For three years representatives of the world's twenty-nine richest
nations met secretly in France working towards an international agreement
on investment policies. Known as the Multilateral Agreement on Investment
(MAI), it would have set in place a vast series of protections for foreign
investment. It would have thrust the world economy much closer to a system
where international corporate capital would hold free reign over the
democratic values and socioeconomic needs of people. The MAI would have had
devastating effects on a nation's legal, environmental, and cultural
sovereignty. It would have forced countries to relax or nullify human,
environmental and labor protections to attract investment and trade.
Necessary measures such as food subsidies, control of land speculation,
agrarian reform and health and environmental standards could have been
challenged as "illegal" under the MAI.

 The MAI talks in France broke up at the end of 1998 due to
extensive objections from Canadian and European labor unions, environmental
groups, consumer unions, and cultural organizations. The pros and cons of
MAI were widely covered in the European and Canadian press. Canadian Public
Broadcasting ran three national programs on MAI. Yet in the U.S. media
scarcely a word on MAI was heard during that period. The few minor articles
in the business sections and pack pages of the American papers failed to
bring MAI to public consciousness, nor cover the negative aspects of the
proposed treaty.

 Trade agreements are fast becoming the globalization instruments
of the "New World Order." Multinational corporations, are seeking a free
economic reign in the world regardless of negative impacts on human
populations and the environment. 500,000 U.S. jobs have been lost to The
North American Free Trade Agreement. World Trade Organizations rulings in
1997 and 1998 weakened U.S. federal air quality standards and undermined
our Endangered Species Act. Trade laws threaten negative effects on every
family in the U.S.

 Agenda setting for  anew round of trade discussions is scheduled
through the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Seattle for November 30 to
December 3. At stake is the establishment of the content of future trade
talks for the next five years. Tens of thousands of union, environmental,
and social justice activists are planning to assembly in opposition to the
WTO meetings. Back on the agenda is MAI. Additionally, multinational
corporations want to form global agreements on competition, whereby
developing countries would be forbidden to give special support to domestic
businesses, but instead be required to throw open their doors so their
internal companies would have to compete openly with the huge
multinationals.

 Where is the U.S. media on these issues? Why haven't the pros and
cons of the proposed WTO agenda been reviewed on the front pages of every
newspaper in the U.S.? As the Seattle area gears up for some 5,000 WTO
delegates and perhaps ten times as many activists, local media has had
fairly extensive coverage on the upcoming events, but little on the issues.
However, media throughout the rest of the U.S. has almost completely failed
to cover the issues on this globally important event. Millions of American
will be impacted by the agenda set late this Fall. We deserve to read and
hear  about the consequences of global trade agreements in our morning
newspapers, and on radio and television nationwide. We cannot maintain a
democratic process if the people are unaware of the issues.

Peter Phillips is an Associate Professor of Sociology at Sonoma State
University and Director of Project Censored a national media research group.
 

Peter Phillips Ph.D.
Sociology Department/Project Censored
Sonoma State University
1801 East Cotati Ave.
Rohnert Park, CA 94928
707-664-2588