Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.96L.971120214244.10369B-100000@fox.ksu.ksu.edu> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 22:23:51 -0600 From: kerry <mailto:astingsh@KSU.EDU> Subject: MAI (Was: letter to Gore-AS To: mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU
On Thu, 20 Nov 1997, Aimee Christensen,
Special Asst. for Hemispheric Affairs, USDOE, wrote:
> we engage the governments to support environmental
> protection and open markets for renewable energy, energy efficiency,
> and other cleaner technologies. We do this by working to change
> policies and reduce tariffs, but without Fast Track we are
> significantly hampered from doing so. Tariffs on these technologies
> are a SIGNIFICANT barrier to their introduction to what could be (and
> often still are even with the tariffs) THE most competitive
> application especially for renewables. Free trade agreements can take
> many of these barriers away.
>
The _content of a trade agreement should not depend on the _manner in
which it is negotiated. There is nothing that a President can do or say
that a Congress cannot also do or say in this regard. Commercial activity
is the basis of probably 90% of an average citizen's lifestyle, and the
function of government should reflect that; that is, it is a structure
formed *by the people* to protect themselves, not to protect business,
whether it is 'globalized' or not. The historical means of implementing
that protection has been representative democracy, not secret strategies
worked out by civil servants and lobbyists and signed off by one man.
> First, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment IS NOT IMPACTED by
> Fast Track; it is only for TRADE agreements.
I grant that as it stands your statement is true - in the present tense,
the MAI does not yet exist, and therefore 'it is not impacted.' But it's a
darned fine line to draw between 'investment' and 'trade'; and when the
time comes, there is no Congressperson on this continent who would try to
explain that difference to his or her constituency. Give the Pres
fast track authority, and he will *presume to propose the MAI under that
authority. Insisting that Congess get involved - and stay involved - in
commercial affairs is the only protection the public has against
chicanery - and that's not saying much.
> Second, regarding your response about citizen participation, you have
> fallen into the PR trap. Saying that Fast Track will not allow for
> citizen participation is absolutely NOT true. Trade agreements
> negotiated with Fast Track authority cannot be put in place without
> congressional approval, therefore your representative must vote yes
> or no...
Hey, it's not true that if I poke out one eye, you can't see!
> In
> addition, [it] would then have to be renegotiated before adoption,
> creating a lengthy and expensive process.
>
As expensive, say, as NAFTA has been? Not many bills get through
Congress without exactly the same 'lengthy and expensive process'; why
don't we just do away with the whole barrow-load of them?
> FINALLY, and IMPORTANTLY,
> it does not eliminate congressional oversight over the actual
> negotiations, in fact, the negotiators are REQUIRED to meet with key
> congress people periodically to let them know how the negotiations are
> progressing and what kinds of obligations are being discussed. If
> congress does not like the direction the negotiations are going, they
> can direct changes in the U.S. negotiating position.
This is as fishy as a can of dolphinfree tuna! First you say 'fast track'
is an authorization for the Pres *to negotiate* the treaty, and congress
approves or disapproves; now, if Congress 'doesnt like it,' they can
'direct changes' in the 'direction' of the actual negotiations?? In any
case, 'oversight' is not the same as writing or amending the terms of a
treaty.
Can you perhaps point to the entries in the Cong. Record of the
influence Congress (or any subcommittee thereof) had on the NAFTA and GATT
agreements? (Please, don't claim the 'side agreements' as evidence of
anything.)
kerry