Message-ID: <kVu7hLA2bPnzEwYr@entebbe.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 07:40:54 +0100 From: cherbert <mailto:cherbert@ENTEBBE.DEMON.CO.UK> Subject: Re: MIA-Multilateral Agreement on Investment (fwd) To: mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU
Dawit Angelo, or anyone familiar with MAI. Serious concerns were raised about the direction and secrecy of the MAI agreement at this weekend's UNED UK Building Sustainable Communities Conference, which was reviewing Agenda 21 in the UK.I am somewhat out of my depth trying to understand this, and it is hard to believe this is for real. What it seems to add up to, is that MNCs rights and business would be above the law. Their investor and business rights would be protected above any other concerns of a signed up host nation, eg. if their business was harmed by the activities of the local or national government or their people, that government would be liable to make restitution for loss of profits. And this is alongside still not having a Polluter Pays Principle.
This sounds like the worst globalisation scenario, MNCs ruling without restraint or constraint, with nations subservient to their activities.
Could someone who does understand please confirm if I have understood this correctly?
cherbert
> $ $ Putting the Rights of Money Above the Laws of Nations. $ $
>
> A COUP is brewing to put the rights of international investors
>beyond the reach of national laws.
>
> Under MAI, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, member nations
>would be forbidden to use investment rules to promote social, environmental
>or economic goals, including job creation. Investors from any other member
>nation would be guaranteed entry and residency. They could bring in their
>own workers, raw materials or component parts, and they would be under no
>obligation to sell their product locally or even to keep assets in the
>country where they are bought.
>
> Any national laws, past, present or future, that affects investors
>or the assets they buy would be subject to approval by an unelected
>international panel. No where in the agreement is there provision for a
>member nation or effected people to sue for damage caused by the action of
>an investor.
>