Comment on Western Govs. Report on MAI (fwd)

[MichaelP]

fwd comment from another list; for what it's worth
(MP)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 17:18:44 -0700
From: Marcia MacMullan <mar...@provide.net>
To: natio...@thenation.com
Subject: Comment on Western Govs. Report on MAI

I bounced the Western Govs Report on MAI over to my economist friend.
This is her response:

First of all, any time anyone talks "level playing field", I smell skunk.
They ususally have in mind UN-leveling the playing field.

Second, giving the administration fast track authority does not make it
impossible for US to defend its interests. You are still talking about US
negotiating a treaty. All fast track means is that it is harder for
special interests to tie it up forever in the Senate.

There are already huge international flows of funds. Some spelling out of
the rules of the game is probably a good idea. US has more to gain than
lose by prying open some of the more closed doors. Our is already open. I
think this states rights stuff is a smokescreen.

--
For MAI-not subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other MAI sites please see http://www.flora.org/mai-not/

[Ed Deak]

A>

>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 17:18:44 -0700
>From: Marcia MacMullan <mar...@provide.net>
>To: natio...@thenation.com
>Subject: Comment on Western Govs. Report on MAI
>
>I bounced the Western Govs Report on MAI over to my economist friend.
>This is her response:
>
>First of all, any time anyone talks "level playing field", I smell skunk.
>They ususally have in mind UN-leveling the playing field.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From ED: Correct. Also the use of capital for colonization is not a "game",
but a "battle", with heavy casualties. The more level this "playing field"
the bigger the casualties.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>There are already huge international flows of funds. Some spelling out of
>the rules of the game is probably a good idea. US has more to gain than
>lose by prying open some of the more closed doors. Our is already open. I
>think this states rights stuff is a smokescreen.

>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From ED : Those "flows of funds" are nothing more than controlling the
sluice gates on a flood area, thereby rewarding and blackmailing the people
who live there.

For what we can see so far, the purpose of MAI is not the spelling out the
"rules of the game" for the controllers, but for the victims of the flood.
There are enough historical precendents to show that MAI is just another
protection racket, a legalized internationally free to roam Mafia, or like
the old knighthoods and aristocracies with their "God given rights".

All the very best, Ed (Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC)