The Big Problems in Obama's Big Trade Deals

[cali]

Framed as the biggest trade deal in the history of the world, trade representatives from the United States and the European Union meet in Washington this week to begin transatlantic trade talks. This is one of two major trade deals on President Barack Obama's docket this year.

The U.S.-EU Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) make up the majority of the world's global domestic product and are already plagued by oversight and accountability issues. The vulnerable communities that will be impacted are wide-ranging, spanning the environmental, labor and health sectors.

Discussions are happening fast and furiously. TTIP is already underway and the administration hopes to finish the TPP negotiations by October. Beyond the disembowelment of environmental and labor standards, there's a larger issue that remains out of the spotlight. It is the plan for extrajudicial "investor-state" tribunals as the final arbiter on trade disputes.

While it sounds innocuous enough, the operative word here is extrajudicial, and Democrats and Republicans should be concerned with the sovereignty issues. As the Huffington Post's Zach Carter explains, "Foreign corporations operating within the U.S. would be permitted to appeal key American legal or regulatory rulings to an international tribunal. That international tribunal would be granted the power to overrule American law." Furthermore, the tribunals can order taxpayer compensation for health and environmental policies that inhibit foreign investors' "expected future profits."

<snip>

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/07/08/us-eu-trade-agreement-needs-more-congressional-oversight

[octoberlib]

1. This is insane and undemocratic.

"Foreign corporations operating within the U.S. would be permitted to appeal key American legal or regulatory rulings to an international tribunal. That international tribunal would be granted the power to overrule American law." Furthermore, the tribunals can order taxpayer compensation for health and environmental policies that inhibit foreign investors' "expected future profits."

[NoOneMan]

2. Trade deals likely increase carbon emissions more than anything the admin has done to reduce them

The environmental shell game. More of the same. Of course, the article is more concerned with sovereignty, I find this impact even more disturbing

[Lasher]

3. US News citing Huffpo

That's a pretty good sign these concerns transcend traditional political boundaries.

[cali]

5. I noticed that too- and just that US News and World Report ran this article

From the article

Here is what it looks like in practice. Let's say a foreign company wants to do some business in California, but a state law fashioned in Sacramento prohibits or puts limits on parts of the firm's operations due to local environmental standards. (A company only needs to be operating in, not based in, a TPP country to use the regime.) In response, California, a leader nationally on environmental protection, sticks to its standards and enforces its laws.

The firm counters by taking California to one of these extrajudicial TPP trade "courts." Except in this case, the court "judges" are not part of a more reputable international tribunal based in an international institution on par with United Nations or the International Criminal Court. No, in this case, the judges are often private sector lawyers that "rotate between acting as ‘judges' and as advocates for the investors suing the governments." If the company wins the suit, the settlement, which is often in the tens of millions of dollars and occasionally in the billions of dollars, is paid by the "losing" country's taxpayers.

Keep in mind that companies won these lawsuits 70 percent of the time last year. Even when governments win, they have to shell out $8 million on average per case just to defend existing public interest policies. The three cases below are exemplary of what we're dealing with under current trade agreements and what we'll likely see more of with TPP and TTIP.

[Lasher]

9. A worldwide federation is being formed.

One where neither you nor I have any voice in how it's run or who is running it.

[msongs]

4. all that transparency talk was just corporatist BS to get himself elected nt

[AtomicKitten]

7. she, not he

The following totally ripped off from antigop:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101667554

link: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-10/hillary-clintons-business-legacy-at-the-state-department#p1

Hillary Clinton's Business Legacy at the State Department (leading part in drafting TPP)

On her 79th and probably last overseas trip as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton made a pit stop in the Czech Republic. One purpose of the 11-hour visit on Dec. 3, squeezed between NATO talks on the future of Afghanistan and the Syrian civil war, was to make a personal appeal to Czech Prime Minister Petr Nečas on behalf of Westinghouse Electric, which is vying for a contract to build a nuclear power plant there. The company is locked in a $10 billion bidding war with a state-owned Russian energy giant, and Clinton pressed the Czech officials about the wisdom of depending on Vladimir Putin’s Russia for something as essential as electricity. Westinghouse Chief Executive Danny Roderick, who’s still awaiting a decision, says Clinton’s intervention made a big impression on the Czechs: “I was proud that she was in the trenches with me.”

In four years as the nation’s top diplomat, Clinton, who is expected to step down this month, has made dozens of similar sales pitches on behalf of U.S. companies. In 2009 she toured a Boeing plant in Moscow and met with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to persuade state-owned Russian Technologies to buy 50 Boeing 737s instead of jets made by Airbus. That $3.7 billion deal was one of several large contracts Clinton helped clinch for Boeing (BA). In December 2011, Lockheed Martin (LMT) announced a $7.2 billion deal to upgrade Japan’s aging fighter jet fleet, beating out Eurofighter. Clinton advocated for the contract with her Japanese counterpart at the United Nations General Assembly. In February 2012, Space Systems/Loral, which builds communications satellites in Palo Alto, won a contract for equipment to create a national broadband network in Australia. Clinton met with former Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd several times to press for the deal. Last summer, Clinton’s undersecretary for economic growth, Robert Hormats, a former Goldman Sachs (GS) vice chair, took executives from Google (GOOG), MasterCard (MA), and Dow Chemical (DOW) to Myanmar to network with government officials, the first such meeting since sanctions against the country were lifted in 2012.

...
She’s pressed the case for U.S. business in Cambodia, Singapore, Vietnam, Indonesia, and other countries in China’s shadow. She’s also taken a leading part in drafting the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the free-trade pact that would give U.S. companies a leg up on their Chinese competitors.

