Re: Quebec wall down! activist/academic review of the FTAA

I wrote the attached review below for the armchair theorists on the list
who are unable
to see that their armchair is part of the world system. I include this
review in this message
as well to faciliate comments and discussion via email on the world systems
list.

Certainly I challenge Mr/Dr. Jones to use his armchair for its purpose and
to please at least
read the leaked 'text' on investment, as this is a grand opportunity for
him (as well as us) 
to provide a scholarly analysis of how it relates to world systems,
hyphenated or otherwise. 


Cheers, and participate, 

Mark Whitaker
Unversity of Wisconsin-Madison*
(where, at least in my circles, the 'issue' of activism 'and' academia
rarely comes up, 
unless it is studying academic ambivalance as an interesting Fitz-Contini
phenomenon in itself)





At 05:07 PM 4/21/01 -0400, you wrote:
>In response to Loomis' comment, I fully agree. I find Jones' comment to be
>rather pretentious and thoroughly privileged. Further, I don't see how these
>protests can be divorced from "scholarly" world systems discourse and
>analysis.  It seems to me that they make up an integral (and equally
>compelling--for those concerned with analysis) part of the larger and
>ongoing discourse within the world system.
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Erik Loomis <eloomis20@hotmail.com>
>To: <InvictusCapPart@aol.com>; <p34d3611@jhu.edu>
>Cc: <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
>Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 3:50 PM
>Subject: Re: Quebec wall down!
>
>
>> Comments like the one I am replying to are precisely why activists don't
>> look to academics for leadership in their struggles.
>>
>> Erik Loomis
>> University of New Mexico
>>
>>
>> >From: InvictusCapPart@aol.com
>> >To: p34d3611@jhu.edu
>> >CC: wsn@csf.colorado.edu
>> >Subject: Re: Quebec wall down!
>> >Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:19:52 EDT
>> >
>> >What does this exchange have to do with a scholarly discourse about world
>> >systems? Please find a "protest network" on which to gloat about the
>Quebec
>> >Wall, and preserve WSN for discussion of the study of world systems!
>> >
>> >Thanks & regards,
>> >
>> >Milo Jones
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>>

Hi there,
        Here it is.


INTRODUCTION TO LEAKED CHAPTER ON INVESTMENT    
        Saturday, April 21, 2001.  We are two days into the Quebec FTAA, which 
has
seen peaceful as well as violent protest, and a great deal of police,
rubber bullets, and tear gas. Quebec's wall has gone up, been torn down,
built once more, and then torn down once more. The delegates are either
afraid to come out, or they have been told to stay in place by the police,
in fear of tear gas getting to them and likely setting up international
incidents. Some of the delegates reportedly even failed to arrive, in fear
of what they felt may occur in Quebec. Well, it did occur.
        And on the eve of the FTAA commencement, we have this leaked section of
the FTAA on investment. Remember this is only one chapter. I am unsure
exactly how many different chapters there are or would be. The leaked
chapter is the one that discusses investment regulations among the
membership, and since regulations around investment are the heart of what
they are all getting at in Quebec, its rather appropriate that we have this
to look at so we can participate in the Quebec FTAA, so to speak.   

WHAT DOES IT SAY?
        You can read it for yourself if you disagree. Since it is a leaked
chapter, it is a work in progress by the delegates. Much of the document
references past meetings, particularly San Jose. Much of the document is a
list of alternative ways to phrase the same point, sometimes up to around
seven to eight different versions, all enclosed in brackets. However,
averaging the points together, one can correlate the points they are
working towards, as well as noticing some of the 'stickier' issues among
the delegates themselves based on the number of phrasings or outright
disagreements in the versions of the same point.  
        It discusses how the FTAA is to be set up against existing frameworks of
state level rights and laws in the aims of undermining them, which have
(more or less, as the cases go historically) been assembled through
varieties of democratic processes that include local and geographic
specific actors in the relations of the state. By these more local,
geographically specific groups I mean human, labor, or environmental rights
frameworks that have been won out of conflict. 
        Different than this historical democratic process that includes 
varieties
of interests, the FTAA is a structure that seems to be designed exclusively
for making a distanciated (despatialized) framework of rights paramount
over local, geographically specific rights and laws--the latter typically
having to take many more players into account. The FTAA in other words is
the story of a stacked deck in one direction--entirely towards securing
supply side and financial arrangements without any requisite obligations at
all on the part of the corporations or investors to whom this document is
being tailored for and among whom it has been circulating
exclusively--until April 20, 2001--though it has global repercussions
supposedly if signed. 
        It says nothing about 'public' recourse against the FTAA at all. It is
entirely about securing the mobility of investment capital over local,
state, or national legislatures and courts and people. It is about setting
up a Constitution of sorts, replete with the granting of privileges in all
territories throughout North and South America, without any state capable
of 'legally' touching them.


