[Fwd: San Francisco is a MAI Free Zone! (fwd)]

Mon, 04 May 1998 10:04:31 -0400
christopher chase-dunn (chriscd@jhu.edu)

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 11:36:33 -1000
From: Michael Sysiuk <sysiuk@hawaii.edu>
Subject: San Francisco is a MAI Free Zone! (fwd)
To: UH Department of Political Science List <polisci-l@hawaii.edu>,
Gulbenkian Report Discourse <GLOBE-L@hawaii.edu>

And they resistence is futile.

mike
++++++

-----Original Message-----
From: Julietbeck (by way of Michael Eisenscher <meisenscher@igc.apc.org>)
<Julietbeck@aol.com>
To: Recipient list suppressed <Recipient list suppressed>
Date: Friday, April 24, 1998 11:32 AM
Subject: San Francisco is a MAI Free Zone!

On Monday, April 20, 1998, the campaign against the MAI and corporate
globalization scored a big victory when the San Francisco Board of Supervisors
voted unanimously to approve a resolution to oppose the MAI and "similar
international agreements that could restrict San Francisco's ability to
regulate within its jurisdiction, decide how to spend its procurement funds
and support local economic development."

With this resolution, which was drafted in part by the city attorney's office,
San Francisco has taken a hard line not only against the MAI but also future
economic pacts that give more powers to international investors while
attempting to tie the hands of local government to regulate them. This
proactive stance sends free-traders and the White House a much needed reality
check: what's good for multinational corporations is not necessarily what's
best for our communities, working people, the environment and human rights.

We have not only staked out San Francisco as an MAI-free zone, but in thinking
globally and acting locally, have reclaimed some of the power being lost to
the corporations driving the global economy, and now you can too!

Getting a resolution passed is fun and meaningful. It is about educating
decision makers, the media and the public about the real corporate agenda
behind these undemocratic agreements like the MAI. If every city, county and
state followed suit - we could redefine the terms of the globalization debate
by truly returning economic-decision making to the local realm, a place where
values and people matter. This is grassroots democracy at work, folks!
Globalization from the bottom up!

Below I have included the following:
- an account of how the MAI resolution was passed
- a sample press release
- a San Francisco Chronicle article illustrating local impacts
- a copy of the SF resolution, which you can use as a model

Please contact me if you are considering this process and would like a more
detailed "how to pass a resolution" emailed to you. I'd be happy to answer
any questions, and provide hard copies of these materials and any additional
info and advice. Good luck and have fun!

Juliette Beck, julietbeck@aol.com 415 986-3585, ext. 231.
Coordinator of the California Fair Trade Campaign

So how did we do it?

A small, dedicated group followed the tenets of effective organizing:
educate, advocate and activate.

The resolution process got started when two people marched down to the city
hall one day and started talking to staff members of the Board of Supervisors.
The key to getting the attention of the elected officials was doing homework
to determine the local laws and policies that would be threatened by the MAI.
Our initial co-sponsor, Supervisor Tom Ammiano, was so incensed that the MAI
would endanger San Francisco's selective purchasing ordinance against Burma
and a law requiring corporations to pay domestic partners equal benefits that
he introduced the resolution that very same day. Identifying the local
impacts makes the MAI hit home.

Once the resolution was introduced, we started a broader education process and
sent out a press release, followed up with calls to the media to explain what
this treaty was about, and reached out to other groups- including small
business owners- to enlist their support in getting the resolution passed.

One of the most important things we did was to focus on educating the city
attorney's office. City lawyers attended our public forum, we talked on the
phone, and followed up by sending a big packet of information to them. A city
attorney provided the testimony at a committee meeting that was quoted
extensively by the media (see article below) and helped rewrite the resolution
to cite the particularly harmful MAI provisions and any future economic
agreements that contains these elements, which is what makes this resolution
so far-reaching.

At the third meeting of our MAI task force held a week before the vote, only a
few people showed up. But these four people helped generate enough pressure
(phone calls from constituents, letters/faxes, visits) that all of the Board
of Supervisors voted in favor of the resolution. By Friday before the vote,
we had nailed down enough co-sponsors to ensure passage.

On the day it passed, we held a press conference with people holding 'Make San
Francisco a MAI Free Zone' and 'MAI will Handcuff Democracy' signs and
stickers. Some of our local coalition partners - Victor Menotti from the
International Forum on Globalization, Henry Holmes of Sustainable Alternatives
to the Global Economy, and representatives from Global Exchange, Alliance for
Democracy, Sierra Club, SF Labor Council and other labor unions, and San
Franciscans for Tax Justice were all there to voice support. We didn't have
much press, but later on inside the city chambers, we spoke with the press and
helped them craft their stories.

