Anti-MAI/WTO Resolutions in the U.S. and around the world

• Canadian Resolutions
• U.S. Resolutions
• European Resolutions
• Australian Resolutions
• Asian Resolutions

Canadian Resolutions:

• Federation of Canadian Municipalities March 6, 1998 [complete]
• Kitchener City Council March 2, 1998 [complete]
• City of Orillia April 6, 1998
• City of Windsor March 9, 1998
• Town Council of Tecumseh March 10, 1998
• Toronto City Council April 7, 1998
• Owen Sound City Council March 23, 1998
• Mississauga April 22, 1998 [complete]
• Woodstock City Council March 19, 1998
• City of Peterborough April 20, 1998
• County of Peterborough March 23, 1998
• Lakefield April 7, 1998
• City of Hamilton [undocumented]
• Town of Pickering [undocumented]
• City of Waterloo [undocumented]
• Montreal March 31 1998
• Union of BC Municipalities February 17, 1998
• Vancouver April 28, 1998

U.S. Resolutions

Organizational Resolutions:

City Council Resolutions:

Party Resolutions:

Australian Resolutions

Asian Resolutions

European Resolutions

• Western Governors’ Association June 24, 1997
• NACO – National Association of Counties July 21 1998
• Social Responsibilities Round Table of the American Library Association June 29, 1998
  • Berkley City Council (California) February 24, 1998
  • San Francisco April 20, 1998
  • City of Olympia (Washington), May 5, 1998
  • City of Boulder (Colorado), June 2 1998
  • The Association of Washington Cities June 20 1998
  • Metropolitan King County Council (Washington), December 14 1998
  • Oakland City Council (California), December 15 1998
  • Seattle City Council Resolution, April 12, 1999
  • City of Burlington (Vermont), December 6, 1999
  • Austin (Texas) City County Resolution, November 4, 1999
  • Texas Democratic Party, November 14, 1998
  • California Democratic Party, December, 1998
  • North California Democratic Party, February 6, 1999
  • Wollongong City Council, Australia May 4, 1998
  • Hornsby
  • Leichardt
  • Singleton
  • Hastings
  • Edogawa Ward Council in Tokyo March 19th [undocumented]
  • European Parliament March 10, 1998 [undocumented]
  • Portugal [undocumented]
• Back to Top of Page
  

  ---

  Candian Resolutions

Resolution passed by the Board of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities March 6, 1998

• MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT (MAI)WHEREAS the Government of Canada has been involved since May 1996 in negotiations with other industrial-nation members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development regarding the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) without consultation with municipalities and their associations, and intends to sign by May, 1998; andWHEREAS the MAI appears to affect municipalities directly by stating in its text:

  1) its applicability to “all land territory, internal waters, and the territorial sea of a contracting party” without any language restricting it to areas of federal jurisdiction, and

  2) that any government bound by the MAI shall “not expropriate or nationalize directly or indirectly an investment in its territory of an investor … or take any measure or measures having equivalent effect,” thereby putting in question the ability of municipalities and regional districts, acting in the public interest, to limit the use of property through zoning;

  BE IT RESOLVED that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities petition the Prime Minister of Canada to have the chief negotiator for the Multilateral Agreement on Investment file a permanent and explicit exemption in the Agreement, limiting its application to areas of federal jurisdiction.

  Submitted by the District of Tofino, British Columbia

  [March 6, 1998 Meeting of the Board of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities:

  William Dymond, chief negotiator for Canada, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, spoke to the Committee about the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. Mr. Dymond told the Committee that Canada’s goal is to stay within the bounds of the NAFTA with the MAI. He informed them that although the original intention had been to sign a draft agreement by the end of April, there are enough contentious issues for the negotiating countries, that further negotiations may be stalled, probably until 1999, to allow for a consultation period. Mr. Dymond stressed that the current document being circulated is a draft agreement and therefore contains a number of issues that Canada disagrees with. During the process of negotiation. those issues will be addressed.

  Mr. Dymond added that it should not be assumed that provincial jurisdiction will be included in the agreement. In answer to a question, he stated that government procurement will not be covered by the agreement and that municipal laws will be grandfathered and therefore unaffected. Further, he told the Committee that tax incentives are not covered by the agreement and that only the contracting party, the federal government, can be sued by an investor.]

