[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[transformative-change] Multilateral Agreement on Investment
PLEASE CROSS POST.
This column can be printed in its entirety without permission but
information about its use would be appreciated. Changes must be approved
by the author.
THE MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT:
An Alternative Approach.
Robert Theobald.
Robert Theobald is one of the founders of the QLN Network aiming to create
a future with a high quality of life based on ecological integrity,
effective decision-making and social cohesion. His latest book is
Reworking Success. (New Society Publishers.)
There are two competing visions for the future of the world. One believes
that economic growth will provide the greatest satisfaction to the people
of the world and that the primary challenge is to remove the barriers to
free enterprise. The other argues that the quality of life and ecological
integrity must be the central goals for the twenty-first century if
catastrophe is to be avoided.
This is an either-or proposition. Some still hope to fudge it and look for
a compromise. But this cannot be done for the policies which seem
necessary from one stance appear destructive from the other. While
economic growth will continue in both scenarios, it will be a means to an
end rather than an end in itself if society adopts new goals.
We are, in fact, making our personal and collective choice between futures
every day although we are seldom aware of the truth of this statement. It
will, however, be very visible in an emerging debate about a proposed new
treaty, being negotiated in secret, between countries in the developed
world entitled the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. This would
enshrine in law the proposition that commercial interests have a higher
priority than human rights or ecological protection. A process which has
already begun with NAFTA and the World Trade Organization would become
fully entrenched.
A new large-scale battle can be anticipated when the treaty is submitted
for ratification in 1998. Will it be lost again? The answer depends on
whether we are willing to look at strategic questions rather than simply
aiming to stop a stampede by riding into the middle of a herd. The only
way to change the direction of a frightened herd of cattle is to get ahead
of it.
Can this be done? Are there ideas and rhetorics which would be compelling?
Are there interest groups, which have not been mobilized in the past,
which might come together around this issue?
I believe there are. Let us look at several groups which lose if MAI
passes in its present form. First, there are many current power brokers
who are responsible for local, regional and national policy-making. Their
ability to do what they believe to be in the best interests of their
constituents is drastically reduced.
Second, it is already clear that promises to protect human rights and
environmental policies made under NAFTA and GATT are being broken. Strong
opposition to the extension of these dangers because of MAI could easily be
mobilized.
Third, the rapidly growing group which believes that increased community
autonomy is one core issue for the future will necessarily be horrified by
the proposed treaty. Labor unions and those concerned with social justice
will correctly see in MAI a further development of the forces which are
creating inequality and unemployment around the world. And there are a
small, but significant, group of corporations who recognize that their
current strategies will result in a massive backlash.
In a short column I can only come up with a short listing. Even this
limited set of potential players shows that the potential for coalescing
energy exists. What then might be an effective strategy for mobilization?
The suggestion I shall make was triggered by Jim Turner, a lawyer in
Washington.
The MAI could become a Trojan horse. It could become an opportunity for a
broad coalition to come together and insist that corporations are subject
to the same limitations as we have imposed on governments over past
generations. It could work from the assumption that corporations are, in
fact, quasi-governments and that rather than needing more freedom they need
to be constrained by a global code of conduct.
Is this a feasible strategy? Each person's answer will depend on their
readings of what dynamics exist in the world today. My belief is that we
are ready for a "populist" revolt. Like all revolts it threatens to be
messy and untidy and to contain many negative elements. A focus on
revising MAI to provide a bill of rights and a commitment to ecological
integrity from corporations could give the movement a fascinating focus.
I have been watching the anti-MAI movement develop. Since the first leaks
just a few months ago, the sense of outrage has grown exponentially. I am
suggesting that it would be possible for us to use this emerging energy for
far more than another attack on corporate power. It could become the
opportunity for those of us who care for a more positive future to express
our dreams and visions and to coalesce as a major force in the world.
A not for publication note.
This proposal, like all ideas around fundamental change, rests on a set of
beliefs about the future. Those who might wish to be engaged in
co-creating them may wish to explore the purposes and potentials of the QLN
Network. See the website below, listed in the signature.
Blessings and Peace
Robert
504-524-5374
509 Conti Street,
New Orleans,
La 70130
email: rtheobald@igc.apc.org
QLN Network: http://www.transform.org/transform/qln/index.html
Theobald site: http://www.transform.org/transform/tlc/rtpage.html
Interactive site: http://www.skywalk.com/~caucus/
Ride the Transformative Wave: It's Fun. Or, If you prefer,
Run the Challenging Rapids: A Place to Learn
====
To unsubscribe from this list, email to transformative-change-request@ox.org,
with the word "unsubscribe" in the body of the email.