HYPOCRISY OF THE DISCOURSE THAT FTAA IS A 'DEMOCRATIC CLUB'
        It is interesting that much is made in the media of only 'democratic'
countries being in the FTAA. However, by definition of what this FTAA
'democratic' assemblage of countries would do according to this document,
it's hypocritical: these democratic representatives aim to agree to demote
the very democratic processes, as a group, that they claim was the 'ticket
for admission' to the FTAA talks. FTAA may be about democracy, though it is
about calmly signing away local, geographic groups' rights to the
participation in the democratic process. The FTAA does this by its desire
to set up a framework of courts--ones without  further appeal--where
corporations are the only citizenship worthy of listening to. These courts
are to be higher than the national courts, and they are to be retroactive
against any democratic laws at any level. 

THREE SECTIONS TO THIS DOCUMENT
        There are three basic sections to this document. The second part is a
large section on this court (arbitration) system and its procedures and
administration, and what 'rights' have been granted and taken away from
states if states fail to perform according to the guidelines. The third
section is another long section on definitions. 
        The first part is what I describe below. What follows is a description 
of
various policy points the delegates are agreeing upon, as they create a
separate citizenship around investors, within states as well as external to
particular states. Structurally, this makes a two level citizenship. This
makes everyone in North and South America second class citizens--except
investors, who are separate and are making their own laws over everyone
else and trumping every other framework of law.

TURNING THE WORLD INSIDE OUT, CORPORATIONS RULE SEPARATED TERRITORIES; 

FTAA: DEMOTING NATION-STATES FROM WITHIN AND WITHOUT

        I am organizing this as a 'within' and a 'without' category. This is 
based
on my reading of what the different bracketed versions have in common. I
point out some contention among the delegates' versions, where I thought it
was notable:

FTAA: TWO WAYS IT UNDERMINES DEMOCRATIC STATES, WITHIN AND WITHOUT

WITHIN:

        FTAA TRUMPS ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT, *RETROACTIVELY* TO ALL 
        PAST LAWS

        DESIRES TO AVOID ANY "NATIONALIST BIAS" IN STAFFING OF 
        CORPORATE INVESTMENT CONCERNS, though some phrases say that 
        a 'nationalist bias' would be fine, as long as it this nationalist bias
        fails to interfere with the operations and management of the investment
        operation.

        TRUMPS 'MOST FAVORABLE TRADING NATION' STATUS
        phrased as: "[. . .The treatment to be accorded to a state, territory,
        possession, or  province under paragraph 1 is treatment no less 
favorable
        than the treatment that it accords, in like circumstance, to natural
        persons resident in and companies constituted under the under the laws 
of
        other states, territories, possessions, or province of the Party of 
which
        it forms a part, and to their respective investments.]"

        KNOCKING DOWN A STATE'S PASSPORT REQUIREMENTS ON 
        MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL OF CORPORATIONS, REMOVING OTHER TESTS
        OF ENTRANCE INTO TERRITORIES FOR "KEY PERSONNEL"

        LAWS AGAINST ANY NATIONALIZATION OF PROPERTY WHICH IS CALLED IN
        PARENTHESES  "EXPROPRIATION"; however, this point is contentious--some 
say
        it is fine to nationalize property with compensation, others want
        nationalization as a    state power entirely removed, other phrases say
        nationalization with "due process" makes it fine., etc., or for a public
        use makes it fine; there is contention about payment options, some 
wanting
        expropriated/nationalized items if they fail to be      "immediately" 
paid,
        paid with interest.

        INDEMNITY PAYMENTS FOR WARFARE THAT DESTROYS THE BUILT 
        INFRASTRUCTURE OR INVESTMENTS, TO BE PAID BY THE HOST STATE TO
        THE INVESTOR

        DESIRES TO OUTLAW ANY 'BUY LOCAL' CAMPAIGN. 

        TAX FREE INVESTING IN FOREIGN STATES? I was unclear on this phrasing. It
        seems like a completely tax free operation is proposed by some 
delegates:
        "[No Party may require its investors to transfer, or penalize its
        investors that fail to transfer, the income, earnings, profits or other
        amounts derived from, or attributable to, investment in the territory of
        another Party.]" Of course with a great deal of world 'trade' actually
        being only internal firm transfers, this amounts to legalizing tax free
        investment for the largest TNCs.