During the supervisors' meeting, the vote took place with no debate.
Supervisor Ammiano thanked the local coalition for bringing this important
issue to bare and then one by one, all of the others chimed in their support
for the resolution. The unanimous vote signifies that even the most pro-
business elected officials realized that the MAI and the trend of giving
international investors more "rights without responsibilities" could hamper
local economic development.

All in all, this was a tremendously rewarding endeavor in grassroots democracy
and moved our city one more step along the path of economic justice!

Sample Press Release

California Fair Trade Campaign
417 Montgomery St, Ste 300, San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 986-3585x231 FAX
(415) 392-8505

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
APRIL 20, 1998

S.F. Supervisors Vote Against International Investment Pact
MAI is a threat to local government, local businesses

San Francisco - On Monday, April 20, 1998 the San Francisco Board of
Supervisors voted unanimously on a resolution to oppose a far-reaching new
economic pact, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI).

An increasing number of public officials and citizens' groups oppose the MAI
because it will limit lawmakers' ability to design economic development
policies that favor local, small, or minority owned businesses, while granting
foreign investors new powers to challenge domestic laws and sue for damages in
international tribunals.

A recent San Francisco Chronicle article stated, "If it (the MAI) became law
in the United States, the treaty would bind local, state and federal
governments to treat foreign investors the same as domestic companies. That
means foreigners could challenge a whole host of San Francisco laws," (Page
A22, Friday, April 10, 1998).

For example, a new S.F. ordinance requiring uniforms used by city employees to
be purchased from local garment manufacturers would be illegal under the MAI.

"The MAI would effectively outlaw policies that protect local businesses,
workers, human rights, the environment, and regulate foreign corporations
operating in our communities. Under the MAI, local governments' ability to
ensure corporate accountability is severely handcuffed," said Supervisor Tom
Ammiano. The vote signifies a growing resistance to global economic policies
that grant more rights to multinational corporations without enforceable
social and environmental standards and respect for local autonomy.

Juliette Beck, coordinator of the California Fair Trade Campaign, helped
galvanize support for the anti-MAI resolution as part of a nationwide,
grassroots effort to inform the public and decision makers about the
undemocratic nature of the proposed treaty. "The MAI-- an agreement written
by and for multinational corporations- is clearly at odds with local economic
development policies. Cities and counties everywhere, like San Francisco,
should become 'MAI-free zones,'" she said.

The U.S. and 28 industrialized countries are currently negotiating the MAI at
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris,
France. The deadline for completing the MAI has been set for April 27 and
28, the date of the OECD's annual meeting, but with growing political
opposition, the outcome of the April meeting is uncertain.

More information on the MAI can be found at the following web sites:
www.citizen.org; www.rtk.net/preamble;
www.westgov.org/wga/publicat/maiweb.htm
www.appletonlaw.com/MAI/MAI-municipal.htm
###

Trade Treaty Opposed by S.F. Supervisors Panel

Edward Epstein, Chronicle Staff Writer

Friday, April 10, 1998

c1998 San Francisco Chronicle

A San Francisco supervisors committee voted yesterday to weigh in against a
proposed international treaty that critics say would sweep away a host of
local laws on the environment, labor and contracting and hiring preferences
for city residents.

The Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) is being negotiated by 29
members of the Paris- based Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development, a group of the world's wealthiest countries that includes the
United States.

Treaty proponents say it would eliminate a host of barriers to trade and
investment that hinder economic growth.

But critics call it ``NAFTA on steroids'' and are scrambling to get its terms
changed before the treaty is presented to the U.S. Senate for ratification.
They are trying to get cities like San Francisco to express their concern
about the treaty and try to get it changed.

``I found a lot to be alarmed by in the terms of the MAI,'' said

Christiane Hayashi, a deputy city attorney who studied the draft treaty at the
request of Supervisor Tom Ammiano.

If it became law in the United States, the treaty would bind local, state and
federal governments to treat foreign investors the same as domestic companies.
That means foreigners could challenge a host of San Francisco laws.

These could include the city's domestic partners law, its program for giving
local small businesses preference in opening shops at the airport or its
ordinance suggesting the city not do business with companies that do business
in Burma. It could also doom Supervisor Mabel Teng's proposal to have all
uniforms of city workers made in the city.

If a foreign company sued, San Francisco might not get to defend itself. Under
the draft treaty, cases could go directly to an arbitration panel in which the
federal government would represent the city.

