Australia has already signed another secretive international agreement called the Financial Services Industry Agreement (FSIA) that effectively turns over control of our nation's finances to international money lenders and dealers.
The WTO has been described by Korten as: "... a global parliament composed of unelected bureaucrats with the power to amend its own charter without referral to national legislative bodies."
Since the FSIA has been signed over 40,000 Australian employees in the finance industry have lost their jobs and several rural bank branches have been closed - all put down to "rationalisation" but clearly timed after Australia signed the FSIA.
The fifth
protocol
Payback to Treasury Chief for destroying Australia's
financial sovereignty - 6th July 1999
Australia has committed to allow 100 percent foreign ownerhip of Australian banks
Download a "wpf" file on Australia's Schedule of Specific Commitments under FSIA - posted by the WTO for the first time in March 1998
28 July 1995: WTO FINANCIAL SERVICES AGREEMENT PROVIDES NEW EXPORT OPPORTUNITIES FOR AUSTRALIA - Press release by Bob McMullan (ALP's Minister for Trade in 1995)
Non-attributable summary of the main improvements in the new financial services commitments
SUCCESSFUL CONCLUSION OF THE WTO'S FINANCIAL SERVICES NEGOTIATIONS
Briefing on the Financial Services Agreement (FSA) or General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).
1995 Financial Services Agreement (between Japan and the US)
WHAT THE WTO FINANCIAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WILL DO TO YOUR TAXES
World Trade Orgainsation press releases on the FSIA:
LIBERALIZING FINANCIAL SERVICES HELPS ECONOMIES WITHOUT COMPROMISING THEIR RIGHT TO REGULATE (GATS). - September 1997
STATEMENT BY WTO DIRECTOR-GENERAL RENATO RUGGIERO ON THE AGREEMENT ON FINANCIAL SERVICES (GATS). - December 1997
The big four Australian banks already have foreigners as their major shareholders:
| National Australia Bank | Shareholding | Westpac | Shareholding | ANZ | Shareholding | Commonwealth Bank | Shareholding |
| ANZ Nominees | 6.6% | Aust Mutual Provident Society | 11.65% | Chase Manhattan Nominees | 11.6% | ANZ Nominees Ltd | 7.41% |
| Westpac Nominees | 5.8% | Lend Lease Custodians P/L | 9.1% | Westpac Custodian Nominees Ltd | 8.2% | National Nominees Ltd | 4.84% |
| Chase Manhattan Nominees | 5.7% | Westpac Custodians P/L | 8.1% | ANZ Nominees Ltd | 5.1% | Westpac Custodian Nominees Ltd | 3.6% |
| National Nominees Ltd | 5.5% | Chase Manhattan Nominees | 8.1% | National Nominees Ltd | 4.4% | Citicorp Nominees Pty Ltd | 3.3% |
| Perpetual Trustee Aust. Group | 2.8% | National Nominees Ltd | 4.9% | MLC Life Ltd | 4.4% | Chase Manhattan Nominees Ltd | 2.6% |
| Permanent Trustees Group | 2.8% | ANZ Nominees Ltd | 4.9% | Australian Mutual Provident Society | 2.2% | State Authority Super | 2.0% |
Chase Manhattan run by Rockefeller interests.
Nominee companies are defined as companies established by a bank to hold legal title to stocks and shares on behalf of its owners. A major function is to enable the transfer of funds for overseas interests. A nominee company enables investment of capital by large and mainly foreign investors, and the payment of dividends to them.
Financial Review 17th June 1997 (article on Australian Banks):
"There is no shortage of money or resources
being lavished on promoting banks to their customers. Yet the "banks are
bastards" image not only persists but is fuelled with each interest rate
change... While they spend about Au$150 million annually on advertising,
their
own
research reveals that consumers are not just cynical about the banks but
can barely distinguish one from the other."
The Financial Services Industry Agreement, dated December 12, 1997, was signed in Geneva by 70 members of the World Trade Organizantion.
