Proposition 50K1649

Projet de loi portant assentiment à l'Accord entre l'Union économique belgo-luxembourgeoise et le gouvernement de la République du Yémen concernant l'encouragement et la protection réciproques des investissements, fait à Bruxelles le 3 février 2000.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

Nov. 7, 2001

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Belgo-Luxembourg Economic Union former South Yemen international agreement investment

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR

Abstained from voting

FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Vincent Decroly (Ecolo) voted to reject.
• Leen Laenens (Groen) abstained from voting.
• Jacques Lefevre (LE) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

March 27, 2002 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, in June 1997, an eminent member of our Assembly initiated an interpellation which was one of the first dedicated to the overwhelming international fabrications. It was addressed to mr. Maystadt and Di Rupo. by

The speaker began his interpellation by referring to the multilateral agreement

Five years ago, a representative of the people held an interpellation regarding the Multilateral Investment Agreement. I would be able to formulate the then-formulated requirement today CHAMBRE -4 E SESSION OF THE 50th SESSION 2001 2002 CHAMBRE -4 E SESSION DE LA 50 E LEGISLATURE sur les investissements. It uses the following terms: "Monsieur le président, monsieur le ministre, j'ai l'impression that on nous refait le coup des accords de Maastricht ou du Gatt.". Their

The speaker ⁇ alluded to those logics of liberalization and privatization that today constitute the extremely powerful background blade of neo-liberal globalization. by

Today, Mr. Speaker, I think that, without difficulty, I could make my own this introduction to our debate since the bilateral investment agreements discussed here — the one on Yemen and the two other on the agenda — follow exactly the same logic. These questions will ⁇ recall good memories to the government representatives who are on the banks today. by

I will also refer you to the debate that took place in February 1998 in the Senate on the Multilateral Investment Agreement. You may remember that this multilateral agreement was the subject of, from a leak organized by "Le Monde Diplomatique" and the appearance on the internet of a preliminary draft of a multilateral agreement, a progressive rise of pressure against this slump given to various conventions in respect of human rights, workers' rights and environmental rights. He had been the subject of increasingly vivid positions to end with an extremely strong speech by the French Prime Minister, Lionel Jospin, in the National Assembly. He said his country was withdrawing from the ongoing negotiations, under the auspices of the OECD at the time. He thus gave the final blow to this extremely dangerous process that had begun away from the eyes. by

I wonder whether what is the subject of our discussions today is not also a process that unfortunately occurs away from the eyes. My intervention is nothing but an alarming intervention, Mr. Secretary of State. Following the interpellation to which I have just mentioned, the Minister of Finance and Foreign Trade of the time, Mr. Maystadt, who responded on behalf of his colleague, Mr. Di Rupo, had made an interesting parallel between the logics that preside over bilateral agreements of the type of those we are called to vote today and those that presided over the multilateral investment agreement.

What Mr. said. Maystadt at the time to draw this pure equivalence between AMI and bilateral investment agreements? I quote: “These provisions” — Mr. Maystadt spoke of the multilateral investment agreement still in project — “they are in fact already integrated into a large number of bilateral agreements, agreements that are generally referred to as protection and promotion of investments, ratified by the Belgian parliament on numerous occasions. For us, this multilateral investment agreement does not bring much new. It’s about taking back, on a multilateral level, the type of arrangements we regularly subscribe to and have accepted in many bilateral agreements on the promotion and protection of investments.”

I think we can add faith to the statements of mr. Maystadt on the pure equivalence between a multilateral agreement and a bilateral investment agreement and on the fact that the contents are strictly identical. by

Par contre, je ne le suivrai pas dans sa manière de banaliser et de minimiser l'importance de ce qui était alors un projet, and évoquant take over, since the current bilateral agreements sit on the same logic. I would also like to relay the debate held in 1998, one year later, on the Multilateral Investment Agreement. Mr. Lionel Jospin, at that time, increased pressure on that agreement and took a strong position, declaring that his country would withdraw from the OECD.

The current process is proceeding in a hidden way. My argument is therefore intended to be a warning signal as well as a call for vigilance with regard to the logic underlying the conclusion of the bilateral investment agreements. Mr Maystadt has already drawn our attention to the pure equivalence between the Multilateral Investment Agreements (MIA) and the Bilateral Investment Agreements (BIA) whose content I think is identical. We should not underestimate the importance of these very up-to-date preliminary designs because there is a danger that they will be realized.

Neither in the Senate nor in the Commission the debate on the content of those agreements was a lot of matter. Its purpose is to ensure the free movement and the protection of investments and to free both multinational companies and capital from any obstacle.

