policy Forum
Information Habitat: Where Information Lives
One more reason for the focus of the people on the corporations. Their actions speak louder than their words!
MAI’s are only one of the current strategies the corporations are using to flex their new global power and wealth muscles. They feel they can operate outside of their own countries and the international agreements and laws already in existence. One of the more interesting ideas floating for the corporations is their own Bill of Rights and Declaration of Human Rights. As if those documents do not already exist.
MAI Developments - As of 6/3/98
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 16:19:17 -0400 (EDT)
To: United Nations NGO Community <>
From: Chee Yoke Ling <ylchee@netvigator.com>
Organization: Third World Network
Dear friends,
As you know, a large number of MAI campaigners met in Geneva on 17 May 1998, prior to the second Ministerial Meeting of the World Trade Organisation.
Grave concerns shared by a majority of the group that a MAI-like agreement may emerge at the WTO led to a statement of protest that was circulated to government and non-government participants at the WTO meeting (18-20 May). The statement calls for a termination of the OECD MAI negotiations as there are no signs that the MAI basic approach will be changed. It further rejects the WTO taking up a MAI-like agreement. More groups signed on during the ministerial meeting.
Over the next few months we expect increasing pressure to "upgrade" the work of the WTO study group on trade and investment into possible negotiations. It is urgent that we act to prevent the WTO from starting negotiations on an investment agreement.
We therefore urge you to sign on to the statement below, and to further circulate it to other groups/networks, etc.
Yours sincerely,
Martin Khor and Chee Yoke Ling
Third World Network
228 Macalister Road
10400 Penang
Malaysia
Fax: +604-226 4505
Email: twn@igc.apc.org or twnpen@twn.po.my
----------------------------------------------------------------
CALL TO REJECT ANY PROPOSAL FOR MOVING THE MAI OR AN INVESTMENT AGREEMENT TO THE WTO
1. The Multilateral Agreement on Investment in the OECD has been temporarily stalled because of strong public protests in many OECD countries as well as objections from developing-country groups and governments. Objections from the public include that the MAI would grant new unprecedented rights for corporations (whilst removing the authority of states to place obligations or regulations on them), threaten national sovereignty and the viability of domestic firms and farms, remove conditions for development in the South and magnify environmental and social problems. Since there is no sign that the OECD governments are willing to consider a basic change in the premises and framework of the MAI, we call for the termination of the negotiations and the treaty in the OECD.
2. We are very concerned by the moves of some OECD governments, including the European Union, to move the MAI process to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Some of them claim this will make it fairer for developing countries and, moreover, environmental and labour concerns will be taken care of in the WTO. We reject these claims. Instead, shifting the investment issue to the WTO will place great pressure on developing countries to negotiate and eventually join an agreement that would have disastrous effects on their development prospects. Moreover, promises to include environmental and social concerns are likely to be only an eyewash to co-opt the public to accept the basic tenets of the MAI. The strong enforcement capability of the WTO through its dispute settlement system will also mean that all countries, especially developing countries, will be forced to comply.
Domestic laws and policies in a wide range of issues will have to be changed, even if these were to cause job losses, closure of local enterprises and farms, financial instability, balance of payments deficits and environmental deterioration.
3. We therefore call on all governments, OECD and non-OECD alike, to reject any proposal to negotiate an investment agreement in the WTO. The trade and investment working group in the WTO should be confined to only study the trade and investment relation and should not be "upgraded" into a negotiation forum for an investment agreement. The proposals by the EU and other major countries to start a "Millennium Round" or a "comprehensive future agenda" for the WTO should not be used as a devise to sneak in an investment negotiation process in the WTO.
4. On principle, we are against the kind of assumptions and framework that the MAI represents. As public knowledge on the MAI increases, many more people are rejecting this approach. We call on governments, international agencies and NGOs not to accept the MAI or a similar investment approach as inevitable or a "given" but instead to choose a basically different approach in dealing with the investment issue.
5. Towards this alternative approach, we call for global and national guidelines, rules and regulations to place obligations on investors and corporations so that their activities and products serve the needs of people within a framework of internationally fair, socially just and environmentally sound development.