In Toronto, where I live, some government Members of Parliament have either denied the treaty's existence or say that they cannot find out anything about it. The Canadian government may be keeping its' own members ignorant of this "agreement," as it did with the MAI.
This "agreement" may allow the sale of Canadian banks, insurance companies etc to foreign investors. People fear that the Bank of Canada may also be sold to private investors.
Source: The FSIA was reported on in the Toronto Globe and Mail on December 15.
By Heather Scoffield
OTTAWA -- Canadian banks, insurance companies and securities firms have gained greater access to international markets under a ground-breaking worldwide agreement signed on the weekend in Geneva.
The Globe report did not name the "agreement" that it was repoting on.
There was also an editorial on the FSIA in the Toronto Globe and Mail on Tuesday, December 16, 1997, which provided even less information.
A news report from the USA BY AVIVA FREUDMANN & JOHN MAGGS JOURNAL OF COMMERCE STAFF indicated:
The lone voices of dissent came from a handful of delegates from developing countries, whose financial-services industries cannot compete outside their domestic markets and will face stiff competition on their home turfs beginning in March 1999.
Egypt's ambassador in Geneva, Mounir Zahran, said of the pact, "In fact, it's one-way traffic. They will come here, but we won't be able to go there."
This thing, (the FSIA) whatever it is, has been signed and goes into effect in March 1999. We need to find out what it is, now.
You may want to look at:
http://news.flora.org/flora.mai-not/1409
http://news.flora.org/flora.mai-not/1414
http://news.flora.org/flora.mai-not/1426
http://news.flora.org/flora.mai-not/1466
http://news.flora.org/flora.mai-not/1482
http://news.flora.org/flora.mai-not/1487
Please let me know the URL of any other documents about the FSIA.
We need to ask for "Australia's final offer" to the World Trade Organization's Financial Services negotiations, that forms part of the Financial Services Agreement (FSA) signed on Friday, 12 December, 1997.
The Financial Services Agreement is probably a public document as it is no longer under negotiation.
Canadians can obtain a copy of Canada's final offer from Frank Swedlove, Director, Financial Sector Division, Department of Finance, L'Esplanade Laurier, 140 O'Connor St., Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0G5, Tel: (613) 992-4679; Fax: (613) 943-8436.
The email address for Jim Peterson, Secretary of State of International Financial
Institutions (the Minister most directly responsible), is
The rumour is that the government intends to pass enabling legislation
by the end of February and nobody has been allowed to see the agreement
yet.
The World Trade Organization issued a summary of the Financial
Services Negotiations on Monday December 15, 1997 that lists 7 categories
of "Commitments" covered by the FSA and lists the countries that signed each
"Commitment." Guess who signed up for everything? Not the USA!
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION (WTO) FINANCIAL SERVICES NEGOTIATIONS
Suzanne Gregory, editor of AVID - Action Vancouver Island for Democracy,
has put together the following very succinct statement on the unconstitutionality
of the MAI and the FSA.
It will be of help to some of you who are trying to explain that matter.
Also, if you have knowledge of Bill C47 (1994),
please notify us.
Because the MAI and FSIA are unconstitutional, the job of
Parliament is not merely to seek certain reservations (which would in any
case be subject to interpretation by international tribunals). The duty of
Parliament is to refuse to pass any measure which violates the Constitution.
Period.
There are two areas of unconstitutionality:
As this struggle goes on, we also need to be mindful that the MAI and FSIA
will be attached to C-47 (1994), the World
MORE ON WHY THE FINANCIAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
The WTO web site provides
the following, apparently incomplete, information
QUOTE: Australia -
Making significant improvements in banking and other financial services:
- Eliminates an MFN exemption based on reciprocity
requirements for membership in the Australian Stock Exchange;
- Eliminates a prohibition on the acquisition of control
of any of Australia's four main banks. Also eliminates a measure which prohibits
banks (resident or non-resident) from holding shares in the Commonwealth
Bank of Australia and other entities from holding more than five percent
of its issued share capital;
- Eliminates restrictions placed on share ownership
of authorized money market dealers by foreign and domestic banks, and
restrictions imposed on relationships and dealings between authorized dealers
and related banks;
- Relaxes the prohibition on foreign banks located
overseas from raising funds in Australia, and allows such banks to raise
funds in Australia through the issue of debt securities, subject to conditions
;
- Removes an entry relating to the reservations by
State and Territory governments of the right to prohibit foreign control
of State-owned or controlled banks.