   

Text of Kitchener MAI resolution March 2, 1998

• “WHEREAS the Federal Government is in the process of negotiating the Multilateral Agreement on Investments with the 29 wealthiest countries in the world with the intention of having a signed agreement by September 1998; and,WHEREAS concerns about the agreement have already been raised by 565 organizations, with representatives in 70 countries around the world; and,WHEREAS the citizens of the City of Kitchener have had little access to information and informed debate on the Multilateral Agreement on Investments, from the federal government, and the mainstream media on its implications locally, provincially, federally and globally;

  THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Corporation of the City of Kitchener urge the Government of Canada to suspend negotiations on the Multilateral Agreement on Investments until it has consulted more widely and in depth with the people of Canada, especially and including, the soliciting of detailed responses from municipal councils and their citizens; and further,

  That the appropriate City staff be directed to discuss this issue with the local M.P.’s and to prepare a report on the implications of this Agreement on municipal government; and further,

  That a copy of this resolution be sent to local M.P.’s, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and Ontario Cities having a population greater than 50,000.

   

City of Orillia April 6, 1998

• “THAT this Council endorse the resolution of the City of Kitchener with respect to the process of negotiating the Multilateral Agreement on Investment;AND THAT copies of this resolution and the City of Kitchener resolution be forwarded to the following:* Federal Minister Responsible for the Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Paul DeVillers, M.P.
  Allan McLean, M.P.P.
  Federation of Canadian Municipalities
  Association of Municipalities of Ontario”

   

City of Windsor March 9, 1998

• THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Corporation of the City of Windsor urge the Government of Canada to suspend negotiations on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment until it has consulted more widely and in depth with the people of Canada, especially and including the soliciting of detailed responses from municipal councils and their citizens; and further,That the Corporation of the City of Windsor urge the Government of Canada to follow the recommendation of the Parliamentary Sub-Committee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment that the final version of the Agreement be submitted for further debate among Canadians and further parliamentary hearings before the Government commits itself to the Agreement; and further,That the appropriate City staff be directed to discuss this issue with local Members of Parliament, and to ask the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to a report on the implications of this Agreement for municipal government; and further,

  That a copy of this resolution be sent to the Prime Minister of Canada, the Honourable Sergio Marchi (Minister of International Trade), local Members of Parliament, local Members of the Ontario Legislature, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

   

• THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Corporation of the Town of Tecumseh urge the Government of Canada to end its participation in negotiations on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment; and furtherThat the appropriate Town staff be directed to discuss this issue with local Members of Parliament, and to ask the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to prepare a report on the implications of this Agreement on municipal government; and further,That the Corporation of the Town of Tecumseh declare Tecumseh to be a “MAI-Free Zone;” and further

  That a copy of this resolution be sent to the Prime Minister of Canada, the Honourable Sergio Marchi (Minister of International Trade), local Members of Parliament, local Members of the Ontario Legislature, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

   

Toronto City Council April 7, 1998

• Moved by: Councillor Augimeri
  Seconded by: Councillor MillerTHEREFORE be it resolved that the City of Toronto urge the Government of Canada to consult widely and in depth with the people of Canada, especially and including, the soliciting of detailed responses from municipal councils, before taking any further action on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. 

Owen Sound March 23, 1998

• “THAT City Council hereby requests that the Federal government conduct a full public debate across Canada on the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) treaty.”

Mississauga April 22, 1998

• Moved by Councillor Saito
  Seconded by Councillor DaleWhereas the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) is a new international economic agreement being negotiated at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), an international body comprised of Canada and 28 other nations; andWHEREAS the MAI is designed to ease the movement of capital, both money and production facilities, across international borders by limiting the power of governments to restrict and regulate foreign investments; and

  WHEREAS in order to comply with MAI rules, federal, provincial and municipal governments could be required to forego laws and policies in a number of areas, including environmental protection, public health and safety and economic development; and

  WHEREAS the MAI may affect the manner in which a municipality regulates business within its jurisdiction; and

  WHEREAS the municipalities are not parties to the MAI, but are subject to the full extent of the obligations in the MAI even though they have no right to participate in any investor-state dispute hearing that would question the municipality’s actions; and

  WHEREAS the federal government has not undertaken extensive consultation with the people of Canada, including the municipalities, on the content of the MAI; and

  WHEREAS the federal government has not sought a reservation for municipal governments to exempt them from the obligations of the MAI.

  THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that:

  1. the Corporation of the City of Mississauga hereby requests the federal government to undertake a full consultation process in order to solicit from the citizens of Canada and the municipalities comments regarding the MAI; and further that

  2. The City of Mississauga requests the federal government to take all necessary action required in order to amend the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) to exempt, by reservation, municipalities from the obligations and requirements of the MAI, and further that

  3. The City of Mississauga urges the federal government to follow the recommendation of the Parliamentary Sub-committee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment that the final version of the MAI be submitted for further debate and that there be further parliamentary hearings before the federal government commits Canada to the MAI,

  4. And that a copy of this resolution be directed to the Prime Minister of Canada; to the Honourable Sergio Marchi, Minister of Trade, to the Premier of Ontario, to all Mississauga MPs and MPPs; to the GTA Mayors’ and Chairs Committee; to the Association of Canadian Municipalities (AMO); to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities; requesting their support for an amendment to the MAI to provide for exemptions to municipalities by reservation, from the obligations and requirements of the MAI, and for their support for further consultation on the MAI.

   

Woodstock City Council March 19, 1998

• THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Woodstock call for a moritorium on the signing of the MAi until it has consulted more widely and indepth with the people of Canada, especially and including, the soliciting of detailed responses from the Municipal councils and their citizens;BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be sent to the Prime Minister of Canada, the Minister of International Trade, Oxford Member of Parliment, Oxford Member of Provincial Parliment, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.City of Peterborugh April 20, 1998

  “Council urges the Government of Canada to suspend negotiations on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment until it has consulted more widely and in depth with the people of Canada, especially and including the soliciting of detailed responses from municipal councils and their citizens.”

  County of Peterborough March 23, 1998

  The councillors unanimously passed a resolution based on that passed by the City of Windsor on March 9, 1998 and added a specific request for a discussion with the local M.P.’s namely:

  “That County Council ask Mr Peter Adams M.P. and Mr John O’Reilly M.P. to meet with the County as soon as possible to explain the MAI process”

   

Lakefield April 7, 1998

• The council adopted a resolution similar to that passed by the County of Peterborough

Montreal March 31, 1998

• “Whereas the Canadian government is currently participating in negotiations concerning the MAI as member of the OECD,Whereas municipalities, while not signatories of the MAI will still be subject to it;It is proposed that:

  City Council ask the Executive Committee to study the possibility of

  1) asking the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Union des Municipalites du Quebec to carry out an in-depth study of MAI, as to its effects on regional economies and on municipal administrations, and to transmit their respective reports to all their member municipalities; and

  2) depositing the FCM and UMQ reports at City Council.”

   

Union of British Columbia Municipalities

• On Feb. 17, 1998 UBCM (Union of British Columbia Municipalities) President Mayor Steve Wallace wrote a memo to UBCM members to inform members about the MAI.This memo states that “After reviewing the material [which is included as part of the memo to members] the [UBCM] Executive concluded it was not convinced of the benefits of the MAI and based on the information available, shares the concerns of the Province of BC.”The memo also indicates that the Executive has directed that:

  “The FCM National Board of Directors be requested to address this issue at its next meeting (March) and that the issue be discussed at the next FCM Conference”, that

  “the matter be referred for consideration of the Joint Council to coordinate local and provincial government responses” and that

  “federal officials and other provincial associations be advised of UBCM position.”

  The Union of BC Municipalities address is:

  Suite 15
  10551 Shellbridge Way
  Richmond, Bc V6X 2W9
  phone: 604 270-8226 fax: 660-2271

   

Vancouver April 28, 1998

• THAT WHEREAS(1) The Federal Government is in the process of negotiating the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) with the 29 member countries of the OECD, with the intention of having a signed agreement by September 1998;The citizens of the City of Vancouver have had little access to information and informed debate on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, and its implications at the Federal, Provincial and local levels;

  There are potential negative impacts of a Multilateral Agreement on Investment on the lives and livelihoods of the residents of the City of Vancouver, especially small businesses;

  The draft of the MAI treaty further extends the Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA in both the “National Treatment” and the “Performance Requirement” provisions, which will impact on the entire Municipal, University, School and Hospital sector, and specifically on the City of Vancouver’s ability to implement purchasing policies and practices that favour local Vancouver-based businesses and suppliers;

  The MAI treaty, as drafted, would stop municipalities from limiting the use of property by foreign companies, which could have the effect of restricting Council’s right to set planning bylaws;

  THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Vancouver urge the Government of Canada to consult widely and in depth with the people of Canada, especially and including, the soliciting of detailed responses from municipal councils, before taking any further action on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment.

