Volume , Number 0
There are no articles.Commentary
There are no articles.Culture
There are no articles.Features
Congress Privatizes the Net
Microradio Broadcasting Aguascalientes of the â€¦
Pulp Non Fiction: The Ecologist â€¦
Death to the MIA
Bootstraps Literacy And Racist Schooling â€¦
Bombing A La Mode
Interview with Martxedn Espada
Mark k. Anderson
Editorial: What Lies Ahead
Anatomy of a Victory
The Oscar Wilde Fad
"New Global Architecture" Poses Questions â€¦
title("Fraud In Oakland's Garbage Sweatshop")
There are no articles.
NOTE: Z Magazine subscribers and sustainers have access to all Z Magazine articles here and in the archive. The latest Z Magazine articles available to everyone are listed in the Free Articles box at the top of the table of contents, and are starred in the list below. Questions? e-mail Z Magazine Online.
Death to the MIA
that the agreement was not "reformable." According to the French daily Le Monde (October 22), the MAI, as had been originally conceived, is dead.
However, it's not clear if the victory is absolute. The promoters of the MAI don't seem to have been swayed. OECD member Johanna Selton is quoted in the aforementioned Le Monde article as stating that, what is "controversial" in the MAI must be given due consideration, but still believes in "la necessite d'un cadre multilateral pour des investisseurs [the necessity for a multilateral framework for investors]"--in other words, exactly what MAI critics found controversial to begin with.
The same article quotes Leon Brittan, the European Commisary for International Relations. Addressing the parliament of Strasbourg, he adhered to the already leveled criticisms that the OECD is an inadequate forum for economic negotiations such as the MAI. Instead, according to Brittan, we must turn to the WTO, since it includes developing countries, and hence allows them a voice in decisions that will ultimately affect them. This is also the official position of the French government.
The proposition holds some significance: the MAI was moved to the OECD after 15 countries of the WTO originally rejected it (including India, Sri-Lanka, Indonesia, Malaysia, Ghana, Tanzania, Uganda, and Haiti--see Le Monde Diplomatique, May 1997). But it's also problematic. Developing countries, once involved, can potentially offer resistance against OECD-interested deals like the MAI, but just how decisively so is debatable. The WTO-OECD shift is indicative of developing countries' influence over such deals. It's unlikely, though, that they ultimately carry much weight in changing the MAI. The MAI is American-initiated and is intended to advantage the profits of American big business (and other institutions of that ilk), as well as expand the policies and practices that are in keeping with American neoliberal capitalism. Subsequent alternations to the contract may give consideration to certain priorities of developing countries, but probably won't alter the essential dynamics of the system: corporate business investing abroad and further concentrating the vast majority of the wealth among the higher sectors of the socio-economic ladder.
The point isn't that nothing can be done, but that the hierarchical framework shouldn't be taken for granted. A possible alternative to the above scenario is that the MAI gets dismantled. Though that isn't likely if one accepts the principle of wealthy investors using a given country's labor and natural resources to rake in profit. Possible (low-wage) employment in the invested country isn't enough, if the essential socio-economic dynamics remain unalternable--that is, if developing countries are really just a support for capitalist expansion. If anything, the effort to include developing countries in the deal may just be another way to fast track them into neoliberal global consideration.
Another point of contention is just how representative governments are of their country's interests. The opposition in Malaysia and Indonesia, for example, doesn't prevent them from having been involved in APEC, an equally problematic treaty on globalization. Such (though definitely not all) countries that are marked with vast inequalities of wealth and few social programs to their remedy probably aren't opposed to the MAI on the basis of any popular interests. Government impotence in the face of foreign investors was undoubtedly an issue of concern, more so than the welfare of the rest of the country's populace. This too escapes the framework of Brittan, Jospin, Le Monde, et al.
The French government's withdrawal remains an undeniable step against the MAI. Increasing awareness surrounding the MAI arises from the efforts of epople who are fundamentally opposed to it. It's significant (and ironic) that the reporting in Le Monde (October 16, 22) hasn't directly turned to any opponents of the MAI other than government members: the grievances of "la societe civile" are paraphrased, but nobody gets quoted. One can't begrudge the token democratic efforts of a Brittan or Jospin (or Le Monde). The residing impression remains that in the press, be it French or North American (which doesn't fare much better), not all sides of the debate have been properly voiced.