The following is informal background for information purposes only. It should
not be cited or quoted as an official document of the WTO.
- A total of 56 offers (representing 70 countries) were submitted by the
negotiating deadline of 12 December 1997 and annexed to the Fifth Protocol
to the GATS.
- Five countries (Bolivia, Costa Rica, Mauritius, Senegal and Sri Lanka)
made offers in financial services for the first time. At present, 97 WTO
Members have commitments in financial services under the GATS. This number
will increase to 102 Members with the entry into force of the Fifth Protocol
to the GATS.
- India and the United States have withdrawn their broad MFN exemptions based
on reciprocity. Mauritius has limited the scope of its MFN exemption to services
not listed in its Schedule of Specific Commitments. Venezuela has reduced
the scope of its MFN exemption by removing capital market services from the
coverage. Hungary has limited the applicability of its MFN exemption by removing
a discretionary licensing requirement. The Philippines has reduced the scope
of its MFN exemption based on reciprocity in commercial banking by excluding
the expansion of existing operations from the scope, leaving only the
establishment of new commercial presence.
- In addition to the 57 countries with existing commitments in the provision
and transfer of financial information, Costa Rica, Honduras, Israel, Jamaica,
Malta, Mauritius, Romania and Sri Lanka (8 countries) have extended the coverage
of their commitments to these services.
_______ Canada - Revising its 1995 commitments:
- Undertakes to modify its Schedule by 30 June 1999 to incorporate the results
of the implementation of a new foreign bank entry regime which will allow
foreign banks to branch directly into
Canada;
- Eliminates a requirement to gain Ministerial approval for foreign bank
subsidiaries to open more than one branch.
PRESS/86 15 December 1997
..............................................................................
Total number of commitments 102
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION (WTO) FINANCIAL SERVICES NEGOTIATIONS MARKET
ACCESS AND SCOPE OF INSURANCE COMMITMENTS
Total number of commitments 102
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION (WTO) FINANCIAL SERVICES NEGOTIATIONS CROSS-BORDER
INSURANCE ACTIVITIES
Total number of commitments 102
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION (WTO) FINANCIAL SERVICES NEGOTIATIONS
BANKING/SECURITIES COMMITMENTS
Total number of commitments 102
You will notice (page 4) that Canada, but not the USA, appears to have committed
to "100 percent ownership of
banks"
I, and others, assume that that means that Canada commits to allowing 100
percent foreign ownership of Canadian banks.
The name of this agreement is several, incl. Financial Services Agreement
(FSA), Financial Services Industry Agreement
(FSIA), Agreement on Fin. Services
(AFS), Gen. Agreement on Trade in Services
(GATS), and in some cases government has
put forward press releases without any formal name! Makes you wonder, doesn't
it?
This agreement is more virulent than even the MAI, because it is a
financial, rather than just a trade agreement. And if you want to find out
how a system works, the best rule of thumb is 'follow the money'. Further,
it should be noted that all these agreements are under the World Trade
Organisation's rules that require member states "to ensure the
conformity of its laws, regulations and administrative procedures with
its obligations as provided in the annexed Agreements." (WTO Paragraph
4 of Article XVI). The "annexed Agreements" include all the substantive
multilateral agreements relating to trade in goods and services and
agreement on intellectual property rights. This provision thus obligates
each member country to revise any national or sub-national laws in
conflict with the GATT/WTO. (Korten, 1995).
Indeed, the WTO has been described by Korten as:
"... a global parliament composed of
unelected bureaucrats with the power to amend its
own charter without referral to national legislative
bodies."