  (2) The Government of Canada be advised that the City of Vancouver is opposed to Multilateral Agreement on Investment and requests that further negotiations cease and desist immediately; and

  (3) That the City of Vancouver endorse the position taken by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities that the Prime Minister of Canada be petitioned to have the chief negotiator of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment file a permanent and explicit exemption in the Agreement limiting its application to areas of Federal jurisdiction.

  (4) A copy of this motion be circulated to the MP’s representing areas within the Greater Vancouver Regional District with the request that they endorse the City’s action and that their responses as to whether or not they endorse Council’s action be

  (i) forwarded to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities annual meeeting; and

  (ii) made available to the public.

   

U.S. Resolutions

Western Governors’ Association June 24, 1997

• Resolution 97 – 010SPONSORS: Governors Nelson, Geringer and CayetanoSUBJECT: Multilateral Agreement on Investment and Implementation of Trade Pacts

  A. BACKGROUND

  1. Western states have had great success in attracting foreign investment. In addition, investors based in the West own significant investments overseas. The proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), presently being negotiated by the members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and now scheduled for completion by May 1998, is intended to foster additional investment activity while at the same time providing stability to and leveling the playing field for U.S.- based investors.

  2. Along with these benefits, the MAI may also have the effect of eroding the sovereignty of state governments. The 1997 report of the Western Governors’ Association (WGA), “Multilateral Agreement on Investment: Potential Effects on State & Local Government” details potential impacts on states of MAI proposals. These include limiting state policies that favor local businesses; limiting state use of investment incentives and performance requirements; and limiting state economic, land use, and environmental regulation. Limits on exceptions and reservations to the MAI within the agreement may bring more state practices within its scope. In addition, dispute resolution proposals could allow individual investors new powers to seek remedies directly against state laws before international tribunals.

  3. Western Governors and other groups obtained protections against the erosion of state sovereignty as part of implementing legislation for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Uruguay Round of the GATT. These laws maintain state sovereign immunity, foreclose lawsuits against states or state officials, and require the federal government to consult with Congress and the states before moving to preempt a state law inconsistent with a trade agreement. Furthermore, state-federal consultation procedures were established that purport to include states in the implementation of trade agreements and in the defense of international challenges to state measures.

  4. In their roles as law and policy makers and regulators, as active participants in the international economy, and as strong supporters of international investment and sustainable economic development, states have a strong interest in the outcome of the MAI negotiations, in MAI implementation, and in the ongoing implementation of NAFTA and the Uruguay Round.

  B. GOVERNORS’ POLICY STATEMENT

  1. Western Governors support in principle an agreement that will encourage foreign investment domestically while providing U.S.-based investors with greater levels of protection abroad. However, such an agreement must also protect the sovereignty of states. To provide for additional state protections and public consideration, the MAI should also be adopted by Congress through implementing legislation.

  2. U.S. negotiators are urged to work with their OECD counterparts to insure that the MAI:

  a. preserves the ability of states to favor local businesses for legitimate purposes as defined by the Supreme Court;

  b. preserves the ability of states to use investment incentives and performance requirements to achieve legitimate public purposes;

  c. preserves current regulatory authority of states over economic activity, land use, and the environment;

  d. uses traditional definitions of trade and investment terminology and does not expand these concepts in ways that limit state sovereignty;

  e. allows for general exceptions and reservations consistent with those in NAFTA and the Uruguay Round and that these protections endure over time; and, f. does not takes precedence over NAFTA or the Uruguay Round and allow the MAI to be used to enforce those agreements.

  3. MAI implementing legislation should include provisions preserving state sovereign immunity, foreclosing private lawsuits against states or state officials, and requiring consultation with states and Congress before the federal government can move to preempt state laws or seek to recoup monetary damages from states awarded by international tribunals. Should a state measure be challenged under the MAI, states should have the opportunity to directly defend their laws if they choose. Finally, the implementing legislation should improve communications between governor-appointed state points of contact and the Office of the Trade Representative (USTR) and it should establish advisory level access for these individuals.

