THE EXPLOSIVE TRADE DEAL YOU'VE NEV

[brelief@xxxxxxx]

(posted by Kyin Ho on soc.culture.burma -- apologies, if this has already
appeared -- if it did, we missed it.)

Washington Outlook ? edited by Owen Ullmann, Business Week Feb. 9,1998

THE EXPLOSIVE TRADE DEAL YOU'VE NEVER HEARD OF

When Congress gets back to business in early February, it will confront a
trade agreement potentially as controversial as NAFTA. The accord among the
world's 29 most developed nations would rewrite the rules of foreign
ownership ? affecting everything from factories to real estate and even
securities. But most lawmakers have never even heard of the Multilateral
Agreement on Investment  because secretive talks by the Clinton
Administration have been carried out beneath congressional radar.

Multinationals love the deal. They see the MAI as a way to reduce
government's  growing penchant from profit-robbing boycotts and regulations.
Opponents call the MAI "NAFTA on steroids" and warn that it will gut U.S.
laws and regulations  protecting everything from worker rights to the
environment. Lined up against the pact are state governments fearful of
losing control over foreign-based businesses; small business; the AFL-CIO;
environmentalists; and consumer groups. 

Both sides agree that since the Administration hasn't geared up its
lobbying-and  since Washington is embroiled in a sex scandal-the MAI may
turn out to be merely another embarrassing misstep on trade policy. But no
one is taking any chances. With talks on the treaty almost completed,
according to the
Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development, the debate
is sure to get louder fast.

The accord would bar Congress, state legislatures ,and city councils from
using  trade sanctions to punish nations such as Burma for human rights
abuses,  violations of labor standards, and religions persecutions. Other
provisions could limit such investment incentives as enterprise zones while
ending
minority set-asides and " Buy American " rules, according to opponents.
Europeans are hoping that the MAI talks will lead to lifting of two
sanctions in particular: the Helms-Burton Act, which punishes companies that
use U.S. property expropriated in Cuba, and the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act,
which punishes companies that invest in those nations. 

NO HOUSE VOTES . 

The MAI is tentatively scheduled to be signed at an OECD ministerial meeting
in April. Under  secretary of State Stuart E. Eizenstat is slated to head a
top-level delegation to Paris in mid-February to straighten out any
last-minutes hitches. Then, the Administration plans to submit the agreement
to Senate to be ratified as a treaty-bypassing the house, historically a
tougher critic of trade deals.

Opponents insist that once its details see the lights of day, Congress will
be forcedto reject the deal. "This won't stand the Dracular test," says Lori
Wallach, director of Public Citizen Global Trade Watch, a consumer-advocacy
group that has put a copy of secret draft treaty on its Web site,
www.citizen.org/petrade/tradehome.html.

Yet even with the uncertainties, U.S.  negotiators say they will push hard
for a deal.  Why? U.S. companies want stronger rules protecting U.S.
investment overseas and more incentives for luring foreign money into the
U.S. But if the White House wants to overcome potential Senate opponents
like Jesse Helms ( R-N.C.), it will  have to start twisting arms- and soon. 

By Paul Magnusson in Washington , with Stephen Baker in Paris

http://www2.gol.com/users/brelief/Index.htm