This agreement was 'initialed' by the Federal Government on 12th December
'97. It was, in Geneva. It is to be confirmed within weeks. This agreement
doesn't even have a six month or a 'five plus fifteen year' 'get-out' clause
like MAI. We have the documentation showing that the Australian government
is willing to sign this as a 'permanent' agreement. To quote their own
documentation: "To put it another way, the Fifth Protocol will never
expire." That is not only signing powers away to a financial dictatorship,
but is also in total conflict with the Australian Constitution which states
clearly that no parliament can bind any future parliament. And to make the
point clear, that constitutional law
The World Trade Organization Financial Services Industry Agreement (FSIA)
affects our banking sector the most, as our insurance, trust, and investment
brokerage sectors are already wide open to foreign financial institution
entry and ownership, mainly as a result of changes to legislation governing
these sectors enacted in 1993-94.
The Agreement as a whole is not yet available, mainly because it is actually
a series of agreements or positions of the 70 or so countries that signed
the Agreement. Each country has lowered the barriers to foreign financial
institutions entering its financial services industry in different ways,
because every country had different barriers in place. A compilation of these
agreements has not yet been completed, and it usually takes two or three
months after any international agreement to complete such a compilation.
However, you can obtain a copy of Canada's final offer to the other countries
involved, which is essentially the agreement that Canada signed. Canada's
final offer can be obtained from Frank Swedlove, Director, Financial Sector
Division, Department of Finance, L'Esplanade Laurier, 140 O'Connor St., Ottawa,
Ontario, K1A 0G5, Tel: (613) 992-4679; Fax: (613) 943-8436. I do not have
Frank Swedlove's email address, however the email address for Jim Peterson,
Secretary of State of International Financial Institutions (the Minister
most directly responsible), is <peterj@parl.gc.ca> and his fax: (613)
995-2355.
With regard to the commitments Canada made, they did not go further than
the changes to financial institution legislation that were proposed in a
Department of Finance discussion paper published late September 1997. Generally
the commitments are as follows:
What do these changes mean? (Read Australia
for Canada)
First of all, let me make it clear that the Canadian Community Reinvestment
Coalition (CCRC) has not taken a position on the Agreement except to call
for full, meaningful public consultation before the Agreement is signed and
implemented, and to point out some of the potential negative impacts of the
Agreement. The CCRC is a project of Democracy Watch's and is made up of 65
small business, community economic development, labour, anti-poverty and
consumer groups from nine provinces and the Northwest Territories. Just for
clarification, I am the Chairperson and Spokesperson for the CCRC.
According to the CCRC's analysis, not much will visibly change in terms of
the financial institutions you see on street corners across the country as
a result of the WTO Agreement. Why not? Because 80% of businesses (all small
businesses) and 90% of individuals in Canada have less than $150,000 on deposit
in a bank. Therefore, foreign banks will only be able to open branches to
serve 20% of businesses and 10% of individuals, in other words only a small
portion of the market. As a result, it is unlikely that many foreign banks
will set up branches in Canada, and likely only in urban centres or other
locations where there is a concentration of individuals or businesses with
more than $150,000 on deposit in banks.
Another reason discouraging foreign banks from setting up branches here is
that most big businesses and wealthy individuals can already deal with foreign
banks if they want to, either through subsidiaries in other countries, or
by simply opening accounts in other countries. However, the changes do have
serious implications concerning the costs of banking, especially for small
businesses and low and moderate-income individuals.
Why? Well, foreign banks will be competing with Canada's
banks for the deposits of big businesses and wealthy individuals, and the
competition will likely lead to lower prices for these businesses and
individuals. Therefore, Canada's banks will lose revenue from the sale of
products and services to these customers, both because foreign banks will
take away some of the business, and also because prices will likely be lower.
How will Canada's banks replace this lost revenue. It is likely that the
banks will increase their prices for all the customers who cannot deal with
foreign banks because they have less than $150,000 on deposit with a bank.
In other words, the 80% of businesses and 90% of individuals in Canada
with less than $150,000 on deposit in a bank will face higher service charges
as a result of these changes.
