>Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Resent-Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 17:51:58 +0200 >X-Authentication-Warning: emiliano.ras.eu.org: uucp set sender to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f >Reply-To: "Laurent JESOVER" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >From: "Laurent JESOVER" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "ATTAC LISTE WELCOME" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 17:50:55 +0200 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >X-Priority: 3 >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 >Subject: [ATTAC] MAI MARK TWO >X-Mailing-List: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> archive/latest/223 >X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Precedence: list >Resent-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >LE MONDE DIPLOMATIQUE - May 1999 > >TRANSATLANTIC WHEELING AND DEALING > >Watch out for MAI Mark Two >______________________________________________________________ > >Sheltered from the hubbub of war and crisis, Europe, the United States >and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) are devising agreements that >will remove the final obstacles to the free play of "market forces" >and require countries to submit to the unfettered expansion of the >multinationals. Learning from the failure of the Multilateral >Agreement on Investment (MAI), big business and technocrats are trying >to force through a decision before the end of 1999. > >by CHRISTIAN DE BRIE * >______________________________________________________________ > >The corpse of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) hardly >had time to get cold in the vaults of the Organisation for Economic >Cooperation and Development (OECD) (1) before the ultra-liberal Dr >Jekylls led by Sir Leon Brittan, the outgoing European Commission >vice-president and Thatcherite die-hard, have tried to clone it, >excitedly hoping to see new Draculas emerge from their test tubes by >the year 2000. > >This urgent work is being carried out in two secret laboratories with >"keep out" signs to deter anyone not wearing a lab coat: the >Transatlantic Economic Partnership (TEP) and the Millennium Round of >the World Trade Organisation. > >The first of these, which opened on 16 September 1998, is dedicated >(though it will not admit it) to that favourite project of the British >and the Americans - seeing the European Union dissolved in a free >trade area with the United States. Following the failure of the first >attempt in 1994, a rehashed version presented by the European >Commission on 11 March 1998 under the name NTM (New Transatlantic >Marketplace) was thrown out by the foreign ministers of the Fifteen on >27 April. > >As he had done before, Brittan went back to his drawing board (without >seeking a mandate) to come up with a disguised version of his pet >scheme. If the 27 pages of the Commission recommendation on the >negotiation of agreements in the field of technical barriers to trade >between the EU and the US (2) are anything to go by, the outcome >promises to be instructive. (An abbreviated version was approved by >the Council, empowering it to negotiate on behalf of the member >states, then by the European parliament in September and November >1998). > >On the pretext of removing "technical barriers to trade", which >include health, social and environmental protection regulations, the >ultimate aim is to "reach a general commitment to unconditional access >to the market in all sectors and for all methods of supply" of >products and services, including health, education and public >contracts. In the inimitable jargon of the Commission, states and >local authorities are required to make all derogations explicit in the >form of "a negative freedom" given that the agreements negotiated >apply to all the territory of the parties, regardless of their >constitutional structures, at all levels of authority. This is very >restrictive for the local authorities of the European countries, but >of little risk to the US, where the federal states are not bound by >Washington's signature in the matter. > >The aim is gradually to draw up common minimum regulations "based on >the recommendations of enterprises" in order to "create new outlets" >for them - all this in "a spirit of conviviality". Involved in the TEP >talks from the outset, the multinationals have greatly influenced the >content thanks to a powerful lobby that has been institutionalised for >four years: the Transatlantic Business Dialogue (TABD) bringing >together the upper crust of big business on both sides of the North >Atlantic. Its last two-yearly meeting took place in Charlotte (North >Carolina) in November 1998. > >Big business to call the tune > >In order to allay suspicion, they are trying to rush through the >establishment of a Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue, a Transatlantic >Labour Dialogue and a Transatlantic Environment Dialogue for >consumers, trade unions and ecologists respectively, who will have to >stay firmly within the bounds set by big business in the TABD. The >latter has no intention of giving anything more than a half-hearted >commitment to optional codes of conduct with no sanctions attached. > >Thus "hemmed in", talks proceed behind closed doors, using salami >tactics to avoid alerting public opinion, so that everything can be >sewn up by December 1999. Industrial goods, services, public >contracts, intellectual property, etc. - in a dozen fields, slice by >slice, "mutual recognition agreements" (MRA), apparently technical