Talking about the MAI and "fast track"

[MDOLAN <mdolan@citizen.org>]

  FORWARDED MESSAGE from Robert Cohen (70412 @ SMTP 
  {70412.3303@compuserve.com}) at 8/08/97 8:26 PM
  Mike,
  
  Since replying to your latest message "RE: Skaggs and the Constitution", 
  I've been carefully thinking through our exchange, resulting in this 
  cautionary note re our strategy and tactics re Fast Track.  
  
  I wrote you on August 6, 1997:
  
  1) We understand that the "fast track" authority would be a blanket 
  authority for all sorts of "trade" agreements.  Let's challenge (perhaps 
  procedurally via a congressman or senator who agrees with us) its 
  applicability to MAI, which is _not_ a "trade" agreement but _ipse facto_ 
  is an _investment_ agreement!
  
  You replied on August 7, 1997:
  
  > 1)  Trade >< Investment.  You're on to something here.  Over
  > the last several years, investment measures have more and more
  > become ingredients in these big multilateral trade burritos.
  > And labor and environmental issues are mere side dishes -- relegated
  > to the side agreements as with NAFTA.
  > SO: let's insist that investment issues should be shunted off to
  > Side Agreements -- they have no place in the text of important
  > TRADE pacts (anymore than, say, core labor standards)!
  
  Let's back off and consider the following set of statements--each intended 
  to be true and logical--in connection with the above exchange:
  
  a) The MAI is called an "Agreement", but it's really a treaty.  (They're 
  trying to confuse us with terminology.)
  
  b) Since MAI is therefore the "Multilateral Treaty on Investment" ("MTI"), 
  let's not concede that it's an "agreement".
  
  c) "MTI" deals with investment, _not_ trade
  
  d) Therefore, "MTI" is not appropriate to a fast-track legislative vehicle 
  nominally dealing with trade matters.
  
  Hence I conclude that we should take the position that "MTI" cannot be 
  dealt with under the fast-track trade-agreement authority and that, since 
  it is really a treaty, it has got to be subject to ratification by a 2/3 
  vote of the Senate.
  
  Accordingly, I ask that we reconsider our strategy and tactics on these 
  matters, including your statement above that "let's insist that investment 
  issues should be shunted off to Side Agreements".  On the contrary, I think 
  we ought to elevate the status of an investment treaty such as "MTI" so 
  that it is dealt with at high diplomatic and Congressional (i.e., 
  Senatorial) levels.
  
  Regards,
  
          Bob
  ***** NOTES from MDOLAN (MDOLAN @ CITIZEN) at 8/09/97 5:15 PM
  Well of course you're right, Bob, about the MA/TI.   I was, of course, 
  being facetious about the role of Side Agreements.
  
  Your [semantic] analysis applies as well to the most recent two big trade 
  pacts, the NAFTA[greement] and the GA[greement]TT.  Those were both 
  multilateral economic TREATIES, NAFTA midsized and GATT enormous.
  
  The point about fast track is that these days it's being used exclusively 
  to circumvent the policy debate (and attendant public scrutiny) that the 
  constitution requires of the Senate.
  
  The Administration is proud (smug even) about all the smaller, mostly 
  bilateral and often industry-specific trade deals they've cut so far (108 
  at last count). It's not like we don't have a trade policy or engage in 
  international commerce when the White House is denied its fast track.
  
  As you and I realize, NAFTA expansion, APEC and the MTI (OK?) all have the 
  characteristics of treaties.  Clinton and the corporate "free trade" lobby 
  realize that, as treaties, the political prospects for these pacts are not 
  good (due to the legislative amendment process as well as the two-thirds 
  Senate vote hurdle, not to mention public opinion).  Therefore, to pursue 
  its grandest neo-liberal free trade expansion fantasies (and the profits to 
  big bizness pals), the Administration needs fast track to navigate around 
  all that.  And that's just plain wrong and I hope David Skaggs agrees with 
  me.
  
  You can tell him I said so.
  
  as always,
  Mike Dolan