STOP MAI

MEDIA RELEASE -for immediate release, 23 October, 1998 Authorised by the STOP-MAI Campaign Coalition (WA) Website http://members.iinet.net.au/~jenks/fair.html Affiliated with the Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network (AFTInet) and with the World Social Forum (WSF)

MAI "STEALTH TREATY" HAS DIED AT OECD FORUM

"The Australian Stop MAI Campaign, with its world-wide counterparts, welcomes the apparent collapse of the MAI negotiations at the OECD in Paris this week," national spokesperson James Goodman said in Sydney today.

"However, we are totally opposed to a "fall-back" proposal that the failed talks be revived in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) at a future time," Mr Goodman said.

Collapse of the OECD negotiations was signalled on Wednesday (21/10) by British Minister for Trade, Brian Wilson, who said in a press release that a successful conclusion to the MAI negotiations is most unlikely.

"The intention of MAI negotiating parties had been to present an agreement to OECD Ministers for signature in May 1999. This now looks most unlikely. However the Government - together with our EU partners - remains committed in the longer term to promoting negotiations on investment through the WTO," Mr Wilson said.

MAI opponents' anxieties about the WTO forum are reflected in a statement by Dr David Korten, president of the People-Centered Development Forum, Washington State, USA.

"The WTO is a powerful, but illegitimate and democratically unaccountable institution put in place through largely secret negotiation with little or no public debate to serve purposes largely contrary to the public interest," Dr Korten said.

"Addressing the real need to police the global economy requires an organisation very different from the WTO. It requires an open and democratic organisation with the mandate and power to set and enforce rules holding those corporations that operate across national borders democratically accountable to the people and priorities of the nations where they operate.

"It should also have power to regulate and tax international financial flows and institutions. And it should have a mandate to make speculation unprofitable and to help protect the integrity of domestic financial institutions from the financial markets and the predatory practices of international financial speculators," Dr Korten said.

A leader of the world-wide campaign, Lori Wallach of the Public Citizen (USA) group, asserts "A basic principle of an alternative to the MAI is the right of governments to exercise control over multinational corporations and capital flows.

"It is not only the right but the responsibility of governments to control capital flows. That is clear from the speed and irrationality with which capital flows wiped out economies in Asia," Lori Wallach said.

Further Information: James Goodman 02 9514 2714

* * * * * *

MAI UPDATE prepared 23/10/98

• On 5 March 1998, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon Alexander Downer MP, referred the matter of the MAI (Multilateral Agreement on Investment), to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties to investigate whether it is within Australia’s interests to sign the MAI or not. On the motion of the Democrats, supported by the Greens and ALP, the Senate laid down much more specific terms of reference.
• With little publicity, 792 submissions were received in under a month.
• The Inquiry’s Interim Report tabled in both Houses on June 1^st damned Treasury and the Federal Department of Industry, Science and Tourism which lists investment promotion as part of their portfolio. Neither department was able to present evidence, research or analysis that the MAI is good for Australia.
• The OECD was unable to complete the MAI negotiations to its May 1998 deadline owing to unresolved difficulties and concerns raised by opponents over the lack of public consultation. Further talks of the full negotiating committee were put off until 20-21 October, 1998, with a view to getting the treaty signed in May, 1999..
• However, negotiations continued between groups of countries in an effort to resolve problems and, in the case of France, citizens’ representatives were consulted..
• Tony Hinton, Australia’s senior Treasury official responsible for negotiating the MAI, refused to attend the May 6 public Federal hearing on the MAI, and instead flew off to Paris to continue in the MAI negotiations.

• Stop MAI campaigners tried to rally popular opinion through public meetings and media statements, but found very little support from media, except the ABC.
• In October, a letter endorsed by representatives of 140 Australian organisations was forwarded to Prime Minister Howard and the chairman of the OECD Mai Committee, urging suspension of negotiations and action toward a more acceptable alternative.
• Similar representations were made world-wide. When the OECD ministers met in Paris on October 20, there were big popular demonstrations and a sit-in at the offices of the International Chamber of Commerce, the chief private sponsor of the MAI.
• The French Prime Minister withdrew his team from the talks, saying that the MAI unduly compromised his nation’s sovereignty in favour of private interests.
• The remaining ministers tried to continue but were unable to progress the MAI negotiations. The OECD directorate refused to comment, but UK Trade Minister, Brian Wilson, issued a statement that "the intention . . .to present an agreement for signature in May 1999…looked most unlikely". He said the UK and the European Union were now committed to pursuing further negotiations through the World Trade Organisation.

The main stumbling block to the workability of an effective MAI, which has caused both the US Council for International Business and the International Chamber of Commerce much angst, are the lists of reservations, over 500 in total, that have accumulated from the OECD negotiations. These reservations, or exceptions as they are referred to (because they are non-conforming measures), protect narrow sectors of government practice from the MAI. However, they are subject to ‘rollback’, ie, each country’s list of exceptions will be phased out. Under ‘standstill’, once these exceptions are phased out, it will be illegal for any future local, state and federal governments to renew, strengthen or enact new legislation to protect their communities ahead of the interests of transnational corporations.

The quicker these lists are whittled down, the easier it will be for financial markets to regain confidence from the current slump they are in and the better it will be for big business. They need a MAI that locks the taxpayer into underwriting their new privileges.

It therefore seems likely that both the negotiations and the campaign of protest will move during the next year to the forum of the WTO. The fight must be continued. ///

ends #16

PHONE CONTACTS: Brian Jenkins +61 8 9528 1864; Dion Giles 0411 745 538