Third World Network
ECOROPA
Observatoire de la Mondialisation
Coordination Centre L'AMI (French Coordination Centre against theMAI)
Council of Canadians
Health Action InternationalNational Campaign against the MAI in Canada
Global Trade Watch,
Public Citizen (USA)
Friends of the Earth (USA)
International Coalition of Development Action
People's Decade of Human Rights Education
Habitat International Coalition
Citizens for a Democratic Renaissance (Ireland)
Women's Environment and Development Organisation
Red Thread (Guyana)
Friends of the Earth International
National Wildlife Federation (USA)
Eco News Africa (Kenya)
Alternative Information and Development Centre (South Africa)
Global Publications Foundation (Sweden)
Peoples' Forum 2001 (Japan)
Focus on Global South (Thailand)
WEED-World Economy, Ecology and Development Association (Germany)
Germanwatch, North-South Initiative (Germany)
Polaris Institute (Canada)
Consumers Association of Penang (Malaysia)
UBINIG (Bangladesh)
Council for Responsible Genetics (USA)
Washington Biotechnology Action Council (USA)
GATT WTO Campaign (Norway)
Network Women in Development Europe (WIDE)
Oscar Zamora, University of the Philippines Los Banos (the Philippines)
All India Association of Industries
A-SEED Europe
Biowatch South Africa
Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN)
Institute for Sustainable Development (Ethiopia)
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
Southern African Traditional Leaders' Council for the Management of Natural Resources C.I.I.R. (UK)
Gaia Foundation (UK)
Forum of Parliamentarians on Intellectual Property and WTO Issues (India)
National Working Group on Patent Laws (India)
Centre for Study of Global Patent System and Development (India)
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 13:42:52 -0500 (EST)
NGOS MOUNT PROTESTS AGAINST MAI
WCC World Council of Churches: WARNS CHURCHES OF PROPOSED MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENTS (MAI) CANNOT BE SIGNED AS IT IS - EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT SETS CONDITIONS
Strasbourg, 11/03/1998 (Agence Europe) - The European Parliament considers the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) being negotiated at the OECD cannot be signed as it is, even though it acknowledges the fact that transparent rules for investment are needed. This was the result of the debate and the vote on the report by German Green member Wolfgang Kreissl-Dwrfler (see EUROPE of 27 February, p.13). The first parliament to give its position even before conclusion of the agreement, one month and a half from the ministerial meeting of the 29 OECD countries, the European
Parliament expresses serious doubts on several points of the agreement and calls for better democratic control over these negotiations that will be of vital importance. MEPs are banking on national parliaments to take up the relay.
In the resolution adopted by 437 votes against 8, the MEPs present 37 recommendations calling among other things for:
i) the European Commission to assess the compatibility of the MAI agreement with international agreements and international conventions signed by the EU,
ii) the signatory countries to put pressure on developing countries so that they join MAI;
iii) UNCTAD and WTO to have the issue referred to them;
iv) "questions relating to foreign direct investment to be transferred in a near future to the field of EU competence";
v) the MAI to comprise clear provisions banning social or environmental dumping;
vi) the notion of investment to be clarified especially in the field of patents relating to vegetable, animal and human genes;
vii) intellectual property to be excluded from the agreement as it is covered by other international agreements;
viii) the agreement not to be concluded if a clause "relating to the regional economic integration organisations" (REIO) does not clearly authorise pursuit of European integration. An amendment from the EPP specifies on this subject that the countries belonging to regional groups are not compelled to extend to third countries the benefits of the preferential treatment reserved to members;
ix) the standstill and roll-back clauses to be clarified in order to verify whether they are an obstacle to the greater harmonisation of legislation within the EU Member States;
x) the dispute settlement measures to balance rights of enterprises and States;
xi) the measures aimed at preserving and promoting cultural and linguistic diversity to be excluded from the agreement;
xii) the Court of Justice to examine the agreement under Article 228 :6 of the Treaty. The Parliament also deplores the fact that the questions linked to the tax regime of multinational companies are not treated in the OECD project, while welcoming the fact that this agreement will restrict the "race for subsidies".
In general, the debate brought the following to light:
- Certain political groups (mainly Socialists, United Left) are against the MAI in its principle and call at least for negotiations to be transferred to a body in which the developing countries may participate (WTO, UNCTAD). Speaking for the Greens, Mr Lannoye affirmed that the project cannot be simply corrected, it must be reviewed from top to bottom.
- Other groups support, in principle, a multilateral agreement on investment but call for revision of some provisions, and the clarification of others. Thus, several MEPs from the EPP and Liberal Group defended the agreement stressing, like Spanish Jaime Valdivielso de CuZ, that it would replace some 1,800 bilateral agreements.
Providing a regulatory framework for investment, the MAI will have an economic impact that is as important as the agreements on GATT customs tariffs, he said, going as far as to say that "the MAI will change the world". The rapporteur even recognised the need to protect investment.
Speakers mainly insisted on three major substantive issues:
1) Does the agreement grant too much power to multinationals and does it threaten the right of States to legislate? Wolfgang Kreissl Dvrfler believes the MAI compromises the right of States to set new environmental standards, for example, for implementing the commitments taken in Kyoto on climate change and in Montreal on the ozone layer.