        ANY ATTEMPTS TO CURTAIL THESE MEASURES BY THE HOST STATE
        AUTOMATICALLY GO INTO SOME FORM OF NEGOTIATIONS AFTER 6 MONTHS
        TO BRING THE SHEEP BACK TO THE FOLD
        
        IMMEDIATE FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS (WITHDRAWALS FROM A STATE) 
        TO BE ALLOWED, WITHOUT ANY BUREAUCRATIC DELAYS.

WITHOUT: 

        FTAA AS A MAGNA CARTA FOR INTERNATIONAL INVESTORS, NO ONE ELSE 
        MENTIONED 

        INTERNATIONAL MILITARY INCURSIONS ARE TO BE ALLOWED BY ALL
        PARTICIPANTS IN THE FTAA, TO SECURE AND PROTECT INVESTMENTS IN
        SAID TERRITORIES (my comment: legalizing in the FTAA framework the multi
state 
        putsches of NATO against places like Yugoslavia or (more exclusively 
U.S, in 
        Columbia; what I would be interested in seeing is the section that says
exactly WHO
        will be doing this militarily]  though you can bet it is NATO or the 
UNITED
        NATIONS military, or "private police" forces which seem to be getting
        legal 'rights' in the host state.)

        AN INTERNATIONAL COURT SYSTEM COMPRISED OF PAST TREATY
        ARBITRATION FRAMEWORKS AND ANY OTHERS WORKED OUT BY THE FTAA
        ARE THE OPTIONS FOR RESOLVING CONTENTION AMONG THE MEMBERS OF
        THE FTAA. ANY STATE COURTS, EVEN DOWN TO THE SMALLEST LEVEL OF
        GOVERNANCE WITHIN A STATE ARE UNIMPORTANT AND ARE TRUMPED
        "[. . .This Chapter applies to the entire territory of the Parties
(governments) and to
        any level or order of government regardless of any inconsistent measure
that many 
        exist in legislation at those levels or order of government. . .]"

        FTAA TRUMPS ANY OTHER REGIONAL TRADING BLOCKS THAT ARE MORE
        GEOGRAPHICALLY SPECIFIC, OR THAT CONTRADICT THE FTAA

        OUTLAWING STATE GOVERNMENTS' 'BUY LOCAL CAMPAIGNS' 

CONCLUSION

        This sets up a government of sorts, within existing states and external 
to
existing states. Both the within and the without aspects of the FTAA are
designed to trump more locally, geographic democratic feedback into the
governing process. 
        The FTAA in my opinion seeks to set up a 'formal framework' that
**requires** additional structural adjustment across any state, something
that has been informally been performed so far through World Bank/IMF/NATO
frameworks since post WWII. This is less a code of expression of moral
values or whatever else. This is a code of administration for undermining
and 'structural adjusting' host states to be, within and without, part of
the same society. Borders are down for money and finance, for "key
personnel" (as the document calls them) who can do without passports;
borders are down for locally specific tariffs. What borders remain up?
Likely the ones on labor mobility, or on borders to democratic
accountability. The borders are designed from the outside--to hold us
in--and to keep TNCs and despatialized finance in a separate legal
category, even though they are simultaneously within and external to
states, our feedback on them is what is being written out of the picture.
        What does this formal document mean informally? The FTAA means that
informally the actors already on the scene are pragmatically going to be
the ones institutionalized as the governing and administrative entities and
these will expand: TNCs, IMF/World Bank, and 'group militaries' (similar to
NATO) or the 'private policing' forces that have expanded particularly in
African states, will expand. These lords, financial ministers, and private
armies--these are the entities the FTAA presents to us. 

        These are the three entities our present democratic representatives
present to us: a hemispheric state based on legalizing structural
adjustment frameworks. This document describes what they want to do, and
what court systems they will use to enforce and adjudicate it, as well as
what will happen militarily if the "Parties" to the treaty ignore it.

        Or, am I mistaken: are they our past democratic leaders who are offering
us this?

        We require more locally, geographically specific accountability, and 
more
locally, geographically specific parties in government. If the present
frameworks of informal despatialized political parties in states have led
to this outgrowth of despatialized leadership, then we should be looking
how to 'structurally adjust' our formal structures of democracy to
facilitate a wider range locally, geographically specific voices.

        The state should bend the opposite way.

INTRODUCTION TO LEAKED CHAPTER ON INVESTMENT.pdf