M.A.I.

WHAT THE UBER-RICH KNOW AND YOU DON'T

MAI

What the Uber-Rich Know and You Don't

The world of the present is a scary one if you are a member of the lesser rungs of society. Just like in the rest of history, your rights are getting squashed by the fat cats at the top of the pole. And probably without a blip on your screen, those people might burn the one true trump card you have; democracy and the power of a citizen-directed government.

The weapon that will take away your right to an empowered and elected government is the Multi -Lateral Agreement on Investment, or MAI for short. The MAI is an agreement between the 29 nations who are part of the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). All these nations are among the richest in the world. The MAI was originally slated to take effect in May, 1997. It was postponed due to protest for April 1998 and failed again to materialize. The MAI has yet to be fully implemented due to the worldwide backlash and opposition due to other nations and citizens groups.

It's official objectives are to create a more fluent and therefore freer and better global economy. It uses certain aspects of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) as it's model. NAFTA is an agreement between Canada, USA and Mexico eliminating most trade tariffs and abolishing many trade restrictions. The MAI was also going to serve it's objectives but by even graver extremes, by eliminating all trade restrictions by taking away a sovereign nation's right to enforce it's laws.

The countries involved are as follows; United States of America, Canada, France, Germany, England, Japan, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, New Zealand, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey These 29 countries house 95% of the worlds top 500 transnational companies. (Preamble Collective)

People around the globe have been combining forces to fight against what they see as an oppressive, horrible and potentially irreversible step away from freedom. They have been large campaigns organized by citizen's groups and small businesses organizations waged on the Internet and by letter-writing campaigns to government representatives. The most important and potentially long-term method to stop this agreement is in government accountability. (MAI-Not) This is a plan designed by the media watchdog groups and other campaigns. The problem with this sort of agreement is that it can slip by the public's radar and not get noticed along with the other normal international agreements. The plan is to make sure politicians are answering the questions directly on the subject and even more basic, if the politicians are informed on the issue.

The method for this plan of action relies on communication between the watchdog organizations and the media. The organizations feed questions to the media and if the politicians do not address the questions directly the organizations keep feeding the questions to the media until the government representative addresses the issue properly.

According to the proponents of this agreement, the restrictive and harmful effects of international business inequality are harnessing the explosive potential of certain companies. These companies would otherwise be able to tap lucrative foreign markets that they are now restricted to. Proponents also argue that foreign investment combined with increased demand in U.S. or Canadian goods would create new and better paying jobs. Technology would also grow thanks to open trade lines. Labor and environmental conditions are not necessary due to the leverage it would give nations to not respect the agreements. Plus those conditions are dealt best in other international forums. In the eyes of it's proponents, the MAI is the savior agreement designed to free the world from the shackles of trade restrictions and protectionist and/or leech-like governments.

Fortunately, citizens at large are recognizing the underlying illogical natures of these arguments. Firstly, this agreement undermines the entire concept of sovereign nations. Even the U.N. does not have actual mandate or direct control over countries. It is merely suggestions. Sovereignty implies respecting no higher authority and the MAI puts sovereign nations accountable in an international court, capbl eof passing judgement and laying fines. This wide-reaching of a change in global politics is not initiated nor approved by the citizens of these countries. The heads of these 29 countries and the subsequent nations who will thus have to be incorporated to remain competitive have sold their brothers down the river.

Beyond the major philosophical change in the global relations of nations, the actual effects of this agreement would be quite different and a large step back. The late 20th century has seen economic and not military might become the prod in which the supposedly righteous countries can change the practices of it's brethren with less respect for liberties. The sanctions on Iraq and Cuba are examples. The specter of this agreement leaves nations powerless to address issues like human rights and global bullying, Indonesia and Iraq's attacks on it's own citizens come to mind, without resorting to military might. The MAI eliminates the non-violent carrot the world has to wave in front of it's trouble spots.

On a diplomatic level, international relations has no teeth without military might. If countries try to hold other countries responsible to their actions by imposing sanctions, the companies from within the offending country can successfully sue. Countries will be sacrificing their values for their pocket strings. They must blindly trade without noticing the potential blood on their imports.

" We're concerned about its deregulation aspects on the environment. . . and there's no balance in it. Corporate rights are not balanced with corporate responsibility

Given the current competition for capital, accession to the MAI, particularly by developing countries, will serve as a 'seal of approval." - USCIB

The result of this agreement on the domestic front would also be horrendous. Companies would now have unrestricted access to move to other countries in search of the cheapest labor and the highest exploitation rate. Domestic corporations could leave for greener pastures taking many jobs along while foreign investors would have little forbidding them from breaking the hard-earned worker rights from the past two centuries. Labour is a lost cause. The environment is not far behind as the same logic applies. Nations are toothless to stop the black-hearted multi - nationals. To survive in the international rat race, nations would have to lower environmental and labor laws to attract business. The result is catastrophic for the precarious ecological balance the world is now positioned on.

This essay has painted a bleak picture if the MAI is put through. What is even scarier is that the chances of this happening is fairly feasible. As more and more OCED - backed international agreements are signed, the MAI is put together one step at a time. It is up to the citizens to make a point to hold it's governments to it's responsibilities. What the uber-rich know and you don't is that this bill is very much alive in the back rooms of governments and corporations around the globe and that unless the necessary steps of citizen activism are taken, international relations will change for the worse. What's even scarier is that there is no trial time, the agreement is permanent once implemented, and therefore hard to get rid of. The reasons are plain. The world will suffer if the MAI is passed. All the advances of civilizations will mostly fall to the wayside as the economies of developed nations drop, developing nations grow at the expense of near slave labor, human rights can be trampled without fear of reprisal and the skies themselves darken under the smog of a pollution filled, consumer driven society. People need to be warned about "one of the greatest threats ever to the economic development and national sovereignty of countries of the South" if not the world.- Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, Director, Just World Trust

Works Cited

The Multi Lateral Agreement on Investments: Views Pros and Cons, Preamble Collective, www.mai.flora.org

The Multi Lateral Agreement on Investments: Key Concepts, Preamble Collective, www.mai.flora.org

The Multi Lateral Agreement on Investments: Quotes from Opponents and Proponents, Preamble Collective, www.mai.flora.org