The rapporteur mainly fears that the roll-back clauses (providing for the adjustment of national legislation to the agreement) and the stand-still clauses will take all meaning from the sovereignty of States. He also challenges the arbitration structure foreseen by MAI, which would give enterprises the possibility of attacking a State, but not the contrary. Mrs McKienna, speaking on behalf of the EP Committee on Fisheries, expressed alarm about the effects that the agreement would have on the ability of States to reduce their catch rates in order to preserve halieutic reserves, all the more as the measures adopted at the OECD will be valid for twenty years.
Several French MEPs spoke out in defence of the cultural exception, while Manuel Porto (EPP, P) and Monika Baldi (UPE, I) feared the multiplication of exceptions would lead to protectionism.
2) The lack of democratic control over the result and negotiation of the agreement: MEPS call for the European Parliament to be consulted for assent. Sir Leon Brittan seems in favour of this. Italian Communist Luciana Castellina (Chair of the Committee on External Economic Relations) and French Communist Aline Pailler drew a parallel between the lack of transparency and the negotiation of MAI and the transatlantic market project launched on Wednesday by the Commission: "beyond the questions of culture, environment and social rights, what appears is that the people no longer want a treaty negotiated for them in the dark", said Mrs Pailler. "If we tell workers that globalisation is good for them and inevitable, then we should involve the civil society in discussions", Mr Kreissl-Dvrfler told EUROPE.
3) Does the agreement endanger the continuation of Community integration? For several MEPs, it does threaten economic, environmental and social integration and prevents the EU from granting aid to certain specific sectors. In addition, noted Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR, NL), it is not an agreement under Community competence (Article 113 of the Treaty) and one must ensure that competition distortion between Member States is prevented should some Member States sign the agreement and others not. The Court of Justice must therefore be consulted, said MEPs (which was refused by the Commission vice president, Sir Leon Brittan, who argued that the Commission has competent legal services).
Sir Leon pointed out at the beginning of his address that "this was a true debate" that will have "an impact on the negotiations in progress". In response to MEPs, he supported the fact that the OECD agreement will be able to serve as a basis for a broader agreement at the WTO and will be in the interest of developing countries. Sir Leon stressed that it is the LDC that are opposed to concluding an agreement at the WTO. He invited the MEPs to put pressure on these countries so that they agree to negotiate.
The Commission agrees to safeguard the "basic acquis" in the field of environment and social standards. It also defends the cultural clause. It would be absurd to have fought at GATT to obtain it and then abandon it now. Sir Leon also stressed that this clause cannot be presented as a general exception, because exceptions must be abolished in time, according to the draft agreement, and do not therefore give the legal security required. In his view, the agreement cannot be concluded before the ministerial meeting on 28 April at the OECD even if negotiations are "difficult" and the Americans have stated that the agreement could not be concluded in April (see following article).
"Over coming weeks, we shall see whether there is a political determination to conclude, but we are not seeking an agreement at all costs (...). We are convinced that, if we obtain a good agreement, it will be beneficial to the population". Above all, the question of legislation with extra-territorial scope has still to be settled with the United States, concluded the Commission vice-president.
(EU) UNITED STATES: AMERICANS CONFIRM THAT THE MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT DOES NOT SATISFY THEM IN ITS PRESENT STATE
Washington, 11/03/1998 (Agence Europe) - "It is more important to do it right than to do it first", said Alan Larson, US Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs, concerning the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) negotiated at the OECD. Mr Larson, who was speaking last week before a sub-committee of the House of Representatives, admitted that it will not be possible to conclude the agreement for the ministerial meeting of the OECD in April. He affirmed that, so that Washington may approve it, "dramatic improvements" will be necessary and this can come only through careful study and negotiation. At this stage, the United States is not satisfied with the commitments on the table, and reproach some of their partners for seeking "ambiguous and sweeping carve-outs". Criticism directly concerns, among other things, the propositions of the European Union concerning the "regional economic integration organisations" and the general exception for cultural industries.
The United States made proposals aimed at strengthening the provisions of MAI on the environment and gives attention to provisions that will be important to US workers. The MAI should not engage in a "race to the bottom" with regard to health, safety and environment standards in work in order to attract investment, said Mr Larson.
Regarding the Helms-Burton and D'Amato Laws, Mr Larson confirmed that, on the sidelines of MAI negotiation, "we have been working with the Europeans on disciplines to inhibit and deter investment in illegally expropriated property and on principles to address and resolve differences over conflicting jurisdiction", on the basis of the understanding of 11 April 1997 between Sir Leon Brittan and Stuart Eizenstat. "We would of course insist that these global disciplines be applied to expropriated American property in Cuba", he said, adding that the United States and the European Union are, in general, seeking "better cooperation between the EU and the US in dealing with foreign policy challenges to our shared interests and values". In his view, "we are making headway on these issues".
