provision to adopt unilateral retaliatory measures if a WTO decision is not considered to be in its interests. Major decisions in favour of the US have often operated against both rich and poor countries. The EU was forced to withdraw the preferential prices it gave to some of the world’s poorest countries for bananas which provided an appreciable proportion of their foreign exchange earnings. The US complained that this was affecting the profits of its multinational companies, Chiquita, Del Monte and Dole, operating in Central America. A consideration of the fact that working conditions on US multinational sourced plantations were poor, was not a consideration allowable under WTO rules. Decisions have also gone against the EU wanting to ban the import of GM foods and hormone-fed beef raised on American farms. Many of the decisions made result from lobbying by multinational companies whose power and influence can be judged by their share of world trade. The sales of just 1,000 corporations account for one third of global GNP. Wal-Mart’s annual sales of more than $200 bil is greater than the combined GNP of 49 poor countries. One of the greatest threats to democracy was posed by a plan put together by the some of the world’s largest corporations and drafted by the International Chamber of Commerce - the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI). Delegates from the OECD began discussing this in 1995 behind closed doors. The MAI set out to give private companies the same legal status as nation-states and laid out a set of rules that would enable corporations to defend their new rights against the objections of sovereign governments 50. For example, corporations could sue governments for passing laws that might reduce their potential profits. Foreign investors would also be allowed to challenge public funding of social programmes. If a government chose to privatise a state owned industry it could no longer give preference to domestic buyers. In addition, governments would be forbidden to demand that foreign investment benefit local communities or the national economy. They could not demand domestic content, local hiring, affirmative action, technology transfer or anything else in return for allowing foreign companies to exploit publicly owned resources. There were to be no limits on profit repatriation. The leaking of this plan by French activists in January 1997 prompted protest around the world not least from local
Globalisation and the Race to the Bottom
111