WTO

[ttt at whidbey.com]

This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

[OpChange at aol.com]

Thanks to the fellow who asked the question "what on earth does the WTO have
to with community development banking anyway?" and to all of you who
responded. I have really learned a lot, and hope the dialogue continues.

Susan Christian


This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

[courtj at globalnet.co.uk]

Wow ! TAmsin and c/b friends

So the WTO is cover for Imperial rule by dollar/pound/yen/euro rather than
by gunboat, bomb and sword.

Where's the love in all this?

Hugs

j

*************
----------
>From: "Tamsin Taylor" <ttt@whidbey.com>
>To: <COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENTBANKING-L@cornell.edu>
>Subject: RE: WTO
>Date: Tue, Dec 7, 1999, 10:30 pm
>

>
>Here are some of the points of connection between this listserve and the
>WTO. This is from Invisible Government by the International Forum on
>Globalization (www.ifg.org <http://www.ifg.org> )
>
>"Industrial countries are pushing for the following measures to be within the WTO.
>
>-Investor-State Mechanism. This mechanism gives foreign-based corporations
>the right to sue the governments of their host countries directly. This
>right has already been put into practice under NAFTA when U.S.-based Ethyl
>Corporation sued Canada because of its ban of a known neurotoxin gasoline
>additive, MMT. Ethyl argued that the ban was an "unfair taking"; Canadian
>government attorneys believed that Canada would lose under NAFTA law and
>advised settlement. Canada awarded the corporation $13 million in damages
>and repealed its ban on MMT. This measure is a direct assault on the
>sovereignty of nations and removes their abilities to control local
>economies. (Please see Investor-State Cases on next page.)
>
>-Elimination of Performance Requirements. Governments would no longer have
>the right to impose performance standards or requirements on corporations
>doing business on their soil (e.g., local hiring quotas, labeling of
>products, natural resource export quotas, etc.).
>
>-Investment Protection for Corporations. Foreign-based corporations would
>have 'full and constant protection and security,' particularly 'protection
>from strife.' Governments would be expected to protect foreign investors
>from their own citizens in case of public protests, and to compensate
>corporations for damages.
>
>-Subsidies Code. A subsidies code is likely to restrict governments from
>granting subsidies to domestic business enterprises or to require that such
>subsidies be equally available to foreign-based corporations operating
>within their countries.
>
>-Public Enterprises Limits. When a government owns a hydro-electric plan
>and provides lower electricity rates to domestic industries in order to
>stimulate local business, this is known as cross-subsidization.
>Cross-subsidization to help local businesses would be prohibited.
>
>-Unregulated Financial Transfers. Governments would be prevented from
>attempting to regulate the flow of capital in and out of their countries,
>by 'speed bump' measures, e.g., local bank deposit requirements intended to
>control fly-by-night portfolio stock investments and to protect countries
>from currency flight or speculation, which can, as demonstrated during the
>1997-1998 financial crises, devastate smaller countries.
>
>-Broader Expropriation Rules. The definition of 'expropriation' would
>expand beyond the taking of physical assets such as buildings, equipment,
>land, etc. to encompass public policies (such as public health laws) and
>programs, including taxation, as the basis for claiming compensation.
>Expropriation would even include allowing corporations to claim damages due
>to lost profits from a planned but unrealized investment. (See
>Investor-State Cases, Ethyl/MMT)
>
>-Rollback Measures. Signatory governments would agree to alter or
>eliminate any laws, policies, or programs that do not conform with the new
>investment rules; this includes a 'standstill' clause that prevents the
>adoption of any new non-conforming laws.
>
>-Constrain All Levels of Government. All of the new investment rules would
>directly apply not only to the national governments which are signatories
>to the deal, but also to state, provincial, county, and municipal
>governments, which have taken no part in the negotiations.
>
>-Lock-in Provisions. Signatory governments would be locked into the new
>investment rules for at least a 20-year period, with no provisions for
>withdrawal or abrogation without severe penalties regardless of drastic
>changes in local or international economic conditions."
>
>And that is only one area, investment.
>
>
>
>
>
>


This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list