The author of this article, Robert Theobold, was one of the founders of the QLN Network, which aims to create a future with a high quality of life based on ecological integrity, effective decision-making, and social cohesion. His latest book was Reworking Success (New Society Publishers).
1997 Series 1 Number 23 Page 14
[See < Reworking Success: New Communities at the Millenium: Theobald, Robert: 9780865713666: Books – Amazon.ca > Mr. Theobold died in November 1999. See < Robert Theobald – Wikipedia > In May 2024, I was unable to confirm the continuing existence of the QLN Network on the internet. Ed.]
There are two competing visions for the future of the world. One believes that economic growth will provide the greatest satisfaction to the people of the world and that the primary challenge is to remove the barriers to free enterprise. The other argues that the quality of life and ecological integrity must be the central goals for the 21st century if catastrophe is to be avoided.
This is an either/or proposition. Some still hope to fudge it and look for a compromise. However, this cannot be done for the policies which seemed necessary from one stance are destructive from the other stance. While economic growth will continue in both scenarios, it will be a means to an end rather than an end in itself if society adopts new goals. We are, in fact, making our personal collective choice between futures every day, although we are seldom aware of the truth of this statement. It will, however, be very visible in an emerging debate about a proposed new treaty being negotiated in secret between countries in the developed world entitled the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI). This treaty would enshrine in law the proposition that commercial interests have a higher priority than human rights or ecological protection, an idea which has already begun with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the World Trade Organization (WTO) would become fully entrenched. A new large-scale battle can be anticipated when the treaty is submitted for ratification in 1998. Will it be lost again? The answer depends on whether we are willing to look at strategic questions rather than simply aiming to stop a stampede by riding into the middle of a herd. The only way to change the direction of a frightened herd of cattle is to get ahead of it.
Can this be done? Are there ideas and rhetoric which would be compelling? Are there interest groups, which have not been mobilized in the past, that might become together around this issue? I believe there are.
Let us look at several groups which lose if the MAI passes in its present form. First, there are many current power brokers who are responsible for local, regional, in national policy-making. Their ability to do what they believe to be in the best interest of their constituents will be drastically reduced.
Second, it is already clear that promises to protect human rights and environmental policies made under NAFTA and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) are being broken. Strong opposition to the extension of these dangers–because of the MAI–could easily be mobilized.
Third, the rapidly growing group which believes that increased community autonomy is one core issue for the future will necessarily be horrified by the proposed treaty. Labour unions and those concerned with social justice will correctly see in the MAI a further development of the forces that are creating inequality and unemployment around the world. Also, there is a small but significant group of corporations who recognize that their current strategies will result in a massive backlash.
In a short column, I can only come up with a short listing. Even this limited set of potential players shows that the potential for coalescing energy exists. More than might be an effective strategy for mobilization question the suggestion I shall make was triggered by Jim Turner, a lawyer in Washington.
The MAI could become a Trojan horse. It could become an opportunity for a broad coalition to come together and insist that corporations are subject to the same limitations as we have imposed on governments over past generations. It could work from the assumption that corporations are, in fact, quasi-governments and that, rather than needing more freedom, they need to be constrained by a global code of conduct.
Is this a feasible strategy? Each person’s answer will depend on their readings of what dynamics exist in the world today. I believe is that we are ready for a “populist” revolt. Like all revolts, it threatens to be messy and untidy, and to contain many negative elements. A focus on revising the MAI to provide a Bill of Rights and a commitment to ecological integrity from corporations could give the movement fascinating focus.
I have been watching the anti-MAI movement develop. Since the first leaks, just a few months ago, the sense of outrage has been exponential. I am suggesting that it would be possible for us to use this emerging energy for far more than another attack on corporate power. It could become the opportunity for us who care for a more positive future to express our dreams and visions and coalesce as a major force in the world.
[The MAI did not come into force because of widespread opposition. Some countries, including Canada, have continued to advocate for some or all of the proposed treaty’s elements. See < Multilateral Agreement on Investment – Wikipedia > Ed.]
Link to | The Multilateral Agreement of Investment.
Leave a Reply