Idea on how to use the tools of globalisation against the globalisers...Chapter 11 for the people.

Dear Fellow Opponents of Globalization:

It now appears that the FTAA meetings to be held in Quebec City in April
will be designed to provide the forces of globalization yet another bigger
and more devastating tool with which to further bludgeon the people of this
planet. Much effort is now being devoted to fighting back and many creative
strategies are emerging.

In the following, we want to suggest a totally outrageous strategy that
might make use of the same tools that the NAFTA/FTAA/globalizers hope to use
on us.

In a recent meeting, Ellen Gould (trade researcher) described how a private
individual in the US created a company based in his garage and proceeded to
sue the British Columbia government under NAFTA for his 'rights' to export
water from BC.

What if we used the same tactic, not to make a profit (but see below), but
to create a reductio ad absurdum case (totally ridiculous) that would
nevertheless fall within the guidelines of NAFTA as an acceptable challenge.

For example, if we were to create a BC corporation and request the ability
to privatize some US national icon, one that has a business component.
Ideas that come to mind are access to Mt. Rushmore, the White House, etc.,
anything that is thought of as a national asset/treasure that nonetheless
makes money and falls within investor-state NAFTA guidelines for challenge.

Similarly, those with US citizenship could easily open a dummy corporation
and sue the Canadian government for something equally absurd, again within
NAFTA guidelines. (This is an equal-opportunity idea!)

We would argue that national/state government subsidies or preferential
treatment of such operations create unfair barriers to trade or
privatization (by us). As a different tactic, perhaps we could sue on the
basis that *loosening* pollution or labour laws affected the profit on
something formerly "clean" or made more ethically (water, food, etc.).

The question is whether we could identify a sufficiently large and
ridiculous target that would fall within NAFTA guidelines. If so, one of
two things would happen: there would be press coverage of these ridiculous
lawsuits that would draw attention to the insanity of the trade deals (this,
in formal logic, is the advantage of reductio ad absurdum arguments);
alternatively, like Ethyl Corp. we might even win a trade settlement.

If so, the funds could be directed to groups and actions opposing
globalization, etc.

A crazy idea perhaps, but as a great scientist once wrote, "is it crazy
enough to have a chance of working?". We'd welcome feedback. Also, if
anyone thinks there is any merit in this, perhaps some legal advice would be
helpful.

Thanks.