``So a company could claim that our domestic partners law impedes them doing
business here, and we could not defend ourselves?'' Ammiano asked.

``If it's before the international tribunal, San Francisco's

participation would be at the mercy of the State Department,'' Hayashi said.

The United States has already said it plans to make numerous exceptions to the
treaty, including programs for helping minorities and some environmental
measures.

The economic cooperation group says that is allowable. ``Nonconforming
measures can be maintained if specific reservations or exceptions are
lodged,'' a statement from the organization said.

It also said the treaty is not aimed at doing away with current U.S. laws.
``Governments will remain free to regulate in most fields, provided the
nondiscrimination rule (for foreign investors) is respected,'' the statement
read.

But Ammiano wasn't buying it. ``The MAI is pernicious to any local
sovereignty,'' he said.

c1998 San Francisco Chronicle Page A22

SF ANTI MAI RESOLUTION
Below is a copy of the San Francisco anti-MAI resolution. It was agendized
before the regular meeting of the Health, Family and Environment Committee of
the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco on 4/9/98.
The agenda item was listed as follows:

"File 98-242. [Supporting San Francisco Oversight] Resolution expressing San
Francisco's opposition to International, Federal, and State agreements that
restrict local government's ability to impose sanctions on organizations and
entities that do not comply with San Francisco's human rights requirements."

The item was moved out of committee unanimously by Supervisors Sue Bierman,
Leslie Katz, and Tom Ammiano, who introduced the item. It is expected that
the full San Francisco Board of Supervisor's will vote on the matter on
Monday, April 20, 1998, at their regular board meeting. Passage is likely.

Multilateral Agreement on Investment

EXPRESSING SAN FRANCISCO'S OPPOSITION TO PROVISIONS OF THE DRAFT MULTILATERAL
AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT OR SIMILAR INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS THAT COULD
RESTRICT SAN FRANCISCO'S ABILITY TO REGULATE WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION, DECIDE
HOW TO SPEND ITS PROCUREMENT FUNDS AND SUPPORT LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

WHEREAS, The United States government, through the Organization for Economic
Development (OECD) has been participating in the negotiation of the
Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI); and

WHEREAS, The Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution allows public
entities to place restrictions on the use of public funds when the public
entity is acting as a market participant; and

WHEREAS, San Francisco has utilized the "market participant exception" to
the Commerce Clause in enacting the Burma and Equal Benefits ordinances in
order to condition receipt of public procurement dollars on compliance with
local, federal and international human rights laws; and

WHEREAS, The "Expropriation" and "General Treatment" provisions of the MAI
draft text could prohibit public entities from conditioning the receipt of
public funds on compliance with human rights laws or other criteria
reflecting community values; and

WHEREAS, The MAI, if adopted in its current form, could restrict the
ability of state, county and city governments to condition new major
investments within their jurisdictions from performance requirements, such
as local hiring requirements and requirements to support local economic
development; and

WHEREAS, Government entities are currently allowed to regulate within their
jurisdiction, without causing a compensable taking of private property, to
the extent specified under existing interpretations of the Fifth Amendment
of the US Constitution; and

WHEREAS, The MAI, if adopted in its current form, could supersede existing
constitutional interpretations of a government's regulatory rights under
the Fifth Amendment and restrict new regulation by state and local
governments; and

WHEREAS, The "National Treatment" provisions of the MAI draft text could
prohibit the use of domestic procurement preferences and subsidies and
other benefits to local businesses for the purpose of encouraging local
economic development; and

WHEREAS, The "Most Favored Nation" provisions of the MAI draft text could
prohibit state and local governments from prohibiting contracts with
entities that violate international human rights, labor and environmental
laws; and

WHEREAS, The MAI, if adopted in its current form, could bar Congress, state
legislatures, boards of supervisors and city councils from using trade
sanctions to punish nations for human rights violations or other violations
of international law; and

WHEREAS, The MAI, if adopted in its current form, could create a dispute
resolution mechanism for investors against governments that is external to
the United States federal court system and could be unrestricted by
existing judicial interpretations of U.S. constitutional principles; now,
therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San
Francisco hereby urges its state and federally elected officials and
lobbyists to actively protest any provision in the MAI draft text or
similar provision of any international agreement that would restrict San
Francisco's ability to regulate within its jurisdiction, decide how to use
its public procurement dollars, and extend benefits to encourage local
economic development in a manner consistent with the U.S. Constitution.

SUPERVISOR AMMIANO
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS