'Loopy Treaty' Story

[Brian Jenkins]

Need cheering up? Read this text of Liam Bartlett's article
in the Perth Sunday Times, 19.4.98:

[Note: For StopMAI's more erudite readership, I have
corrected poor punctuation in one or two places --BJ]

LOOPY, INSIDIOUS TREATY

It's difficult to think of anyone who would rationally
consider giving the board members of a foreign company
greater powers over the Australian population than its own
government representatives.

Unless that proposal came from a sanatorium which had run
out of medication due to the health crisis, you'd swear it
was a bad joke.

Unfortunately, it's deadly serious and comes under the guise
of an international treaty, which our Government is
considering signing, called the Multilateral Treaty on
Investment (MAI). This agreement sets out to give
multinationals sweeping new powers and rights that could
well threaten the very independence of our popularly elected
policy makers.

Laws placing conditions on foreign investment would be a
thing of the past. The MAI would give multinationals
unrestricted access and, worse still, would legally protect
any foreign operator in Australia from any action by our
Government which may cut into their profits or harm their
reputation. For example, a foreign tobacco corporation would
be able to sue the taxpayers of this country for millions of
dollars if our Parliament were to introduce an anti-smoking
policy which affected their earnings.

Admittedly, it sounds absurd but, under MAI, it is entirely
possible and, combined with its special "expropriation"
clauses, corporations will also be able to sue our
Government for any legislation which increases their
costs--such as higher wages, better working conditions or
higher environmental standards.

This means it's virtually impossible for our elected
representatives to make laws which would significantly
improve our standard of living without being taken to court
by a foreign investor.

It should have been invented by a cereal company and and put
on the shelf, right next to the fruit loops, but it's
actually the brainchild of some nameless, faceless
millionaire captains of international industry who have
succeeded in putting it on the agenda for the 29 member
nations of the OECD.

Said to have been on the drawing board since 1995, the
treaty has largely been created without public knowledge nor
involvement. Described by the chief of the World Trade
Organisation as "the constitution of a single global
economy", the MAI is fast becoming known as the pathway to
globalisation, the perfect tool for those who wish to
dispense with national sovereignty in the hunt for the
almighty dollar.

Under these global rules, our parliamentarians will be
completely hamstrung in any or all of the policy-making
decisions because any existing law which is said to be in
conflict with MAI will be subjected to what they call
"rollback". This is a cute way of telling you that your
local law will eventually be phased out over time in
compliance with the MAI rules.

It's all one-way traffic, too, because this is a treaty
which ensures our Parliament is powerless to place any
performance conditions on foreign companies. In other
words, they can make as much money as they like without
having to employ a certain number of Australians, enter into
any joint ventures or remain loyal to this country's
economy.

Under MAI, they can pack up and take their capital with them
whenever they choose but, paradoxically, the Australian
public would be committed to them for a minimum of 20 years.

So, while the multinationals cop a host of rights including
the right to sue, they are hit with none of the
responsibilities that we normally associate with the
privilege of being able to invest in a country such as ours.

They have that privilege now, and, despite some rich
pickings, they still manage to abuse it. Recent figures show
that, in 1996, almost 100 multinationals operating in
Australia paid no tax and each of these companies earned
more than $300 million in the same year. In total, about
4,300 multinationals investigated by our Tax Office paid not
one solitary cent in tax. That's more than 50 per cent of
all the multinationals enjoying the fruits of our economy.

Let's hope that, when our OECD representative votes on the
MAI in Paris on April 28, he is thinking of our rights--and
ours alone.

[Author Liam Bartlett is a Radio 6PR, Perth, broadcaster]

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

[Don McAllister]

Brian Jenkins wrote: Need cheering up? Read this text of Liam

Bartlett's article in the Perth Sunday Times, 19.4.98:

> LOOPY, INSIDIOUS TREATY

>
> It's difficult to think of anyone who would rationally
> consider giving the board members of a foreign company
> greater powers over the Australian population than its own
> government representatives. Unless that proposal came from a

> sanatorium which had runout of medication due to the health crisis,

> you'd swear it
> was a bad joke.
>

> For example, a foreign tobacco corporation would
> be able to sue the taxpayers of this country for millions of
> dollars if our Parliament were to introduce an anti-smoking
> policy which affected their earnings.

This example is not far-fetched at all. When Thailand passed a law
restricting entry of large multinational tobacco countries into their
market, rightly fearing their enormous public relations power would
increase smoking in the country, the case got taken to the WTO by the
corporation's home country. WTO found against Thailand which was forced
to open its doors to the multinationals. Under the MAI, the tobacco
companies could sue Thailand directly in a domestic court or secret
tribunal - not only get their products in the door but take money from
the hard-pressed Thai taxpayers. More smoking means murder - educated
people know that tobacco kills, from countless studies.

The fact that such power should be given to corporations by governments
without referenda, bespeaks an incestuous relationship between
corporations and governments.

Hence we can conclude that the correct meaning of the MAI is:

<M>urder <A>nd <I>ncest!From the countryside near the tiny
town of Perth, Canada, we pass our complements to the astute writer,
Brian Jenkins, in the Perth (Australia) Sunday Times. Feel free to pass
this note to them.

don

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

--
Don E. McAllister