LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  August 2003

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE August 2003

Subject:

Blueprint for a screwed-up world

From:

Ian Pitchford <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 21 Aug 2003 15:49:14 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (146 lines)

New Statesman

Blueprint for a screwed-up world
Simon Retallack
Monday 25th August 2003

An international summit in Cancun next month could transfer even more
power from democratic governments to big corporations. By Simon Retallack

      Picture this. A world government is created with big business in charge.
When any national or local government hits corporate profits by passing a law
to protect the environment or public health, this world government can impose
huge financial penalties until the law is removed. Too preposterous to be true?
The fantasy of paranoid, emotionally unstable greenies? Or perhaps just another
mad idea from one of those neoconservative policy wonks with friends in the
White House?

      Wrong. This vision of how the world should be run is all too likely to
become reality - and with the support of the British government. At the World
Trade Organisation summit in Cancun, Mexico, starting on 10 September, the EU
will try to use its leverage as the planet's largest trading bloc to expand the
rights of corporations in an unprecedented way. The negotiations will be led by
the European Commissioner for Trade, Pascal Lamy - and the UK Secretary of
State for Trade and Industry, Patricia Hewitt, will be right behind him.

      At the top of their list of demands is the innocuous-sounding agreement
on investment. The transnational corporations and their lobby groups want what
the investment chapter of the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta)
provides for North American corporations, but on a global scale. Were this to
happen, the British government would no longer be able to prevent a foreign
corporation setting up in the UK, no matter how bad its environmental or social
record. New laws designed to improve environmental, health or labour standards
could be interpreted, if they reduced corporate profits, as an "expropriation"
of foreign investment, and thus prohibited. Corporations could go to special
closed-door tribunals to claim compensation, paid by UK taxpayers, if these
rules were breached.

      The people of Canada, Mexico and the US have lived under exactly these
rules for the past nine years. When the Canadian government banned a fuel
additive in 1996, which Prime Minister Jean Chretien described as a "dangerous
neurotoxin", the US-based Ethyl Corporation sued for compensation. It argued
that the ban constituted an "expropriation" of Ethyl's Canadian investments.
Merely by introducing and debating the bill in parliament, it claimed, the
Canadians had harmed Ethyl's global reputation, thereby expropriating part of
its future profits. Lawyers advised the government that it would lose, and so
it lifted the ban and gave Ethyl $13m and an apology. Canadians breathe in the
results of this decision every time they step outside.

      Likewise, the Mexican government had to pay the US waste-disposal company
Metalclad $15.6m. This was because the municipal government responsible for
Guadalcazar refused to allow Metalclad to open a new toxic-waste facility on a
site that is highly vulnerable to groundwater contamination.

      In 2000, a US company, SD Myers, sued the Canadian government for profits
lost from a ban on PCBs, hazardous chemicals found to cause cancer and to harm
development and reproduction in humans. A Nafta tribunal ruled in the company's
favour.

      Many other cases brought by corporations against environmental and health
laws in North America are pending. The US bulk-water trading company Sun Belt
is suing the Canadian government because the provincial government of British
Columbia banned water exports. The Canadian corporation Methanex is suing the
US government because California is phasing out the gasoline additive MTBE, a
potential human carcinogen, which is said to have contaminated groundwater
supplies. The US Crompton Corporation is suing the Canadian government for
introducing restrictions on the use of another possible carcinogen, the
pesticide lindane.



      If the corporate lobbyists have their way - and the European Commission,
with British support, seems determined that they shall - we too will have to
live in such a screwed-up world. In effect, if we want the government to
improve the quality of air, water, food, or working conditions, ministers will
be forced either to pay off corporations with millions of pounds of our money
or to change the law until it suits the corporations. What price democracy?

      But there is more. Lamy, backed by Hewitt, also wants a new WTO agreement
on government procurement - the awarding of contracts, paid for with public
money, to deliver services or carry out building projects. This market is worth
hundreds of billions globally. Transnational corporations want to stop
governments giving preference to local companies when awarding contracts and to
ban conditions being imposed on the winners. KFC could bid to feed hospital
patients or McDonald's to provide school lunches, and it would be illegal to
award the contracts to local catering firms on the basis that they were local,
as well as illegal to require McDonald's and KFC to use British-grown, GM-free
food. Parents who want more on their kids' menus than Filet-O-Fish and
McChicken sandwiches would have to contend not just with the local authority
but with the WTO itself.

      The European Commission, sanctioned once again by the UK, is also leading
the push at the WTO for an agreement to give foreign corporations the right to
take over domestic services such as the provision of water, energy, transport
and, eventually, even health and education.

      Crucially, this agreement (known as Gats) would also place legally
binding limits on the power of governments to regulate such services. For
instance, it would not allow government regulations that failed to comply with
the need to be "least trade restrictive". So, for example, any conservation
policy that hindered free trade, such as bans on water exports, would be
prohibited. Bulk-water traders, transnational manufacturers and agribusinesses
could go from place to place, sucking up water supplies until they are
depleted.

      The Cancun summit will also hear a US demand to remove all tariffs on
non-agricultural goods. This would inevitably accelerate the pace at which
natural resources are extracted, as they would become cheaper to trade, leading
to even greater destruction of forests, fisheries and other natural resources.
New Zealand's government wants to go further: it will call for an end to
"non-tariff barriers" - any laws that restrict trade - thus threatening
environmental or social regulations.



      There is the further possibility that Cancun will agree to the
corporations' demands that where the provisions of WTO agreements clash with
those of multilateral environmental pacts, the former should have priority.
This would seriously undermine treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol on climate
change, the Montreal Protocol on ozone depletion and the UN Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species. All contain trade instruments to
require countries to change their policies in pursuit of global environmental
goals and these could be ruled illegal if free-trade rules take precedence.

      What is being proposed, then, is nothing less than a large-scale transfer
of power from democratically elected governments to unelected corporations. It
makes all that fuss over the threat to British sovereignty from the new
European constitution seem completely misplaced.

      It also makes a mockery of new Labour's repeated claim to "govern for the
many, not the few". And what it does to the government's claim that it wants to
put the environment at the heart of decision-making isn't printable.

      One source of hope is that many governments from developing countries are
staunchly opposed to much of this agenda. The challenge will be for them to
stay united enough to resist the arm-twisting and bribery that western
governments usually deploy. But there is a challenge to ordinary citizens, too.
Only in the absence of protest, petitioning and public outrage does this
suicidal project stand a hope of succeeding. Four years ago, a WTO meeting in
Seattle was derailed by a combination of developing-country opposition and
street protests. We must hope that the same happens at Cancun.

Simon Retallack is commissioning editor of the Ecologist

This article first appeared in the New Statesman. For the latest in
current and cultural affairs subscribe to the New Statesman print edition.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager