Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Euro Impact on Gold, USD ... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: banco$ who wrote (80)	11/26/1998 8:26:00 AM
From: Amelia Carhartt	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 289

Bet we will see a lot more of this sort of thing in the coming years.

To: banco$ who wrote (80)	12/1/1998 10:15:00 PM
From: banco$	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 289

Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) tabled Oct. 20, go France! The MAI affects far more than trade agreements, it concerns capital and sharply elevates the "rights" of capital globally. Many more nations will be represented in the WTO forum if this agreement, heinous as currently written, is continued there. The Wall Street Journal laments that one of the euro's weak points is that the Europeans do not engage in the kind of "cutthroat capitalism" as Americans, so be it. "OECD investment agreement stymied Tuesday 20 October - Following France's announcement of its withdrawal from negotiations under the OECD designed to achieve agreement on a set of guidelines for international investment, known as the MAI, Sir Leon Brittan came before the House to tell members that prospects for an agreement were virtually nil. As he put it, "frankly, prospects do not look promising, to put it mildly". Yet, as the Commissioner explained, this did not mean that the idea could now be shelved and he emphasised that he would be looking for support to continue negotiations under the forum of the WTO, his preferred avenue in view of the fact that developing countries would be represented there. The idea has been criticised because it has failed to take account of the interest of poorer countries. Yet, Sir Leon underlined his belief that such an agreement was not only necessary but vital for the long-term future of developing countries, especially following the financial crisis in Asia. Long-term "good quality" international investment contributed enormously to the economies of poorer countries, he explained, and contrary to some criticism, could in his view, contribute towards raising labour standards, and expand transparency. He felt an international agreement could contribute to stability and to the campaign to stamp out unacceptable practices such as bribery and "crony capitalism". A clear set of guidelines, established at an international level would, he felt, be a better way forward than bi-lateral agreements. The Commissioner then explained that following Parliament's resolution on the question, extensive consultations had been held with interested parties such as trade unions, multi-nationals and international organisations. The Commission had been fulfilling its function in acting on the basis of a mandate agreed unanimously by the member states. The decision by France, he implied, would obviously affect the possibility of a successful outcome under the OECD. In the debate, MEPs were divided between those on the one hand, such as Peter Kittelmann (D, EPP) and Willy De Clercq (B, ELDR), who supported such an agreement as a means of encouraging investment on an international scale, and others such as Gisèle Moreau (F, EUL/NGL) and André Sainjon (F, ERA), who saw the negotiations as a means for the US to extend its domination over international financial markets to the detriment of developing countries and environmental and labour standards. Mr De Clercq pointed out that substantial foreign investment could create jobs and indeed raise wage levels, as could be seen in Korea where the average wage had increased from 6% of the US average in 1975 to 43% in 1995. Erika Mann (D, EPP) feared an erosion of national sovereignty. In addition to the concerns over environmental and labour standards, French MEPs such as Armelle Guinebertière (F, UFE) were concerned about the "cultural" clause or the threat of US domination of the audio-visual TV and films market. Replying to the debate, Sir Leon confirmed his commitment to an international agreement, which he emphasised would not simply benefit multi-nationals. The Asian crisis and the experience of Indonesia showed that there was a need for guidelines to encourage urgently needed investment. As he put it, opponents could "shout and scream slogans from the sky" but it would not make any difference and contribute to improve the climate to encourage international companies to invest. The lesson to be learnt from the present experience was not to reject the idea of an agreement but to pursue it through the WTO with a commitment to protecting the environment, respect for international labour standards and the audio-visual area. He rejected any suggestions that the Commission had not acted in a reasonable way and, as to loss of sovereignty, this was inherent in all international agreements, he added, with the rider that such agreements including the Maastricht Treaty had been signed voluntarily by democratically elected governments convinced of the gains to be made through international cooperation. Close 7.15pm" europarl.eu.int