  4. Western Governors continue to be concerned about implementation of the state-federal consultation provisions of the NAFTA and Uruguay Round legislation. USTR should redouble its efforts to consult with states on trade issues of concern and to include states in the work of international harmonization committees.

  C. GOVERNORS’ MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE

  1. The WGA shall convey this resolution to President Clinton, Secretary of State Albright, Secretary of Treasury Rubin, Ambassador Barshefsky, and the chairman and relevant subcommittee chairs of the following committees: House Ways and Means; House Foreign Affairs; Senate Finance; and, Senate Foreign Affairs.

  2. The WGA should keep Governors informed of MAI developments and work closely with other interested parties to protect state sovereignty in the MAI and its implementing legislation. The WGA should also continue to monitor, report on, and press federal officials regarding use of state-federal procedures for NAFTA and the Uruguay Round.

   

NACO – National Association of Counties July 21 1998

• INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS STEERING COMMITTEERESOLUTION OPPOSING PREEMPTION OF LOCAL AUTHORITY BY INTERNATIONAL TREATY OR MULTILATERAL AGREEMENTWHEREAS, the Unite States government, through the Organization for Economic Development has been participating in the negotiation of the Multilateral Agreement on Investments (MAI); and

  WHEREAS, the report of the Western Governors’ Association, “Multilateral Agreement on Investment: Potential Effects on State and Local Government” identifies potential impacts, such as limiting policies that favor local business, investment incentives, performance requirements, land use, and environmental regulations, and

  WHEREAS, the American County Platform: Intergovernmental Relations 7.4.6 “Preemption” states: “Federal preemption of local authority should not be initiated unless there is an overriding national issue…”.

  THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the National Association of Counties urges the Administration not to agree to any provisions in the MAI draft text or similar provision of any international agreement that would preempt local governments ability to regulate activities within its jurisdiction.

  Adopted July 21 1998

   

Social Responsibilities Round Table of the American Library Association June 29, 1998

• RESOLUTION ON THE MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENTS (MAI)WHEREAS the Multilateral Agreement on Investments (MAI) is a pending global trade agreement which will require signatory governments to relinquish a degree of sovereignty to multinational corporations; andWHEREAS the MAI is being negotiated in secret under the auspices of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a grouping of the world’s 29 wealthiest countries; and

  WHEREAS the MAI will require governments to provide equal treatment for domestic and foreign businesses, meaning that laws offering preferential treatment to businesses or organizations in a given locale or situation would be subject to lawsuits to be heard in courts and as-of-yet unnamed international tribunals, opening them up to unlimited liability for the continuation of democratically created laws; and

  WHEREAS the MAI is intended to apply to all levels of government (national, regional, local, community) regardless of whether or not the governmental body in question ratified the treaty, meaning that local ordinances may be challenged by multinational corporations; and

  WHEREAS many public and academic libraries receive the majority of their funding from governmental bodies, who will be constrained in the policy-making arena by the threat of foreign corporations taking legal action against them if they feel local interests are being placed ahead of their “rights”; and

  WHEREAS the MAI will apply retroactively to contracts and laws implemented before the MAI is ratified; and WHEREAS the MAI is anti-democratic and gives multinational corporations rights that citizens to not have while absolving them of most responsibilities; and

  WHEREAS libraries and librarians are vital components in maintaining democratic systems by providing the information needed to maintain an informed and involved populace, and so have a significant stake in rebuffing attacks on democracy and the power of citizens to control their lives; and

  WHEREAS the British Columbia Library Association Executive has already voiced its opposition to MAI; therefore be it

  RESOLVED that the Social Responsibilities Round Table of the American Library Association declares its opposition to the continued negotiation of the MAI until such time as the negotiations are opened up to representation by developing countries and by non-governmental organizations dedicated to protecting intellectual freedom, environmental, labor and consumer interests; and be it further

  RESOLVED that SRRT urges the ALA Council, current President, and Presidents-Elect to publicly oppose MAI as a threat to democratic values, local autonomy, and human rights.