but >in fact political, seek to reduce standards and regulations to the >lowest common denominator. The outcome is that the safeguards that >Europe has built up, in food, the environment and health in >particular, are being dismantled. > >Once agreement has been reached, governments will be obliged to >abolish any laws that conflict with the MRAs. And it is no surprise to >find that the procedures will consist of meetings "at cabinet level in >order to maintain political impetus" and between "top officials >assisted where necessary by ad hoc or specialist groups" who will take >care of everything together with consultants from the world of >business. > >Talks conducted behind closed doors without democratic control aim for >a hastily signed final agreement: the TEP follows the same aims as the >MAI - to hand over all human activities to capital, without let or >hindrance, thereby stripping the EU, member governments and local >authorities of their ability to pursue their own policies, be they >economic, social, cultural or environmental. > >But the document signed at the London transatlantic summit on 18 May >1998 has another aim: to establish a US-EU condominium capable of >imposing its will on the rest of the world, and in particular the >countries of the South in the talks due to open at the WTO in >December. The war being prosecuted, with the support of their >governments, by transnational corporations on both sides of the >Atlantic for the conquest and domination of world markets is becoming >increasingly brutal and has no regard for laws. Witness America's >extraterritorial Helms-Burton and D'Amato-Gilman acts that are >contrary to international law; the banana war lost by the EU despite >the Lom� agreements that are no longer worth the paper they are >written on; the disputes over hormone-contaminated meat and >genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that contravene health >regulations, to name only a few recent examples that have made the >headlines. > >For example, the US food industry organisation Grocery Manufacturers >of America has decided to challenge the European "eco-labelling" >directives and other consumer protection legislation said to reflect >"local cultural values" and be discriminatory in terms of >international competition (3). It is precisely the role of the MRAs >negotiated under the TEP to settle such disputes in the best interests >of business, even if the agreement makes an ass of the EU (4). > >Encouraged by the work of his first laboratory, the insatiable >Brittan, far from being content to deal with the outgoing Commission's >current business, is actively preparing for the success of the second: >the Millennium Round. The idea is to convert the meeting of the >ministerial conference of the 131 WTO member countries in Seattle in >December 1999 into an enormous globalisation fair, where the removal >of the final obstacles to capital's freedom of action would be >negotiated pell-mell. Without any prior decision to that effect, >public contracts, competition, product controls and investment would >be added to the initial agenda for the revision of the 1994 Marrakesh >accords on agriculture, services and industrial property. In other >words, it is the MAI Dracula. > >In the case of intellectual property and farming, for example, this >would mean absolute compliance with patent rights in seed, especially >soya and transgenic rice, in which American corporations hold a >monopoly, and strict limits on member countries' rights to hold buffer >stocks against the risk of famine. In the case of public contracts, >foreign firms would have the same rights as national ones for all >local, regional and national public contracts, with the contract going >to the most "efficient". In competition matters, countries would no >longer have any control over public purchase offers and mergers. In >the name of trade facilitation, controls in ports and airports would >be restricted to one sample or container. For investment the proposals >are the same as the MAI, except for arbitration. > >The multinationals intend having their way in everything: apart from >the Transatlantic Business Dialogue and the European Round Table of >Industrialists, a new lobby , the Business Investment Network, is hard >at work. The Seattle meeting looks set to be a Millennium >Merry-Go-Round; come next June, the International Chamber of Commerce >will be rallying public opinion in its support, while Sir Leon Brittan >will be touring Southeast Asia, trying to win over such recalcitrant >countries as India, Pakistan and Indonesia. But, crisis-stricken and >closely dependent on the International Monetary Fund (IMF), most >countries of the South will put up little resistance. The scene seems >to have been set in advance for the US and the EU to call the tune. > >The WTO's negotiating methods and practices lend a hand here. >Countries are supposed to submit their lists of requests, concessions >and requests for debate by the end of June 1999. After that, the WTO's >executive body, the General Council, will work behind closed doors >planning the content and proceedings of the ministerial conference. >The details of the agreements will be worked out in a large number of >informal meetings (not even the list of participants will be >published) and the silence of the weakest countries will be taken to >signify acceptance. > >"Transparency", "deregulation", "liberalisation", "opening of >markets", "good governance" are only matters for countries and their >citizens, never for large corporations. There is no draft >international agreement to put an end to