The only possible way that the changes will
not have such a discriminatory effect on small businesses and low and
moderate-income individuals, is if "deposit" is very broadly defined to include
various investments or credit extended to customers. However, even if the
definition is broad, a majority of customers will still not be able to deal
with a foreign bank.
Privatisation of state and national banks:
Concerning the rumour that these changes will lead to the
privatization of the Bank of Canada,
(the Commonwealth Bank of Australia has been privatised with foreigners
being the major shareholders) I have no information that would lead me
to believe this, and I do not know how or where this rumour started. How
will these changes be implemented? As mentioned above, the Department of
Finance released a discussion paper on changes to foreign bank entry at the
end of September 1997, with consultation until the end of October 1997. Because
the proposals in the discussion paper were essentially the same as those
in the final WTO Agreement, when Parliament opens again on February 2, 1998,
it is likely that a resolution to ratify the Agreement, and legislation to
make changes to Canada's financial institution laws in accordance with the
Agreement, will be introduced early in the Parliamentary session.
How should you respond to these proposed changes? First, send a letter to
your Member of Parliament, Finance Minister Paul Martin (email:
<pmartin@fin.gc.ca> or fax: (613) 995-5176), Secretary of State for
Financial Institutions Jim Peterson (email: <peterj@parl.gc.ca> or
fax: (613) 995-2355), In your letter, as the CCRC has been doing for the
past seven months, call for full, meaningful public consultation on the changes,
both to ensure that there are not other, hidden changes being made, and also
to explore fully the implications of the changes.
Tell your MP and the Ministers that a two-tier banking
system in Canada is not acceptable (in which big businesses and wealthy
individuals have access to foreign bank services but small businesses and
low and moderate-income Canadians do not), although if you are not in favour
of foreign banks being active in the Canadian market at all, your message
will obviously be different.
In addition, make it clear to your MP and the Ministers that these changes
do not mean that Canada's big banks will suddenly face severe competition
from foreign banks, since Canada's market has only been opened up in a very
limited way (ie. only allowing foreign banks to take deposits of over
$150,000). It is important to let elected officials know that you don't
believe that our market is now wide open. Why? Because Canada's big banks
are already using the spectre of foreign competition (even though it hardly
exists right now) in their arguments that they should be allowed to merge,
and sell insurance and auto leases directly from their branches.
When these changes are made, Canada's banks will use the argument even more,
even though foreign competition will likely not increase very much at all.
In other words, Canada's big banks are still protected, as they have been
for 30 years, from foreign competition. And the only real reason they want
to get bigger is because they want to be bigger, not because they need to
be bigger to serve their customers or survive and thrive as businesses. In
addition, in your letter to elected officials, make it clear that the federal
government should enact requirements for all banks, foreign or domestic,
to disclose details about their lending, investment and service to customers.
Such requirements have existed in the U.S. for over 20 years, and before
any bank can expand (e.g. open a branch or ABM) or merge or take over another
bank, regulators review the disclosed information and grade the bank's
performance. (Australia does not have this safeguard in place).
If the bank receives a failing grade (ie. is discriminating against some
customers or generally not serving its customers well) then the application
to expand can be denied. Such disclosure and review requirements would allow
Canadians to hold banks operating in Canada accountable to high standards
of service across the country. Another key accountability change is the creation
of a financial consumer organization in Canada. For more information, please
view the CCRC's home page at the following address:
<http://www.cancrc.org> (we are
still making a few changes to the page, but it is more or less completed).
The page contains the CCRC's five position papers on the issues of the banking
ombudsmen, access to basic banking services, disclosure of business lending
statistics, the creation of a financial consumer organization in Canada,
and the enactment of an overall accountability system for banks and other
financial institutions in Canada. You can also contact me at the address
below with any questions or if you would like to receive a full information
package by mail concerning Democracy Watch's and the CCRC's work on banking
issues and other democratic reform issues in Canada. I hope you find this
information interesting and useful, and I hope you can join the CCRC in working
for bank accountability in Canada. Sincerely, Duff Conacher, Coordinator
Democracy Watch P.O. Box 821, Stn. B Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5P9 Tel: (613) 241-5179
Fax: (613) 241-4758 email: dwatch@web.net Internet:
http://www.dwatch.ca/dwatch
Preamble On November 10th, Mr Bill Dymond, Chief Negotiator for Canada for
the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), assured us in a meeting in
Nanaimo that openess and transparency for the public was the order of the
day in the negotiations around the MAI over the last two years. He had little
to say when it was pointed out that as recently as May 11 of this year, on
Cross Country Check-Up, that Cabinet Minister Hedy Fry, when asked by Connie
Fogal about the MAI, Fry said: "There is no such agreement being negotiated."