  Passed by SRRT Action Council, 6/27/98 Washington DC

   

Berkely City Council February 24, 1998

• RECOMMENDATION:That the City Council adopt a resolution opposing the signing of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) by the United States at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) meeting in Paris which is tentatively scheduled for April 1998.RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT

  WHEREAS, the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) represents a threat to sovereignty of local governments throughout the United States; and

  WHEREAS, the MAI would prohibit the City of Berkeley from passing any new ordinances and would necessitate revocation of any existing ordinances, into the indefinite future, that conflict with the provisions of the proposed MAI; and

  WHEREAS, the MAI would bar Congress, state legislatures, and city councils from using trade sanctions to punish nations such as Burma and Nigeria for human rights abuses, violations of labor standards, and persecutions; and

  WHEREAS, the interests of the citizens of Berkeley are not furthered or promoted by an agreement that creates new rights and protections for international investors, but provides no rights or protections for workers, the environment, or communities.

  NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Berkeley opposes the Multilateral Agreement on Investment because it would eliminate Berkeley’s right of oversight and local sovereignty; and

  BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Berkeley hereby urge its state and federally elected officials and lobbyists to not support the Multilateral Agreement on Investment.

   

San Francisco April 20, 1998

• 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); andWHEREAS, 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; andWHEREAS, 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

   

City of Olympia May 5, 1998

• WHEREAS, The United States government, through the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has been participating in the negotiation of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI); andWHEREAS, 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 to support local economic development; andWHEREAS, 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 “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, and city councils from using trade sanctions to punish nations for human rights violations and other violations of international law; 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 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; and

  WHEREAS, The City of Olympia is not represented in the negotiations of the MAI, nor will it be allowed to represent itself in any international judicial proceedings arising from this agreement, in the U.S. courts or international tribunals, in matters that concern its own ordinances and direct interest; and

  WHEREAS, The interest of the citizens of Olympia are not promoted by an agreements that creates new enforceable rights and privileges for international investors, but provides no enforceable rights or protections for workers, the environment, or communities; therefor, be it

  RESOLVED, That the City of Olympia hereby urges its state and federally elected officials to actively protest any provision in the MAI draft text or similar provision of any international agreement that would restrict Olympia’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.

   

City of Boulder June 2 1998

• NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO, opposes the MAI in its current form and urges its state and federal elected officials to oppose the MAI because it would unacceptably limit Boulder’s right of local oversight and sovereignty.BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Boulder urges its state and federal elected officials to actively protest provisions in any MAI draft, or in any other proposed international agreement, that would restrict Boulder’s ability to regulate within its jurisdiction, decide how to use its public procurement dollars, or limit Boulder’s ability to encourage local economic development in a manner consistent with the United States Constitution.BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Boulder urges its state and federal elected officials to oppose any MAI draft or any other proposed international treaty or agreement which would deprive the United States courts of jurisdiction over litigation brought by international business interests agains the City of Boulder.

  BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Boulder urges its state and federal elected officials to oppose any draft of the MAI or any other proposed international treaty or agreement which limits the ability of the City of Boulder, within the parameters established by the United States Constitution, to enact legislation in furtherance of, and consistent with, the human rights values which are central to this community’s self-identity.

  PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of June, 1998.

  (signed) Bob Greenlee
  Mayor

   

The Association of Washington Cities June 20 1998

• The Association of Washington Cities passed a resolution at their annual meeting Saturday (6/20) condemning the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI). This treaty would severely curtail the sovereignty of state and local governments to set civic policies. AWC’s Resolutions Committee unanimously passed the following resolution.Resolution #27g. Opposing the Multilateral Agreement on InvestmentsBACKGROUND:
  It has recently been revealed that the United States government has been secretly negotiating a Multilateral Agreement on Investments through the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. As drafted, this treaty would grant international investors special rights outside the normal legal frameworks of the participating countries. Several cities have taken positions in opposition to the MAI, and a number of others are considering it.

  ISSUES:
  The MAI would restrict the ability of elected officials, including local government officials, to establish policies in the best interests of their jurisdictions. This would include functions, such as procurement, and policies such as human rights and environmental protection.

  AWC POSITION:
  The Association of Washington Cities supports the right of local elected officials to establish policies in the best interests of their constitutents, and opposes the MAI to the extent that it violates this principal.

