EDITORIAL Fe

1.W.A. takes action on
the Greenpeace front

early three months after the stand-off
with Greenpeace, we haven't heard
much from the “environmentalist” orga-
nization. The Arctic Sunrise icebreaker
left the Vancouver waterfront in July
illegally and in a hurry. Greenpeace
broke the law in doing so as it left with-
out a pap pilot as required.

They have been informed by the authorities in
Vancouver that their ship will be seized if it ever
comes back and heavy fines will be imposed.

In the meantime there has been only one other
incident involving the organization. In August
Greenpeace members put a banner on a boom of
pulp logs near Duncan, B.C. and were soon repelled
yy workers who sprayed them with water hoses.

Greenpeace is reportedly in very bad shape eco-
nomically. Its Remberchic in the United States has
dropped precipitously and the same goes for
Canada. It fully appears that the public is fed up
with Greenpeace’s antics.

After all, it wasn’t working class people that
called for a boycott of B.C. forest products. It was
Greenpeace International, an out-of-control multi-
national corporation based in Geneva, which is
headed by a former economist with the World Bank
and is run by a zealous collection of upper class lib-
erals who care not a damn for Canadian workers.

Greenpeace never took even a moment to consult
with workers or with forest communities about their
actions against I.W.A. members. The organization’s
spokesperson Tzeporah Berman admitted to the
1.W.A.’s Kim Pollock that it was a mistake to not
“consult” with the I.W.A. before blocking logging
roads and chaining themselves to heavy duty equip-
ment. No kidding.

Just because things are relatively quiet on the
Greenpeace front doesn’t mean it has gone away.
Where it will hit next remains to be seen.

The 1-W.A. has got its own game plan. Recently
National President Dave Haggard and Brother

Pollack went to the 20th Congress of the
International Federation of Building and
Woodworkers in Harare, Zimbabwe to rally some
support for the union on the international scene.

ome European union affiliates of the IFEBWW
are particularly strong supporters of Greenpeace
International. Many unions in Germany strongly
support Greenpeace. Without that support, the orga-
nization would likely decline in Europe.

With the support of IFBWW affiliate unions in
such countries in the Netherlands, Australia and
the United States, the I.W.A. was able to get impor-
tant amendments to the international organization’s
four year action plan. IFBWW affiliates have been
targets of Greenpeace’s misinformation campaigns
ead the I.W.A. wants to prevent it from continuing.

The IFBWW has agreed to take actions to ensure
that its affiliates receive accurate information about
forestry issues worldwide. The IFBWW will also
undertake actions to support affiliates who are con-
fronted with unfounded campaigns against them by
the Greenpeace’s of the world:

Recently Haggard wrote to Ulf Asp, Secretary
General of the IFBWW to request support under the
auspices of the action plan.

The I.W.A. hit back internationally and hopes to
flush Greenpeace out in front of other unions where
they seek support.

It is only by taking such actions that our interna-
tional brothers and sisters will understand where
Greenpeace is coming from and can take actions to
support Canadian workers.

Official publication of I.W.A. CANADA

NORMAN GARCIA DAVE HAGGARD
Editor NEIL MENARD
5th Floor, Leta

1285 W. Pender Street
Vancouver, B.C. aa i
VGE 4B2 :
BROADWAY «#2 PRINTERS LTD.

g

“THAT WAS Close!
~ALMOST DIDN'T MAKE
IT OUT OF THE
HARBOUR.

<
:
2
as
=
fs
8
S
g
=

Multilateral agreement on investment goes
ahead to complete its May 1998 deadline

It is supposed to be the
international trade agree-
ment that really isn’t. As
reported to you in this space
in the last issue of the
Lumberworker, the Federal
Liberal government of Jean
Chretien does not want
Canadians to believe that a
new international trade
agreement known as the
Multilateral Agreement on
Investment (MAI) is being
negotiated.

Prior to the June 2 federal
re-election of the Liberals,
Vancouver Centre Liberal
Hedy Fry said that “there is
no such agreement being
made or under discussion at
this time.”

But the facts are that high
level Canadian trade and
business officials have been
working with their interna-
tional counterparts since 1995
to negotiate what will be an
international bill of corporate
rights for 29 member states
of the Organization for
Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD).

The deadline for a com-
pleted MAI is May of 1998.

At an OECD ministerial
meeting held in Singapore in
December of last year, Mr.
Renato Ruggio, the World
Trade Organization’s Director
General said: “We are writing
the constitution of a single
global economy.”

According to William
Witherell, the Director of
Financial, Fiscal and
Enterprise Affairs at the
OECD in Paris, about 90 per-
cent of the MAT is “essential-
ly completed.”

He wrote in April that
“there are a number of impor-
tant issues to be resolved —
for example, how and to what
extent to bind subnational
levels of government; how to
treat measures related to cul-
ture; (and) how to address
the question of core labour
stan and environmental
concerns...”

Witherell’s comments are
revealing as they explicitly
state that the MAI intends to
bind subnational level of gov-

ernments to it provisions. For
Canadians that means not
only would compliance be tar-
geted in the federal govern-
ment, but provincial and pos-
sibly municipal governments
as well.

Witherall wrote that all
the MAI’s main components
are in place. The MAT is
designed to protect all forms
of assets in investments,
remove remaining barriers to
investment and put in dis-
pute settlement mechanisms
where not only governments
can sue governments but cor-
porations and individual citi-
zens can sue governments.
An MAI tribunal would be
able to demand payment on
behalf of a corporation or indi-
vidual.

He added that there must
be a “fair and equitable treat-
ment for investment” and
that “coverage of investment
will be broad, going well
beyond traditional notions of
foreign investments and
intangible investments...” He
also wrote that there must be
a “free transfer abroad of prof-
its and dividends and com-
pensation in event of expro-
priations.”

Acorporate bill of rights it
will be. But when the talk
turns to the rights of work-
ers, there’s not much talk at
all. All the director will say is
that “a mutually beneficial
investment climate and a bal-
anced approach to foreign
investment depend not only
on international disciplines
applied by governments, but
also on responsible behavior
of investors in the countries
in which they operate.”

The OECD is clear that
any MAI would have “volun-
tary” guidelines for multina-
tional enterprises with respect
to labour rights. But it will do
everything in its power to
assure corporations and
investors those rights which
may overrule democratically
elected governments like
those ones elected in Canada.

If an issue over the viola-
tion of labour rights or human
rights arise, the OECD will

not pass judgment. It only
has a special committee on
international investment and
multinational enterprises
that will hold “exchanges of
views on matter related to
the Guidelines and the expe-
rience gained in their appli-
cation.”

The MAI will also give
multinationals numerous
benefits including the treat-
ment of all investment par-
ties at “Most Favoured
Nation” trading status. In-
vestors and their employees
would freely cross interna-
tional boundaries with ease
to conduct business.

Governments would be pre-
vented from discriminating
against countries or corpora-
tions that have a bad envi-
ronment record.

“Performance require-
ments” regulating the use of
local workers or use of local
materials would be disallowed
in an MAI world.

Any investment made in
an MAI country would be pro-
tected for 20 years, anda
country may not withdraw
from. ie! MAT for at least five

ears I Si; on.
A Ganadisanmenare Con-
gress paper on the MAI points
out that, for years, the United
States and other major, cor-
porations have sought inter-
national trade rules, first
through the GATT and then
the World Trade Organ-
ization, to limit requirements
on foreign investment.

The MAT is shaping up to
be another international trade
deal which will go far beyond
the Canada - U.S. Free Trade
Agreement and the North
American Free Trade Agree-
ment.

What is truly amazing is
that there is no public debate
about what is happening to
Canada’s role in the MAT and
the consequences that it will
bring.

Canadians are represent-
ed by only a handful of
appointed trade officials and
business representatives who
are not being held account-
able to anyone.

LUMBERWORKER/SEPTEMBER 1997/5