We have subsequently been assured by senior civil servants that the Minister
was not lying, but simply didn't know. We discovered that only two cabinet
ministers and the prime minister knew about this nation impacting issue.
Now it has just surfaced that in December this year, Canada is about to sign
yet another secretive international agreement called the Financial Services
Industry Agreement (FSIA) that will effectively turn over control of our
nation's finances to international money lenders and dealers. Laundering
questionable money is the lucrative trade of some of these people. Under
the auspices of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in Geneva, this agreement
will permit any financial institution in the world to come to Canada (and
of course other countries) and to any community, and buy, sell and trade
financial institutions at will.
The implications for Canadian sovereignty are worrisome, to say the least.
A nation's sovereignty is determined by its control of its money and its
central bank. You know which country you are in when you see the money they
use. Under 'globalisation' rules, our national bank, the Bank of Canada,
will be subject to privatisation. It will then be subject to sell-off to
a high bidder, most likely the privately-owned Federal Reserve Bank of the
USA.
Once in their control they can simply declare that the U.S. dollar will be
our currency. 'Manifest Destiny' is the ideology of the American establishment
in which they believe they have the right to own and control whatever country
they wish, and extract their resources. They have never really feared Communism.
What they have feared and do fear is insubordination and independence, even
among their own people, who are our friends.
We work with Americans to stop the MAI, and to roll back NAFTA and the FTA.
Canada, with its abundant water and other resources, is a prime candidate
for 'access'.
Why bother with an armed invasion, which would be unacceptable to other nations,
when a financial invasion will achieve the same end? Do we want to remain
a nation or become a dependency like Puerto Rico? It is a fact of history
that minority elites have manoeuvered to try and take control of people's
lives, in order to exploit them. There is nothing to suggest that it is any
different in our century.
The struggles of the past can be wiped out with the stroke of a pen. I don't
want that to happen, and I hope you don't either. Following, is a report
by Duff Conacher about the up-to-now secret WTO Financial Services Industry
Agreement (FSIA) being negotiated in Geneva, and designated to be signed
in December by the Liberal Government without any parliamentary debate or
public referendum on this nation-deleting agreement.
If you love this country, then come out and help. Perhaps we can get rid
of the charletons in Ottawa who are selling us out in the name of
'globalisation'.
Unconstitutionality of MAI and the FSA
Trade
Organization Agreement Implementation Act. If any of you has a researched
legal opinion on the constitutionality of that Act, we would greatly appreciate
hearing from you.
The World Trade Organisation on
Australian and the FSIA:
Non-attributable summary of the main improvements
in the new financial services commitments
SUCCESSFUL CONCLUSION OF THE WTO'S FINANCIAL SERVICES
NEGOTIATIONS
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION (WTO) FINANCIAL SERVICES NEGOTIATIONS FOREIGN
INVESTMENT IN INSURANCE
(This chart lists the 70 countries with improved commitments as of December
12)
(This chart lists the 70 countries with improved commitments as of December
12)
(This chart lists the 70 countries with improved commitments as of December
12)
(This chart lists the 70 countries with improved commitments as of December
12)
Briefing on the Financial Services Agreement (FSA)
or General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).
applies
to 'good' legislation as well as 'bad'. If parliament wishes to bind future
parliaments by signing 'permanent' agreements, that can only happen with
a reviewed and revised constitution.
Briefing on the Financial Services Agreement (FSA)
or General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) by Duff Conacher of the
Canadian Community Reinvestment Coalition (CCRC).