   

Metropolitan King County Council (Washington), December 14 1998

• MOTION NO. 10602A MOTION expressing Metropolitan King County Council Opposition to provisions of the Draft Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), its commitment to future actions on this proposed trade agreement, and requesting the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney to examine the potential effects of the NAFTA and MAI on King County government.WHEREAS, the United States government has been negotiating a Multilateral Agreement on Investments (MAI) through the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD); and

  WHEREAS, the MAI, as currently drafted, would grant international investors special rights outside the normal legal frameworks of the participating countries; and

  WHEREAS, the Western Governors’ Association passed a resolution objecting to the provisions of the MAI, following review of their report titled, “Multilateral Agreement on Investments: Potential Effects on State and Local Government” that identifies potential impacts, such as; limiting policies that favor local business, investment incentives, performance requirements, land use, and environmental regulations; and

  WHEREAS, the National Association of Counties passed a resolution that: “.urges the Administration not to agree to any provisions in the MAI draft text or similar provisions of any international agreement that would preempt local governments’ authority or ability to regulate activities within its jurisdiction”; and

  WHEREAS, the Special Committee on the MAI of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, Canada, passed a resolution rejecting the fundamental basis of the MAI negotiations and has committed itself to an open, public process to examine the many implications of the proposed agreement; and

  WHEREAS, the “National Treatment” provisions of the MAI draft text would 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 MAI, if adopted in its current form, would create a dispute resolution mechanism to be utilized by investors for claims against local governments which would be external to the United States federal court system and, therefore, unrestricted by existing judicial interpretations of the Constitutional principles; and

  WHEREAS, the expropriation provisions of the MAI utilizes broad international law definitions to define “expropriation”, and applies to any act where a government authority denies a person or company of some benefit of property.

  WHEREAS, the MAI contains no public policy exception to the requirement to pay compensation even in an action to protect public health or environmental quality.

  NOW, THEREFORE BE IT MOVED that the King County council: 1. opposes the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, in its current draft form, especially provisions which undermine local governments’ authority to pass laws regarding environmental protection, fair labor practices, and local economic development; and 2. respectfully requests the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney to study and report on the effects of both NAFTA and the MAI to determine and to brief the council on the effects and obligations of these international agreements on King County government; and 3. expresses its profound concerns with the MAI to the Washington State Congressional Delegation and respectfully requests to be advised and considered in further deliberations or actions regarding the MAI; and 4. expresses its interest in working jointly with the British Columbia Legislative Assembly to consider strategies for direction to the State Department in consideration of the MAI.

  PASSED by a vote of 13 to 0 this 14th day of December, 1998.

  KING COUNTY COUNCIL

  KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON

  _____________________________
  Chair

  ATTEST:

  _________________________
  Clerk of the Council

  Attachments:

   

Texas Democratic Party

• Resolution Regarding Multilateral Agreement on InvestmentWhereas, the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) has been negotiated without input from US citizens, elected officials or the media, andWhereas, the US Council for International Business (a corporate lobby) has driven the negotiations and developed the MAI, while non-governmental labor, small business, environmental and community organizations (NGOs) have been virtually shut out, the MAI text gives Multinational Corporations and foreign investors legal standing to sue sovereign governments (federal, state, and local) directly, such disputes to be tried in international tribunals in hearings at which the said sovereign governments will have no voice and,

  Whereas, foreign investors and multinational corporations will be compensated for actions consumers and governments take affecting profits of those investors and corporations, even when the intent of such actions is protecting the public interest, and Whereas, the MAI mandates foreign investors and multinational corporations be treated equal to domestic companies, challenging tax incentives for small businesses and laws designed to foster community employment and vibrant local economies, because such incentives and laws inherently discriminate against large foreign investors and multinational corporations, and

  Whereas, under MAI, governments would no longer be allowed to distinguish between countries or corporations based on considerations of human rights, labor, environmental, or public health criteria and

  Whereas, MAI gives multinational corporations power without responsibility or accountability, and

  Whereas, upon signing, contracting parties are bound to the terms of the MAI for 20 years, with no “outs”, and

  Whereas, the MAI broadens limitations on national sovereignty under World Trade Organizations rules favor of one set of global rules, enforced by an unaccountable international corporate tribunal, and

  Whereas, the MAI constitutes a threat to our democratic form of government,

  Be it therefor resolved, that the Democratic Party of Texas calls on the US Government to call off negotiations on the current draft of the MAI immediately, promote crafting a new MAI document with full participation of non-governmental organizations representing citizens’ interests in the areas of human rights, labor, environment, small business, and public health, equal to the level of participation granted corporate lobbyists, and re-negotiate MAI in accordance with the demands placed before the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, by the coalition of non-governmental organizations representing over 70 countries.