Nevertheless, during the debate on the MIA, these proposals sparked vivid reactions from the union life and the trade union world, and then aroused the indignation of certain politicians.

Why the storm of protest? With this type van overeenkomst primeert het belang van de privébedrijven op algemene overwegingen in op de rechten van de werknemers. This investment way stands haaks op het algemene economische beleid, in op de sociale en culturelle bekommernissen van een land. Het KAMER -4 E ZITTING VAN DE 50 E ZITTINGSPERIODE 2001 2002 ROOM -4 E SESSION OF THE 50 E LEGISLATURE the adoption, on numerous occasions, of bilateral agreements on investment. In reality, the project that is being examined today is precisely related to these bilateral investment agreements: so they do not relate to the past but to the present and the immediate future. by

I come to the particular content of the bilateral investment agreement that we are given to discuss after a thin debate in the Senate and an even thin debate in our Foreign Relations Committee. To briefly comment on the content of this agreement, I recall that it is about ensuring the free movement of investments and the complete removal of any obstacle to the action of private enterprises. This was the foundation of the multilateral investment agreement that produced, both in Belgium and around the world, a lifting of associative, trade union and ultimately political shields.

Why this lifting of shields and why it was important, at a certain point, that political leaders at the highest level take what Mr. Michel recently called "the noble political risk of getting out of the rank"? I will try to say it. This type of investment agreement preempts — which is extremely worrying — the principles of free movement, protection and promotion of investments over any other form of concern. It prioritizes the interest of particular enterprises, private sectors of production, over the considerations of general policy and policy of economic regulation implemented by States. by

In favour of such agreements, these principles of free movement and promotion of investments brutally prevail over international and national labour law. The settlement of disputes through the autonomous arbitration procedures established by this type of agreement is entirely independent, or even in total contradiction with the manner of judicial or quasi-judicial settlement provided by the instances of the UN system. by

This promotion of investments and this absolute protection of investments obviously prevail over any policy of economic regulation that the State is likely to implement at the national or regional level.

It is also necessary to emphasize the extremely serious fact that these same principles of promotion and absolute protection of investments prevail over all social and environmental concerns, especially in the fields of health and civil and industrial security, and even over all cultural concerns; in short, over all that constitutes the essence of the work that States are supposed to carry out in the unremitting pursuit of the general interest. by

You will tell me that it is the King who concludes treaties, as provided by our Constitution. And you will ask me what makes it possible for me to challenge the King his authority to conclude treaties of this order. by

In addition to the considerations I have just made, I would like to draw our assembly’s attention to the difference between the classical, ordinary way our assembly ratifies this type of treaty and what is proposed to us this week. This difference lies in the fact that in most cases, ratification of treaties does not involve a significant abandonment of sovereignty. We do not ask our assemblies to mourn their ability to legislate. Now, in the present case, the vote by an assembly like ours of such treaties mag dan wel de Koning zijn die verdragen sluit, ik wil toch uw aandacht vestigen op de onderscheiden methoden die een assemblee hanteert om een verdrag te ratificeren.

These agreements imply renunciation of sovereignty and limit the decision-making power and legislative power of our assemblies.

The policies of states are compromised, as companies can now prosecute them if public policy damages their interests.

In 1998, the US private company ETHIL filed a complaint against Canada. The Canadian government had to raise $250 million in damages for lost profits and damage to the company’s reputation for banning a toxic petroleum additive produced by ETHIL.

Will we fall into that trap? Are we going to fulfill the promises we made before the elections? I hope not; the multilateral investment agreements will swallow the bilateral investment agreements. The Convention does not contain any reference to international law, the UN, the rights of the child and the greenhouse gas agreements. The will of private companies is thus a law; in doing so they look only at their own interests and do not care about the general interest. More than 37 bilateral agreements have been approved by our various assemblies. That is enough! Parliament should exercise the necessary vigilance to prevent the approval of those agreements, which are generated by the flood wave of neoliberal globalization, whose washings by parliamentarians of our assemblies have been blamed on. Our Assemblies CHAMER-4 E SESSION OF THE 50th Session 2001 2002 CHAMBRE-4 E SESSION DE LA 50 E LEGISLATURE bilatéraux entraine obligatoirement la limitation, pour notre assemblée mais aussi pour celles d'autres pays bien plus fragiles que le notre et même pour les gouvernements de ces pays, de leur faculté de décider des politiques, de leur faculté d'exercer leur souveraineté dans une très longue série de matières extrémement importantes. Ce qui est t en jeu ici, c'est le concept d'investissement au sens le plus large. You refer to this effect to the article 1 there and to the definitions of the articles 1 of the agreements subject to your sagacité. Their