[Lasher]

10. Hillary's policies are remarkably similar to Obama's

Back in 2008 I chose Obama because I don't like dynasties and I hoped he would inspire a new generation of Democrats. It came down to that because they are almost the same person on the issues. It's almost like we had little real choice at that point. Go figure.

[AtomicKitten]

11. It certainly seems that way.

Although I'd put the Clintons in the forefront in that regard: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023022353

Good lord I hope someone else is running in 2016.

[Maedhros]

19. I will never vote for Hillary Clinton.

No way, no how.

[AtomicKitten]

24. The Supreme Court gives me pause.

No doubt about it. That said, after the slapdash way she ran her campaign blowing through $100 million by the end of 2007, not planning beyond Super Tuesday, and trying to massage and redefine the rules to bend to her will, I've had about enough of the Clintons on the national stage.

[Maedhros]

25. We'll see if the rank and file has enough sense to select someone else in the primary.

Somehow I doubt it - they're leaning very "cult of personality" right now.

[reformist2]

6. No more trade deals until we fix our domestic wage/employment mess!

[djean111]

8. Oh, I bet the trade deals are done deals.

If/when these deals happen, I will likely just stop paying any attention at all to politics - not worth the stress, I do not see the point.
I especially don't want to read posts proclaiming how wonderful all this shit is. Or how no one had any choice, hands tied, whatever.

[bunnies]

12. ... the power to overrule American law

What?! WTF is that?! Is congress going to vote on this bullshit? WTF!!

[Buns_of_Fire]

13. Which brings up something that I've been wondering...

Let's say the transnational company "XYZ" wants to open a smelting operation in California.

XYZ's own projections show that the operation will dump 70 million gallons of mercury into California's waterways. California naturally says "sorry, no, our laws prohibit it."

XYZ promptly files suit with the TPP Ultra Supreme SuperDuper Court, saying "boo hoo hoo, they hurt our feelings by not letting us do anything we want, and we demand $10 billion in damages."

The TPP shills say "sure, you got it" and rule in favor of XYZ.

California says, "screw you, we ain't paying XYZ ANYTHING." (They'd probably phrase it a little better.)

So who enforces it? And how?

[bunnies]

14. Good question.

The article says that the "fine" gets payed by the taxpayers of the losing country. So, that would be us in your example. And even if California wins (a 30% chance, apparently) the case would cost us, the taxpayers, an average of 8 million dollars.

That being said I suppose the gov't would just write a check. Unfrigginbelievable isnt it?

[Buns_of_Fire]

16. And if the losing COUNTRY refuses to pay.....?

Yeah, the US would probably just cut a check to the winning company (or, just to cut out the middleman, directly to the company's CEO), while taking out an offset from everybody's hide.

I can't see how ANY country would agree to this crap.

Like you said, unfrigginbelievable.

[bunnies]

20. Right?

And why the hell should we PAY for not allowing a company to break our laws? This has to be the most absurd thing Ive heard in a long time. Sounds like the kind of thing that could bankrupt a country. Why the HELL would we agree to this... nevermind author such a thing?!

I havent been following this too closely but now I definitely will. This is absolutely infuriating. And I still cant tell whether or not congress will be voting on this or if its a done-deal just with Obamas signature.

One things for sure though. This is a deal-breaker for me as far as my votes go. This really pisses me off in a big way.

[Waiting For Everyman]

15. The Repubs used to care about losing our legal sovereignty

are they swallowing this? Or is it just that it's being hidden so well that the grass roots don't know about it? Or is it that greed trumps all?

It's clear that a big winner in this, among the usual suspects, would be the lawyers involved. You're right cali, this is toxic crap.

[totodeinhere]

18. Both parties have been swallowing this. There is substantial support among Democrats in

Congress for so-called free trade deals. And the Republicans are for it because their corporate masters tell them to.

[Waiting For Everyman]

23. Repubs were so incensed about the prospect of UN law taking precedence here

for instance. They have done lots of fund raising mailers on that kind of thing, repeatedly in the past. How do they get their grass roots to turn on a dime like that? I know Repubs are very servile, but they're also very ideologically rooted. I don't see how middle American R's are not up in arms about this -- especially since it's being done by Obama.

All I can say is The puppet masters must have stronger strings than I thought.

[totodeinhere]

17. This has been a bipartisan problem for a long time. Of course Bill Clinton

with substantial Republican support signed off on NAFTA, Shrub continued the trend and now Obama is in on the act.

Our best hope to reverse this trend might be an Elizabeth Warren presidency. Hillary Clinton on the other hand has been a supporter of trade deals and cannot be counted on in that regard.

[Cleita]

26. +1000. I support a Warren candidacy. It could be our only hope.

Hillary is even more to the right than Bill so you know she will support these deals.

[JAbuchan08]

21. Something tells me that American corporations will benefit the most

as many European countries seem to have stricter regulations on business than we. However it occurs to me that corporations could conceivably appeal to these "extra-judicial" tribunals even when the action they're pursuing is also illegal in their home country.

[cantbeserious]

22. Thank You For Sharing

eom

[Laelth]

27. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

[forestpath]

28. Thanks to Obama, corporate takeover of the U.S. will be complete. I guess that's what he

meant by "change."

[Enthusiast]

29. Mr. President, we don't want no fucking TPP!

That's why it isn't being talked about on TV or polled. Because trade deals are wildly unpopular with the people. I guess democracy means very little today.