In the halls of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris, some individuals are quietly working on eating the state-- although in a radically different way from what we propose in our masthead. On their plates, ready to be devoured, is the ability for nations to put conditions on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) coming into their countries. The Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) does for FDI what NAFTA did for manufactured goods crossing borders. This would deal a severe, international blow to anyone who sees environmental, labor, or health laws as good things.

The oligarchs in the OECD wish to put corporations and wealthy investors on equal legal standing with nation-states. Their desires are embodied in the MAI, a document hundreds of pages long that, until liberated by activists, was completely secret. The MAI would formalize a process already well underway through corporate funding of electoral campaigns: the capacity of transnational corporations to veto laws. And, by extension, democracy itself.

If you haven't heard about the MAI, "you are in good company. Most members of Congress haven't either," admitted House reps Klink and Stearns late last year. Most news about the MAI is in the independent press or on the Internet, sent along by Europeans and Canadians leading the fight. U.S. mainstream press has decided that this issue is too bland for our sophisticated tastes; lighter fare like Frisbee-catching dogs and sex scandals is easier to swallow.

The neoliberal architects of the MAI are touting it as "the constitution of a single global economy." And it is not much different from other constitutions written throughout history: by the elites, for the elites, with scraps for the rest of us. The framers are delusional enough to think that their agenda is good for everyone.

The most sinister provisions of the MAI are the "expropriation and compensation" rules. These rules, as assessed by trade lawyers and economists, would critically undermine the ability of local, state, or national governments to pass tax measures or laws protecting workers, public health, or the environment. The MAI would require governments to compensate companies for actions having the "equivalent effect" of even "indirect expropriation" of their investment. In other words, laws can't result in a "lost opportunity to profit from a planned investment." A foreign investor can challenge nearly any government action or policy that has this result, despite the intention of the policy.

Another one of the goodies in the corporate bill of rights is that investors can be protected from "strife." Under this ominous provision, foreign investors have legal standing to sue governments if there is a "civil disturbance" that cuts into expected profits; the term "civil disturbance" could be interpreted as protests, boycotts, or labor strikes.

Another sickening provision is the "national treatment" stipulation. This would inhibit governments from treating domestic companies differently than foreign investors. The writers of the MAI say this will foster competition, eliminate "distortions," and increase efficiencies. Yet the MAI is only efficient for the wealthy people who can pour money in to developing economies.

And the assumptions are ahistoric. If one looks at the evidence, one will see that the countries who have developed most effectively in the last half century have been the ones that favored domestic companies and who exercised some controls over investment coming in to their country.

People around the world are speaking out against the MAI, but it is not enough considering the importance. This questioning has kept a final draft from an earlier completion; completion is now slated for mid-Summer.

Locally, the Washington Fair Trade Campaign (206-782-8292) has been the loudest voice, pushing for local proclamations against the MAI. Seattle City and County Council people are now speaking out against it; Toronto and San Francisco have already passed local government resolutions. "The proposed MAI represents a threat to the sovereignty of local governments throughout the United States," declared Berkeley's city council. State and local governments would be automatically bound by the MAI once the national government accedes.

The grass roots activism around MAI has been good; but it's not nearly enough. To stop an usurpation of public policy for corporate good on this scale, an enormous effort, one that dwarfs the uproars over fast track and NAFTA, will be required. The blandness of economics and lawmaking mask the urgency of the danger MAI presents to literally billions of people around the world, including every ETS! reader.

With corporations' ability to continually marshall human resources to advance their agenda, working people will be constantly pushed away from the table. And you just know that those corporations will come back to feed, even if the MAI dies. For now, let's deny them that last piece of the pie. Call your Senators and Reps and tell your union officials to call for a cease to MAI negotiations in the OECD.

--Cameron Chapman

ETS! Co-Editor Geov Parrish--and many other cool people--will be speaking at a UW teach-in on MAI on Friday, May 1. See calendar for details.