These bilateral investment agreements — just like the multilateral agreement that was planned at the time and which was abandoned under pressure from assemblies and parties represented within the government — permanently put state policies under a Damocles sword. For one will constantly be faced with the risk that an investor, who would believe that one or another measure decided by the State puts his investment and profits at risk, will drag that State before the arbitration and dispute settlement instance and eventually make it condemned to pay a heavy compensatory fine. Does this all depend on my imagination? No, Mr the President. by

I know that we are talking about Yemen now, and that soon it will be about El Salvador and Kuwait. But I would like to talk to you about Canada to give you an example of the drift to which this type of bilateral investment agreement can lead. I would like to refer to the experience experienced by the Canadian government in 1998, when it addressed a complaint filed against it before the Dispute Settlement Authority by a company called “ETHYL” based in the United States. The company claimed $250 million in damages after the Canadian government banned a toxic oil additive produced by this private company. by

Thus, in an effort to protect the environment and the health of the people, the Canadian government takes an extremely important and legitimate measure to ban a toxic oil additive. He is attacked before the dispute resolution body by the private company that produces this additive and that private company manages to obtain, in the form of damages and interests, compensation on the basis that it has lost profits related to the investments it had agreed to in Canada. She even claimed that the Canadian government had compromised her honor and her reputation as a private company. by

Is this what we want? We will enter - we - in accordance with the equivalence described by Mr. Maystadt between AMI and ABI, if I can say — in a logic where what we refused with other countries of the planet in 1997-98 can be imposed on us by the tape today, in favor of a saucissonage or administration at homeopathic doses of content exactly similar to AMI? Will we get into this trap that will consist, ⁇ too late, to realize that end-to-end, these multiple small ABI that we are adopting end up completely reconstructing the pieces of the puzzle of the deceased AMI? In other words, will we eat our word and our commitments made at the time of the elections for today, in the name of I don’t know what new rationality or political culture, accept what we condemned yesterday with virulence?

I hope that this will not be the case. Because the ABI are recovering the AMI. It is a tracking and tracking organization for the Multilateral Investment Agreement. I mean this as proof that the must consequent remain ten aanzien van de afwijzende houding die zij three years ago met betrekking tot het ontwerpmultilateral investmentakkoord hebben aangenomen.

CAMER -4 E ZITTING VAN DE 50 E ZITTINGSPERIODE 2001 2002 CAMERA -4 E SESSION OF THE 50 E LEGISLATURE Conflict resolution mechanisms — see articles 9 of the bilateral agreements discussed today — are exactly the same. The type of protection granted to investment, including the very dangerous clause of the most favoured nation — Articles 3 — are taken back textually, by a magnificent “cutting-lipped” of what was provided in the Multilateral Investment Agreement. The definition of the investment concept inherited by the ABI comes in direct line from what the AMI had advocated — see Articles 1ers of the Treaties subject to our review.

On the other hand, Mr. Secretary of State, no reference is made to international law except purely symbolic references, no reference to the UN, ILO, human and child rights conventions, conventions governing the exploitation of the seas or conventions aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, for example.

The only thing that remains, after reading these agreements, is sacralization beyond any reasonable measure of investment ownership. And of the free and complete possibility, for those who possess them, to act at their own discretion according to their interests and often in contempt and at the detriment of the general interest.

Both ABI and AMI have the prohibition of “unjustified measures”. With these words, we spread very broadly! I refer to section 2 of Article 2 of the draft Treaty. It also includes the prohibition of any form of nationalization, expropriation, recovery or any associated measure unless, according to Articles 4 and 5, compensation is paid, by the States which would become "guilty" of such measures, to the companies "linked" by these measures. by

Similarly, the conflict resolution mechanism ⁇ ins a highly ambiguous and legally very controversial relationship to international legality. It can be said today that the UN system and its own settlement methods – for example, the Cotonou Convention and even the WTO – will be overwhelmed tomorrow by those ABI that go to the unknown of all and, for now, before our assembly.

Today, more than 37 ABI have already been adopted by either of the federal assemblies of our country. They concern countries such as El Salvador, Brazil, Mexico, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay, Cuba, Venezuela, for other European countries such as Uzbekistan, Ukraine, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Romania, Moldova, Albania, Macedonia and for other African, Arab or Pacific countries. It is time today to ring the alarm bell here and not vote tomorrow for this type of agreements, not only because they are extremely toxic, because they come from this background blade of neo-liberal globalization, which I have seen several of our colleagues condemn with great firmness the dangerous evolution in Porto Alegre or in the parallel demonstrations to the Laeken Summit, but also because in a certain way, we are trying to impose on our assemblies what, not more than three years ago, before the last elections, they had decided in all maturity and with much courage to reject.