Wednesday, November 04, 2009

Announcing: The Network for Justice in Global Investment.

Those of you have who have been followers of the Democracy Center's work for any length of time remember the campaign that we and our allies waged for years against the Bechtel Corporation, when it sued the people of Cochabamba for $50 million in the aftermath of the Water Revolt. That case was filed before ICSID, the secretive trade court operated by the World Bank. Thanks to pressure from citizens worldwide, Bechtel dropped its case in 2006 for a token payment of two Bolivianos (30 cents).

In the years since the Democracy Center has continued to work globally to help bring greater justice and more active citizen engagement to the rules of economic globalization. Today we announce a new project that we have been building over the past year with our friends at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington – the Network for Justice in Global Investment.

The Network, involving activist groups and scholars from across the Americas, is aimed at helping us all better understand the world of global investment rules and to provide a platform for debate and campaigns for changing those rules for the better.

Together, the Democracy Center and IPS have just launched a new Web site for the Network. With information in both English and Spanish, the site is a new and valuable tool.

What can you find at http://www.justinvestment.org/?

Join the Debate! An electronic forum on the question, “Dispute Resolution Between Governments and Foreign Investors: Does the Current System Work?” with commentaries ranging from social movement groups to Chevron’s chief lawyer, and others.

Blogs from the Front Lines: Highlighting campaigns for justice in global investment rules from El Salvador, Argentina and more.

Reports and Analyses: In depth examinations of the key issues at the heart of the global debate over international investment rules.

Where are the Battles? A comprehensive list of the current cases around the world where corporations are using international tribunals to pressure governments to weaken environmental and public interest protections.

What’s Coming Next?

· Debate about how the current system should be changed.
· Interviews with government leaders trying to create an alternative system.
· Outreach across the Americas and beyond in the fight to make a more just system.

Join us today by visiting the NJGI Web site and by signing up for ongoing updates.

The NJGI is a joint effort by groups that have been working across Latin America, the U.S. and Canada to battle injustices in international investment agreements through which multinational corporations may sue governments for protecting their people.

Network for Justice in Global Investment Advisory Committee:

Alberto Arroyo, RMALC, México
Angel Ibarra, Unidad Ecológica Salvadoreña, El Salvador
Elyzabeth Peredo and Gisella Villamil, Fundación Solon, Bolivia
Sebastian Valdomir, REDES Amigos de las Tierras, Uruguay
Jeff Conant, Food & Water Watch, United States
Maude Barlow, Council of the Canadians, Canada
David Schneiderman, University of Toronto, Canada
William Waren, Forum on Democracy & Trade, United States
Sarah Anderson and Manuel Perez Rocha, Institute for Policy Studies, United States
Jim Shultz, The Democracy Center, Bolivia

Visit the new NJGI Web site today!

11 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh wow! Such luminaries knowledgeable of economics and finance.
It's like asking Morales the virtues of having a moustache

8:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

education does not yield intelligence or virtue., hence, the most highly "civilized european country Germany" plunged the world into madness of world war II with the support of many university professors and industrialists who supported Hitlers rise. A simple, uneducated llama herder to me has more respect than a Nazi who went to the University of Gottingen who supported fascism. How cheap and short sighted to think, that Germany would not be prevented from reaching its goals by the world. Well they did in the endl, it is the people who will decide who gets to be president, not some fat cat in mIAMI OR DC.

10:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

W

3:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're comparing chirimoyas with maracuyás. Those who supported Hitler supported a political movement, not any technical expertise in science or economics. As those who voted Hitler in, the bozos listed in the article have zero understanding about international finance or economics, have never owned a business, and are motivated by political ideology. Really. Just review their websites.

By the way, that "llama herder" (I prefer racist neofascist toppler of democratic governments) is a perfect example why one must at least study beyond high school. Education does matter.

8:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

. A simple, uneducated llama herder to me has more respect than a Nazi who went to the University of Gottingen who supported fascism.

************
perth adam
administration jobs in london

1:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Llamer herder... try uneducated narco-thug and pedophile.... that is a more accurate description

8:28 PM  
Blogger GirishLaikhra said...

Excellent site, keep up the good work. I read a lot of blogs on a daily basis and for the most part, people lack substance but, I just wanted to make a quick comment to say I’m glad I found your blog. Thanks,
A definite great read…
------
Girish
------
administration jobs in london--administration jobs in london

9:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

First Argument: We should not attempt to silence any opinion because that opinion may be true. To deny this possibility is to assume our own infallibility. We come to recognize our errors, our wrong opinions and ideas, and we rectify them through both experience and discussion. Therefore the freedom of open discussion must be allowed and encouraged.

Second Argument: We should not attempt to silence any opinion, even one we know to be false because it may be partially true. Through discussion this kernel of truth will have a chance to come to light.

Third Argument: Even if the received opinion is the whole truth on the matter, we must continue to debate and discuss it, otherwise we may come to hold it as prejudice, forgetting the rational grounds that exist in support of the opinion. In Mill's view, ethical doctrines and religious creeds are particularly susceptible to this.

Fourth Argument: This argument is very similar the the third one. The lack of a free discussion of opinions can result in those opinions simply hardening into dogmas. It becomes "a dead dogma, not a living truth." People are no longer aware of the grounds and justifications for the opinion, and no matter how true the opinion is, truth then becomes one more example of superstition.

9:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fifth argument: Don't copy and paste entire sections. Don't plagiarize and write down your opinion in your own words.

8:41 AM  
Blogger rose said...

Hello
Its really good to know all about Democracy Center's work.I think they are doing a great job.Thank you very much for sharing all this information with us.I also like this site very much.

nutrition sportive

7:45 AM  
Anonymous Global Investment said...

Nice post! I get a lot of information in your article. Keep up! Democracy Center's do a great work.

Global Investment

8:23 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home