what is common practice in >the jungle of big business: secret agreements and cartels, dumping and >transfer price manipulation; speculation and insider dealing; >financial crime, tax evasion and money laundering; spying and piracy; >surveillance and exploitation of workers, banning of trade unions; >plundering and embezzlement of collective resources and common >property, endemic corruption of economic channels, major markets and >state machinery. > >So there seems to be nothing to prevent the transnational corporations >taking possession of the planet and subjecting humanity to the >dictatorship of capital. Almost all of them are based in the most >powerful countries of the North (the US, Canada, the EU, Japan) where >large-scale mergers and concentrations continue apace with the >unconditional support of governments and international bodies given >over to their cause. Controlling virtually all the means of >information and communication, they meet with only localised and >sporadic resistance as they compete relentlessly for monopoly control >of the markets. > >Making people submit to the implacable logic of profit is now the only >policy of the great powers and the organisations they control, >especially the OECD, IMF and WTO. The havoc they cause is terrible and >they do it with impunity: accelerated impoverishment and destruction >of the social structures of entire populations, who are deprived of >the most basic rights, driven from their homes and left fighting for >survival; the weakest state collapse under the weight of structural >adjustment policies and debt, unable to guarantee their people's >security or provide a minimum of working public services. The >consequences are a return to barbarism and ethnic conflict; ever more >crises bringing plummeting living standards and soaring unemployment >(5); a widespread increase in inequality and poverty, even in the >supposedly richest countries, especially that shop window of >liberalism, Tony Blair's Britain (6). > >In order to crush any thought of organised resistance to the >supporters of this new world order, tremendous police and military >forces are being used to establish a doctrine of repression: poverty >itself is made a crime on the domestic front just as recalcitrant >states are internationally vilified (7). > >Able in a few hours to find the billions of dollars necessary to save >from bankruptcy the few robber barons who have eaten their fill at a >speculative fund (LTCM), these new master of the world cannot spare >even one tenth that amount to provide over a billion human beings with >clean drinking water, even though 25,000 people die every day for want >of it (8). They are streaks ahead of the tyrants of the Middle East, >the Balkans or elsewhere, against whom we are regularly roused to >great humanitarian tirades. "Water is life!" proclaims Vivendi >(formerly G�n�rale des Eaux) in a lavish advertising campaign, >building its wealth on organising its scarcity. > >In the urgency of the situation, resistance is being organised to meet >the forthcoming onslaught. Drawing on the experience of the successful >fight against the MAI, an international campaign of information and >action is being organised and coordinated with the support of the >trade union, social and community movements and questions are being >asked of elected representatives (9). The immediate aim is a >moratorium on all trade talks with, ultimately, supervision of the >transnationals, the establishment of an international economic court >of justice and the "deratification" of the agreements already signed. >This is not to forget reform of the WTO which operates in permanent >violation of the basic principles of democratic societies. > >* Observatoire de la mondialisation (Globalisation watch) > > Translated by Malcolm Greenwood > > (1) See "A dangerous new manifesto for global capitalism" by Lori M. >Wallach, Le Monde diplomatique in English, February 1998. > >(2) "Recommendation for a Council decision, presented by the >Commission" (undated); and "Resolution of the European Parliament", >Bulletin of the Communities (COM.98.0125) and "Opinion of the Economic >and Social Committee" (CES 1164.98). > >(3) Testimony of a leader of Grocery Manufacturers of America to the >US Senate trade subcommittee, 28 July 1998. > >(4) See Jean-Claude Lefort and Jean-Pierre Page, "Double jeu autour de >l'AMI", Le Monde diplomatique, October 1998; Jean-Claude Lefort, >Europe-Etats-Unis: quelles relations �conomiques?, rapport >pr�liminaire, Assembl�e Nationale, rapport d'information No. 1150. > >(5) To take just one example, the crisis resulted in 25 million people >being made unemployed in East Asia. > >(6) "La Grande-Bretagne s'alarme de la pauvret� croissante et >introduit le Smic horaire", Le Monde, 31 March 1999. > >(7) See Ignacio Ramonet, "Social democracy betrayed", Le Monde >diplomatique in English, April 1999. > >(8) According to the World Health Organisation (Le Journal du >dimanche, 4 April 1999) > >(9) For more information, see "L'AMI clon� � l'OMC", pamphlet produced >by Coordination contre les clones de l'AMI, Observatoire de la >mondialisation, 40, rue de Malte, 75011 Paris. >_________________________________________________________________ > >ALL RIGHTS RESERVED � 1999 Le Monde diplomatique > ><http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/en/1999/05/13mai.html> > > > > >-- >Attac discussion list >For any information about the list and the work done by the Association > http://attac.org/ <http://attac.org/> >if you want to be taken off the list: >mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe >
