Talk:Multilateral Agreement on Investment/Archives/2013

Untitled
This is obviously not not written from a neutral point of view. For example, "negotiated behind closed doors and away from the eyes of the public" is obviously not neutral. I stopped reading this propaganda at that point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.128.44.227 (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Best simply ignore this unidentified POV writer whose repeated unhelpful edits on one day look like plain vandalism to me. Aeronian (talk) 14:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

false/misleading
I do not know enough to rewrite this article, but it appears to be seriously misleading. I would recommend that it be flagged for its apparent bias and its false information.

Example from the Subsequent Developments section: The line "However, rich governments continue to push for similar investment provisions through regional trade agreements, bilateral investment treaties, bilateral free trade agreements, and the World Trade Organization (WTO)." is one example of this misinformation coupled with bias. Bias: "Rich governments" is obviously a hostile term as opposed to "capital-exporting nations," "developed nations," etc. (terms typically used in the field of international investment treaties)

Ambiguity: What specific provisions are these "rich governments" pushing for?

Falsehoods/Misinformation: "Rich governments" have not singly and categorically pushed for bilateral investment treaties, many do not seek BITs. Conversely, many capital-importing countries ("poor governments"?) do seek BITs from capital-exporting countries. Obviously, in any voluntary treaty, there are benefits on both ends. The reasons for this are varied and complex. It should be mentioned that capital-importing countries sign BITs between themselves as well, it is not only an exporting/importing agreement. To portray that investment treaties are singly a function of 'rich' imperialism forced on other nations is simply false. 24.127.99.118 (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC) (Sorry, no account yet)


 * Thanks for the suggestions. I have incorporated several clarifications based on them to help improve on WP:NPOV.Academic38 (talk) 05:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

not dispassionate
this article fails to present two sides of the issue and uses a consipracy-theorist-esque tone when discussing the formation of the document. 74.112.15.20 02:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, the article needs further informed contribution. However, the conspiracy element was always present, starting as a conspiracy of secrecy by the MAI's proponents. An Australian academic said in 1997 "They know that from the beginning they might face strong opposition because the whole purpose of this MAI is to give greater privilege and power to the big multinational companies."
 * There is a problem in that most of the information on this past globalist issue was available from internet sources which have subsequently been dismantled or revamped. However, there are still many reliable citations and it's right that some of us should get to work on this highly significant piece of globalist history before the trail goes cold. Aeronian 05:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats kind of asinine... maybe in the earliest phase of planning there was an attempt by the nations who represent the multinational business interests to put something cohesive together to be able to present, but the end game is always that every country would have to independently agree to the terms. None of these trade organizations would have had the ability to force MAI into existence by something like "majority vote" or passing on a board dominated by western representatives. Also, that quote you use here in the talk page is very representative of the quotes you used in the article- it doesnt mean anything. All trade issues are going to face strong opposition, whether it be for real, diplomatic, or strategic reasons. Further, of course it would have given more "power" to private enterprise. That is the entire point of the MAI. To make business investments more secure in foreign sovereign nations.Charles HP 08:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs some balance, but that should not be so hard to achieve. Once news of the negotiations was leaked (and I do think that's the right word, BTW; it seems undeniable that there were extended confidential discussions), there were plenty of articles in the financial press (FT, Economist, etc.) supporting the MAI. These could be used to help balance the article in terms of including multiple POVs.

One question I had on reading the article is why, if the draft text was leaked to a Canadian NGO, the text was first published by Public Citizen. Does anyone know why this was the case? We should clarify this in the article. BTW, the last time I looked, Public Citizen's posting of the text was still available on its website, so that specific link should probably be one of this article's external links.Academic38 (talk) 07:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me amend some of what I said above. When I looked at the Nexis news database, I found that there was clearly plenty of discussion in the press, especially the financial press, about the negotiations as they were going on. Some of the ideas being debated were reported on, but there was no place you could get an overall view of the agreement until the draft was leaked in March 1997. I have edited the "Secret Negotiations" section to reflect that. Contra a comment last year, I am not sure that "leaked to the public" is POV. What happened was clearly unauthorized, a "leak," and even though leaks, by their nature, are usually to a specific individual, the motivation of a leak is to affect public discussion. Finally, what I found on the Public Citizen website is not the text, but an OECD document describing some of the negotiations, so I don't think it really needs to be an external link after all.Academic38 (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * On the issue of ancient internet sources on the MAI, I came across this article by Smith and Smythe, on a completely unrelated search - look at the URL :-) so I could hardly resist mentioning it here.  The wayback machine might even resurrect them from URLs given there.John Z (talk) 07:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Excessive selective quotation
Clearly too much of the article's content is lifted from selected websites. There is thus a built-in bias to the reporting because those web articles were written during the heat of controversy. The bias is not only against the MAI (understandably) but also in favour of one component of the campaign (NGOs). Having said that, I would not want to see the quotes removed before they can be replaced by better considered analysis. i.e., the quotes do at least circumscribe some of the important points we need to address, points we don't want to lose sight of. --Aeronian 14:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Parts of the Article that need POV tweaking
I'll just list, but there are a lot. I'll have to come back to this later today.

"When it was leaked to the public it met with intense scepticism, as the rules in the agreement looked to undermine the sovereign power of the nations that were in negotiation."
 * firstly "leaked to the public" cannot be used. I think thats a clear POV issue.
 * of course it transfers sovereign power. Any international agreement with binding commitments is a transfer of sovereign power. The International Criminal Court is a transfer of sovereign power, the EU is a transfer of sovereign power, NAFTA is a transfer of sovereign power, Kyoto would have been a transfer of sovereign power. And you say "undermine" which has its own POV implications.Charles HP 08:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Behind closed doors indeed
It is remarkable that the article is suggested to be unbalanced. The political right has taken over the debate to an extent that any observation that goes against it is seen as biased. I was present when a Dutch government official together with a representative of Unilever faced a small group of critical insiders about the MAI negociations. I wasn't aware then that it contained regulations against the possibility of governments to protect their workers and environment, but bewilderd enough by the wish of already rich companies and countries to take over markets that otherwise could have been developed by poorer countries and local companies. When a few days later I asked the assistent editor-in-chief of the Volkskrant, one of the most important newspapers in the Netherlands, if he knew about the MAI, it turned out that he knew nothing of it although by that time the government had been talking about it since two years. It is just one of the examples that globalisation is still seen as advancement of national interests in stead of as becoming global citizens that care about the well-being of every human being and for that giving room to poor nations. Fhb (talk) 07:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

How to fix the "failure" section?
The failure section seems to me to have an excess of Australian sources. I really doubt that Australian NGOs were the most important in defeating the MAI. The Lalumiere report suggests that the big U.S. environmental groups were very critical. And clearly, groups in French civil society have to matter a lot because it was France that ultimately pulled the plug. Does anyone have a well-informed sense of the relative importance of the various opposed organizations, and in which countries?Academic38 (talk) 05:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"Purposes and Provisions" now a work in progress
I have begun working on the "purposes and provisions" (formerly "purposes") section, by addition; not yet by subtraction. I think Aeronian's point is well-taken that many of the quotes, though one-sided, raise issues and POVs we want to maintain in the article in some fashion. Comments would be appreciated.Academic38 (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (Sorry for my delay in looking at this again.) Your work here, as elsewhere, makes for improvement in the article, though more needs to be done. The excessive mentions of Australia might relate to the availability of official sources, especially the cited extensive parliamentary inquiry and/or default by editors with knowledge of relevant events in other countries. Some of the material (eg, emphasis on the discredited short-term parliamentarian Pauline Hanson) is very overdone. Further, the OECD needs to be given more credit for having 'learned its lesson' (or appeared to do so (:-)) about pushing enforceable obligations in a one-sided way. Its subsequent 'Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises' have taken a first step towards remediation of MAI critics' demand for fuller accountability of corporations. I know how the OECD initiated broad participation in an international debate on these issues. (This was followed in 2003 by the 'Initiative on Investment for Development' which you've touched on in Subsequent Developments). Aeronian (talk) 05:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the Vallianatos quotations, in condensed form, to the "Protest" section, which I think should house the criticisms. I think the provisions should be taken from some version of the draft agreement or, if I get really lazy, at least a textbook like Cohn's cited elsewhere in the article. But it's certainly necessary to replace the current one-sided exposition that is still quoted in this section. Thanks for your other suggestions, which are helpful, though it's not entirely clear how much the OECD has really learned its lesson (which you implied with your smiley).Academic38 (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Revamping Protests and Failure sections
It seems to me that these two sections contain much jumbled content which can't be conveniently edited because of inadequate sectionalisation, too much crossover, etc. I'll take the bull by the horns and (without deleting or changing very much) revamp them together in the hope that this will create more opportunity for other editors to get involved. If deemed unsatisfactory, the lot can be reverted but it seems worth a try. I have to disclose that I've broken a rule by citing my own 1999 website here; but I have no alternative at present. Perhaps someone else can help. The previous material on Pauline Hanson and her backers is of questionable value and should be suspended for the moment. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should justify my view about the web material of Pauline Hanson's One Nation in relation to the MAI. A typical example may be found here, styling itself as "The original, official Australian FSIA, SDDS, Soros and the MAI web page" A short inspection will verify that this material (whatever the merits of any underlying "research") is essentially an exercise in intemperate propaganda, designed to boost the xenophobic ideals of an Australian political party which enjoyed a brief spell of popularity, largely through the attractive persona of figurehead Pauline Hanson, a former (Liberal-endorsed) independent parliamentarian who, IMHO, dumbly allowed herself to be manipulated by a coterie of redneck racists and firearm fanatics. Hanson and her cronies were quickly seen through and despatched by the Australian electorate, though the One Nation party seems to be still alive at state level in Queensland. The webmaster and "researcher" Scott Balson was at one time an occasional contributor to the MAI-NOT discussion group. One can pursue an independent assessment of his contribution from A search of his name at the group's archive. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 05:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I see that there has been another (very substantial) edit which relies on the same commercial website as was used in the 1990s by the discredited supporters of Pauline Hanson. I've reverted the edit pending possible discussion and the provision of a more reputable citation for any introduced content.  Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 09:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)