Globalist Fallacies, Fictions and Facts: The MAI and Neo-classic Ideology

There is little evidence, historical or otherwise, to suggest that the needs of people and societies change greatly over time. Whilst acknowledging the benefits of the many recent technological innovations that are part of the contemporary milieu, I am reluctant to see such advances as sufficient rationale for the dismantling of the social contract between a government and its citizenry. The Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) highlights the move amongst developed countries to replace a national policy focus with a multilateral approach to global policy formulation that transcends the sovereignty of nation states. The purpose of this paper is to refute the assumptions underpinning multilateralist assertions that government has a diminishing role to play in the global society, and that national sovereignty, due to the increasingly important role of multilateral agreements and the global economy, is ‘a thing of the past’ (Arthur Asher, background briefing interview, Radio National, February 1, 1998). The basic premises that underpin the globalist argument1 for the diminishing role of government are that: • Economic growth increases jobs, prosperity, and freedom. • Free trade is an imperative for successful globalisation because financial sector performance - which depends on deregulation - is integral to global economic growth. • Information technology is revolutionising global trade and making globalisation inevitable. • Globalisation through deregulation, makes national boundaries meaningless, and therefore, national regulatory policies anachronistic. This paper compares the aforementioned axiomatic premises of globalisation to actual outcomes, events, and trends in the real world