NGOS MOUNT PROTESTS AGAINST MAI
The Multilateral Agreement on Investment is facing growing opposition in many of the OECD countries. As a result, they are asking for many exemptions from the treaty's obligations, causing doubts as to whether the MAI will be concluded this year. Martin Khor reports on the recent NGO protests against the agreement in this second of two articles.
By Martin Khor
Third World Network Features
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 assesments 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 coaliation 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.
- Third World Network Features
About the writer: Martin Khor is Director of the Third World Network.
When reproducing this feature, please credit Third World Network Features and (if applicable) the cooperating magazine or agency involved in the article, and give the byline. Please send us cuttings.
Third World Network is also accessible on the World-Wide Web. Please visit our web site at http://www.twnside.org.sg.
For more information, please contact:
Third World Network
228, Macalister Road, 10400 Penang, Malaysia.
Email: twn@igc.apc.org; twnpen@twn.po.my
Tel: (+604)2293511,2293612 & 2293713;
Fax: (+604)2298106 & 2264505
From: World Council of Churches <Worldcoun@aol.com>
March 19, 1998
WCC World Council of Churches: WARNS CHURCHES OF PROPOSED MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
GENEVA, Switzerland (WCC) -- The General Secretary of theWorld Council of Churches (WCC), Rev. Dr. Konrad Raiser, has alerted the Council's 332 member churches to the dangers inherent in the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) which is currently being negotiated by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
In response to a request from the WCC's Executive Committee, Raiser sent a briefing document* on the MAI, tabled at the recent (17-20 February) meeting of the Committee, to all member churches. In an accompanying letter, Raiser described the contents and implications of the proposed MAI as "alarming".
In a further move, and also in response to a request by the Executive Committee, Raiser wrote to member churches in the 29 countries belonging to the OECD, which the Executive Committee says have a special responsibility to act on the issue.
In his letter, Raiser explained, "This Agreement will have far-reaching effects not only on those countries which are involved in the negotiations and which will be the first signatories, but also on the countries of the south and those 'transition' countries not involved in the OECD. The MAI, which is expected to become the international framework for foreign direct investment, is being negotiated by representatives of the OECD economies without the participation of representatives of the majority of the countries of the world. Moreover the Agreement, as it stands, could threaten efforts to create sustainable communities.
There are reasons to be concerned about the implications for the environment, working conditions and human rights."
Reminding member churches that OECD government representatives will meet in Paris from 27-28 April to discuss the Agreement further, Raiser said the Executive Committee has urged churches in OECD countries firstly to inform themselves about the issue and find out the position of their governments, and trade union and employers' organizations. Then, churches are urged to approach government and "to press for a framework for international investment which is balanced and which protects the interests of people, communities and the environment."
Tony Addy and Eduard Dommen co-ordinate WCC work on the MAI. They say that "Because of the dangers of the current proposal, OECD should not press ahead at its April meeting with plans for the signing of the agreement". They explain that "WCC concern on the issue stems from work the Council is doing in the search for alternatives to the present damaging processes of globalization, particularly as it affects investment, trade and financial transactions. Globalization, as presently understood, leads to marginalization and exclusion as well as to environmental destruction."
"We believe a multilateral framework to control foreign direct investment is necessary rather than the MAI which gives multinational companies the freedom to impose their own agendas on the rest of the world. The MAI says foreign investors must be treated as well as or better than domestic companies; national and local governments cannot restrict foreign investment in any form or in any sector except defence, and governments cannot impose 'performance requirements' to ensure local employment, control currency speculation or require a minimum period for investment.
Further, the MAI gives multinational companies additional powers to sue governments and local municipal authorities in cases where the 'rules' of the MAI have not been kept; citizens will once again lose democratic rights over how they wish business to be conducted within their own borders. We hope churches will join with others in OECD countries and urge their governments to withdraw from the MAI as it is presently conceived, and that churches in non-OECD countries will call upon their governments to object to the proposed agreement."
(The OECD countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.)
A copy of the briefing note is available (English only) upon request.
For further information contact
Tony Addy +41.22.791.6107 or
Eduard Dommen, +41.22.791.6111;
E-mail for both: dfd@wcc-coe.org.
or
Philip E. Jenks, Communications Officer
U.S. Office, World Council of Churches
212-870-3193
Back to top of Page
at the bottom of each page.