  Passed unanimously by the State Democratic Executive Committee, November 14, 1998.

  919 Congress Avenue, Suite 600, Austin, TX, 78701. 512/478-9800

   

CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY

• RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO THE MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT (MAI)Whereas, the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) is a threat to the sovereignty of local governments throughout the United States; andWhereas, local governments are not represented in the negotiations of the MAI and will not be allowed to represent themselves in any international judicial proceedings arising from this agreement in the United States’ courts or international tribunals in matters that concern their own ordinances and direct interests and local governments would be prohibited from passing any new ordinances, into the indefinite future, that conflict with the provisions of the proposed MAI; and

  Whereas, the interests of the citizens of California are not promoted by an agreement that creates new rights and privileges for foreign investors, but provides no rights or protections for workers, the environment, or communities.

  Therefore, Be It Resolved, the California Democratic Party goes on record in opposition to the Multilateral Agreement on Investment and urges all elected officials to oppose it; and

  Be It Further Resolved, the California Democratic Party supports the efforts of coalitions to persuade city councils in California and across the country to adopt resolutions declaring their cities MAI-free zones.

  Submitted July 13, 1998

  Jim B. Clarke, CDP Party Secretary

   

Asian Resolutions

Edogawa Ward Council, Tokyo

• Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 09:18:02 -0500 (EST)
  Subject: [mai] Resolution adopted in Tokyo
  From: Tomoko Sakuma tsakuma@jca.ax.apc.org
  Organization: People’s Forum 2001, JapanDear Friends,The first resolution lodging reservations on the MAI has adopted at the Edogawa Ward Council in Tokyo on March 19th. Although it is rather a small step forward, there are several other municipal councils where members are questioning the MAI and proposing similar resolutions in Japan. We are hoping to see more resolutions coming at local levels as we are now conducting questionaire to educate municipalities.

  Tomoko Sakuma
  People’s Forum 2001, Japan

   

Australian Resolutions

Wollongong City Council, Australia May 4 1998

• May 4 1998, Wollongong City Council, Australia, passed a resolution in regard to the Multilateral Agreement on Investment :Wollongong City Council make a submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties Inquiry on MAI and that the following comments and recommendations of the Ecologically Sustainable Development Committee form part of that submission.1. The efforts of both current and former Federal Govenments in participating in negotiations on the MAI be acknowledged – as part of the endeavour to secure more investment and employment opportunities for the benefits of Australia and its citizens.

  2.The Federal Government be acknowledged for initiating this Inquiry into the MAI, and that it has stated that it will take into account the views of State Governments before it determines its final position.

  3. Noting ‘2’ above, there is concern at the lack of effective consultation, to date, with State and Local Governments, as well as peak interest groups, including those from environment, unions and welfare groups; and that the consultation to date has been predominantly confined to representatives from the business community.

  4. There is concern at the uncertainty as to the impacts of the MAI on the sovereignty of Australia , in relation to a wide range of issues, including operation and regulation of business activities, the environment, employment issues and social policy. Therefore the Federal Government be urged to defer any final decision to allow it to conduct more extensive investigations and condultation, including the anticipated impacts on the interaction of the various levels of government, the OECD/appeals tribunal(s), the business community and the public before it makes its final position on the MAI. Such consultation should include State Governments and Local Government bodies such as ALGA and NSWLGSA.

  5. That the complexities of the MAI and the limitations of the capabilities of many councils to evaluate the MAI are recognised, therefore the NSWLGSA as well as ALGA be approached to consider the matter and convey their views to the Federal and State Govenments, with the views of the NSWLGSA being reported back to the ESD Committee.

   

European Resolutions

European Parliament

• In European Parliament (Strasbourg), deputy Sergio Ribeiro, of PCP, have a intervention against MAI in Commission of External Relations. This Commission issued a paper against MAI, promoted by Confederal Group of Left and Greens.

Portugal

• Required by deputies of Portuguese Communist Party, next week Portuguese Ministry of Economy must to appear in ”Assembleia da Republica” (parliament) to give clearings ups about Portuguese participation in negociations of Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI).