Dear RN list, Sept. 27 It is not easy to get "alternative" (anti-MAI, anti-militarist, pro-democracy, etc.) candidates elected to represent us. But it is possible to get through to some elected officials, even if they are not "alternative" candidates. And in trying to reach them, we can help educate others too. The "10 questions for parliamentarians" idea below gives an example of that. Ralph Nader used a similar tactic in the US with a very interesting result, as you will see below: all the best, Jan ************************************************************************* Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 09:37:33 +0100 To: •••@••.••• From: •••@••.••• (Katharine Ainger) Subject: 10 questions to pose to parliamentarians Forgive me if I am repeating - I am new to this list. I was at the UK Anti-MAI Coalition conference Saturday 19th where we were discussing resistance strategies. The instance came up of Ralph Nader offering 10 000 dollars to any US member of Congress who could prove they had read the NAFTA (oops- or was it GATT?!) text in full by answering 10 questions on it correctly. (For those who don't know the story - finally a Republican came forward, answered the questions, claimed the money, and commented, "If I'd read the text in full before I voted, I would have voted 'no'.") I was wondering whether anyone has devised a similar 10 questions for MAI that could be applied to members of any national legislature? Please email me ASAP if so as plans are afoot to co-ordinate more objections and protests before the negotiations begin again in October. If there aren't 10 questions that people all over the world could ask their elected representatives, I'd like to suggest we come up with some. Thanks. ************************************************************************** Reply from Jan: Dear Katherine, Here are the details from _Fellowship_ magazine (July/Aug. 1997 issue): "In 1994, Ralph Nader and Lori Wallach offered a $10,000 donation to charity on behalf of any member of Congress who would actually read the text of teh Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and answer a few simple questions about it. Only Republican Senator Hank Brown accepted. After finally sitting down and reading GAtt (apparently a rare activity among legislators), he changed his mind and voted against it. -- _The Case Against the Global Economy and for a Turn to the Local_, Jerry Mander and Edward Goldmith, editors, Sierra Club books, 1996" (To find out more about the Fellowship of Reconciliation: http://nonviolence.org/for/fellowship/) ******************************************************************** Here is the reply from Janet Eaton, a widely respected educator and systemic change advocate: From: "Janet M. Eaton" <•••@••.•••> Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 07:47:45 +0000 Subject: (Fwd) Re: 10 questions to pose to parliamentarians ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- From: "Janet M. Eaton" <•••@••.•••> To: •••@••.••• (Katharine Ainger) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 00:23:27 +0000 Subject: Re: 10 questions to pose to parliamentarians Cc: •••@••.••• Dear Katherine and mai-nots:: A heartfelt welcome Katherine to the mai-not list. I for one appreciate your foresight in getting in touch and I am also most interested in your suggestion about the 10 questions people all over the world could ask their representatives about the MAI. By coincidence just two days ago I set up a new file to record postings about incidences where elected reps were quoted as not having read the NAFTA, WTO and MAI documents etc. In it I recorded a quote from a July 29th Toronto Star article by Dalton Camp entitled "We can thank free trade..." just reposted two days ago, September 22, by Janice Graham on this list serve. In re-reading this article I came across the following reference: "When we come to think of it, the Canadian Parliament also voted in favour of NAFTA. In doing so, it cut off its own head. Which brings to mind John Crosbie, the then minister who sponsored the free trade agreement before Parliament and who admitted he hadn't read it all. It was a laugh; honourable members hadn't read it either. So, what the hell, free trade promised cheaper imports, more exports, a stronger dollar, and 500,000 new jobs" So, Katherine, this leads me to two threads arising from the Ralph Nader story: 1) YES LET'S PUT TOGETHER 10 QUESTIONS AND LET'S ENSURE THAT THEY ARE ASKED OF OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES IN ALL OUR COUNTRIES. . The following are the questions posed for Members of Parliament by the Ontario Public Interest Research Group in their MAI-not ! Project as found at their http://mai.flora.org/ website. 1. Have you read the draft MAI text? 2. How else are you informing yourself? 3. What is your position on the MAI? 4. How are you informing your constituents? A survey using these questions showed that the NDP were informing themselves on the MAI and Financial Services Agreement (FSA), but that most Liberals and other MPs never answered; only 25 of 300 responded. They learned that MPs felt more pressure to answer if their constituents send the survey, rather than non-constituent citizens groups like OPIRG. They decided that in future, with cross-country organization, they could use this survey to expose such MP incompetence and deception, and further discredit the parties which support the MAI. MAI- not activists in New Zealand also picked up and used the questions with similar results. Another useful question which Canadian mai-nots have used in the campaign against the MAI is "Who benefits from the MAI? ". This latter question allows for a litany of statistics to be brought forth which counter the neo-liberal mantras of globalization . Of course there are questions to ask which get at the heart of the MAI's most egegious and dangerous aspects like rollback, standstill, national treatment and most favored nation status, performance requirements, the means of investor -state dispute resolution and investment protection. And another useful insight also from the mai-not website which seems relevant to a 10 Question campaign is as follows : Why are so many politicians deceiving us? "Authorities by nature condition people to blindly trust them. We protest when they predictably betray us, but the deception continues to grow because we fail to expect them to report their intentions or meet certain standards of performance. The consequence is a treadmill: more and more politicians rarely answer our questions because we don't expect it, and because it might affect their careers. Our response is to "hold them to account" to force valid answers on the MAI. Some scientists have noticed this pervasive conditioning to "trust the experts." They have drafted the 'precautionary principle' that it's our duty not to wait for scientific proof to oppose the MAI or any proposal where harm may result. Proponents must publicly state the MAI's alleged benefits and hazards, so that the public may challenge their validity. " 2) Also let's continue to collect stories which exemplify the irresponsible behaviour of elected representatives who fail to read carefully documents like NAFTA and the MAI -treaty. As I mentioned above I have started a file on this and if others find anything or have personal anecdotes and post it to mai-not we will have a mai-not archival URL for each posting and could put together annotated references. Perhaps it would serve as a reminder to elected representatives that such irresponsible behaviour is no longer acceptable now that we have come to recognize that the very future of humanity and our planet is at stake. They need to know that we no longer entrust the negotiation of our future to a few elected officials at the top, let alone ones who have not even read the documents which are presently defining a future bereft of conscience, humane principles and our democratic traditions. And perhaps it will remind us that we also need to become active citizens in this new global arena - citizens who understand the principles of participatory democracy and who will ensure through our active participation that these principles are enshrined in any documents which shape our global future. And let us use these files and 10 questions to remind politicians, the media and citizens all over the world how the future of civilization was highjacked by an agenda driven by dictates of the free market and its proponents while the governments of 29 priviledged nations, in a prolonged but hopefully not yet terminal state of amnesia, lost control of the rudders of state. . There seems to be hope in the words of British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, speaking at the New York Stock exchange earlier this week about the need for an overhauled global economic system which would reflect input and concerns of more than the G7 nations and which would demand a fundamental rethinking of our global institutions. [Hopefulness is of course tempered by awareness of the warnings of Professor Michel Chossodovsky's in his article entitled-Financial Warfare posted yesterday -on the mai-not list serve]] There also seems to be some hope in the plethora of commentators, economists and economic advisors and editors reporting in mainstream newspapers around the world during the past few weeks, who are recognizing that the global disorder which has emerged is directly attributable to the current global economic policies and who are calling for alternatives. Finally as a Canadian I was hopeful as I listened from the gallery of Parliament to the words of our Finance Minster, the Honorable Paul Martin, in his budget speech -February 1998: " ...globalization and technological change are a reality. They are not a religion. They are a fact. They are not a faith. We commit a very serious mistake if there is no role, no responsibility on the part of government to provide opportunity and security at home. In an era of great change , our core programs, our core institutions , our core values are more important than ever. They give Canadians the security and confidence they deserve. They equip the country to succeed. " It seems to fly in the face of all this emerging insight into the perceived causes of the present disorder in the world today and the recognized need for alternatives -- that our world leaders should be forging ahead with the MAI which has been touted, as we mai-nots well know, as the third pillar in the currently advocated global system of trade, finance and investment that we have come to know as the "global economy". So 10 Questions - yes ! Katherine ! Let's go for it ! All the very best, Janet Eaton -- For MAI-not (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and links to other MAI sites please see http://mai.flora.org/
