General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDo you like the idea of international organizations being able to overrule our own laws?
http://billingsgazette.com/news/government-and-politics/wto-court-rejects-u-s-food-labeling-law-says-it/article_5213a3a4-6007-5a9e-b279-420658d8e995.htmlThanks to "free trade" it's happening now.
Go TPP!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)It's happening right now.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)
moondust
(19,979 posts)And offshore drilling?
And using toxic herbicides?
And dumping coal ash into the river?
When profits rule the world...
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)
msongs
(67,405 posts)NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)
newfie11
(8,159 posts)Hope they take him to The Hague. OTOH I don't care what they do with the idiot.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)How do charges of Crimes against humanity compare to a Corporation suing because our laws forbade them from polluting our rivers for profit?
dumbcat
(2,120 posts)Possibly the same corporations and oligarchs that run most of the countries in the world? What would lead you to believe an International Court would be "fair"?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)their own environment? Which 'crime' in your view, is more serious to the point where it should be taken to court?
Btw, I'm for each individual nation prosecuting their own War Criminals. See South American nations, eg, who appear to be handling these war criminals themselves.
I see you are attempting to distract from the seriousness of Corporate Tribunals weakening the laws of sovereign nations. So let's get that out of the way. WE should prosecute our own war criminals. And WE should not allow any Foreign Corporation weaken our LAWS by signing away our right to protect those laws from predatory Multi National Corporate entities.
dumbcat
(2,120 posts)and don't see where that is relevant to my comment.
Where, exactly, did you see me do that? I made no statements, I asked questions pertaining to the establishment of International Courts, which was an issue in this thread.
Are you sure you don't have me confused with someone else?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)non-biased judges and attorneys, on an International Level, then I did misunderstand you.
And if that is your question, it would be better than Corporate Tribunals with Corporate Judges and Attorneys.
Even better would be that any such lawsuits be conducted in the regular courts of the countries where they are operating. Under the judicial system of those countries.
But they would LOSE in such courts. No American court is going decide that our laws should not be abided by. So they thought up this scheme to do an end run around our legal system.
And no Democrat or Republican for that matter should be willing to enable this scam.
dumbcat
(2,120 posts)but apparently not.
We do not seem to have the basis for a dialogue, so have a good day.
pampango
(24,692 posts)The right worries endlessly about the influence of 'international organizations' on the US. They view the UN and the WTO as manifestations of a liberal, one-world-government. They oppose the Law of the Sea treaty, the UN Disability Rights treaty, the UN Arms Trade Control treaty and now the Child Support Enforcement treaty - all because they would be enforced by entities outside the control of the almighty US government (which the right does not really trust anyway).
None of these have much to do with 'free trade' except perhaps the WTO which really enforces regulated low-tariff trade. "Free trade" is what exists between American states. Michigan is free to protect its consumers against bad meat (and should do so along with the US government) but it has to apply the same rules to both Michigan-raised beef and Ohio-raised beef. The Michigan consumer wants to be sure their beef is safe to eat. Whether it comes from one side of the Michigan-Ohio border or the other is not as important.
Does this make the 'national sovereigntists' in Canada and Mexico froth at the mouth, "Why does our beef have to meet American standards when it is not American beef?" Probably. But as long as the standards we use are the same for beef no matter where it comes from, there is nothing they can do about it.
cali
(114,904 posts)now consumers won't even be able to find out where their meat came from. What happens when Vietnam, brings the same complaint regarding shrimp, under the TPP? I won't buy shrimp from Vietnam. In fact, I won't buy any shrimp but U.S.
Consumer Reports: Tests Find 60 Percent of Frozen Shrimp Contaminated With Bacteria
<snip>
Results from testing for bacterial and drug residues showed that 16 percent of cooked, ready-to-eat shrimp contained several bacteria, including Vibrio and E. coli. Antibiotics were found in 11 samples of raw, imported, farmed shrimp, and MRSA was detected in 7 raw shrimp samples.
Nearly all (94 percent) of the raw shrimp available in the U.S. are farmed in Asian countries, including Thailand, Vietnam, India and Indonesia. Because of the crowded and polluted conditions that typically exist in fish-farming ponds or tanks, the shrimp are often given antibiotics such as tetracyclines, which is illegal in shrimp imported to the U.S.
Specifically, the CR report noted that “of 205 raw farmed imported shrimp samples, 11 samples from Vietnam, Thailand, and Bangladesh tested positive for one or more antibiotics: Nine tested positive for oxytetracycline, three contained enrofloxacin, and two contained sulfa antibiotics.”
Bacterial contamination on shrimp poses a problem because, even though cooking the shrimp should kill any bacteria, the report findings indicate that more needs to be done to prevent such contamination in the first place.
<snip>
Freezing may also be a good step in controlling Vibrio, she noted, adding, “but 28 percent of our frozen samples had Vibrio.”
“Vibrio illnesses are on the rise, according to [the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], so Vibrio control is one of the things our federal agencies are concerned about,” Rangan said.
Antibiotic residues in shrimp are a concern because they’re illegal under U.S. food safety laws and because they indicate differing food safety standards between the U.S. and exporting countries, she noted.
<snip>
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2015/04/consumer-reports-tests-find-60-percent-of-frozen-shrimp-contaminated-with-bacteria/#.VVsg6PBChOw
And this is just ONE example.
Why you argue every criticism of a trade deal and then say you haven't made up your mind about the tpp is beyond me. Looks like you have- in the face of what is now, a large body of evidence that this is a bad trade agreement on level after level.
pampango
(24,692 posts)The USDA and all other regulatory bodies should be well-funded and their regulations should apply to all goods and services in the US regardless of where they come from. Regulations should be applied on a nondiscriminatory basis without regard to race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or national origin of the goods and services.
If shrimp from Vietnam, or Arkansas for that matter, have a higher incidence of bacterial contamination they should be subject to more scrutiny than other sources. If Vietnam or Arkansas cannot bring their shrimp up to standard, they don't get sold here. It would not be because either is incapable of growing shrimp the right way. It would be because they choose not to do so. It would not be because we are discriminating against Vietnamese or Arkansan shrimp. We are 'discriminating' against substandard shrimp.
If the argument is "As long as USDA is underfunded, we cannot police the production and import of shrimp anywhere", that is more an argument against republican control of agency funding than anything else.
The purpose of the USDA is to ensure that food is safe to consume not to determine where it came from.
Since the complaint that is the subject of the OP was handled by the WTO, Vietnam (which is member of the WTO just like the US, Canada and Mexico) could file complaint right now if it wanted to do so. It does not have to wait for the TPP any more than Canada and Mexico waited for the TPP to file this complaint.
randome
(34,845 posts)
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]
cali
(114,904 posts). the argument is I (and many others) don't want to purchase a potentially tainted food product. Shrimp from the U.S. does not have the same contamination issues. It's all very well to say blithely, no problem, just fund and reconfigure how inspections are done. It is not going to happen in the near future. PERIOD.
And yes, I want to know where my food comes from- not just if it's safe.
And Vietnam has a complaint- right not.
Oh, and there will be more under the TPP.
What nonsense.
Koinos
(2,792 posts)I really want to know where my food is coming from.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Multi National Corporations to sue in Corporate Tribunals, run by Corporate Lawyers and Judges, the American People whenever our laws prevent them from Polluting our Rivers and Streams claiming We the American People are damaging their profit margins.
And they are SUCCEEDING in countries that are part of these agreements. After losing millions of dollars to these arm twisting, mafial like tactics, countries RELAX their laws in order to avoid losing any more money to these vicious corporate entities.
HOWEVER, the American people have NO RIGHT to sue THEM for any damage to THEIR country caused by these Corporations.
This is called signing away a country's sovereignty, little by little until the entire world is run by polluting, profiteering Giant Corporations.
WE SHOULD GET TO VOTE on these matters. But it looks like we've already lost our right to decide what is in our best interests.
Not ONLY should the TPP go down in flames.
All other Int Trade Agreements should be reviewed and any parts of them that sign away the rights of the American people to protect their Environment from invading Corporations, or to protect their Internet Freedom or any other laws. should be revoked as fast as possible.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)rather than doing it slowly by signing these trade agreements.
And btw, why is it that Multi Nationals can sue the American people for daring to have laws protecting their workers, their environment, their Internet Freedom etc, but the American people CANNOT sue these foreign entities for DESTROYING our environment, for abusing workers' rights etc.??
You clearly have no problem with any of this. Is it because this time it is a democrat who is negotiating this? Serious question, Bush tried it in 2007 and was defeated, mostly by Democrats and maybe I am not remembering correctly, but I did not meet a single Dem on any Dem forum who argued FOR Bush trying to Fast Track his Trade agreement.
And please don't say 'I trust Obama, I didn't trust Bush' because the fact is Obama as McConnell pointed out when explaining his sudden support for Obama, is not fighting for this so that HE will have these powers.
It is a six year agreement so Obama will have the powers for probably less than one year, then they will be passed on to the next President. Who could be Jeb Bush negotiating trade agreements on our behalf.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Koinos
(2,792 posts)It is good for business. Trading weapons is profitable.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)The trouble is nobody cares what I like. (Couldn't get that link to open, maybe Montana is all asleep yet, will try later)..
This is a done deal. I saw the writing on the wall when Hatch had the trade committee on over a week ago.
He patiently listened while the Dems aired their dissatisfaction, as tho he knew they had to do it to "fool" their constituents into thinking they were working for them.
When they agreed the very next day that it would pass, and was put to a vote 2 days later, it became very clear that TPP was going to pass whether I liked it or not.
The only thing I'm hoping that there is some good in the agreement that'll help some people. We'll soon find out.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Originally the motivation was escaping costly protracted disputes in court, it's become a major feature of implicit in many consumer purchases.
The inclusion of ISDS in these trade agreements is an upward integration of ADR from typical contract law into international agreements.
It's present in free-trade agreement because the thinking guiding these international agreements is corporate, not national.
The application of ISDS to contracts between nations provides corporations standards of behavior which are not law or regulation but emerge from corporate practices. In a practical sense this run-around the courts is privatization of an essential feature of government. It creates a system of resolution that frees arbiters from the will of the people and depends upon the invisible hand of the market to guide justice. It's a tremendous coup for neoliberal idealists.
pampango
(24,692 posts)The presence of "alternative dispute resolution" was also the reason that the republican congress never approved the ITO.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)please! 
AzDar
(14,023 posts)STOP THE TPP!!
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Wasn't that the argument that destroyed the League Of Nations and conservatives use to oppose our participation in the United Nations?
cali
(114,904 posts)this is about food safety. glad you're not concerned about it. I am.
The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)Big vs. small, close vs. distant, global vs. local, collective vs. individual, etc. Who should make the rules? Must one size fit all?
We always go back and forth about it. It changes sometimes depending on the situation. Take cable TV for example. Should people have to buy the whole package, or should they get to pick and choose? Should countries give up some of their say in how their own countries are run for the greater good? Another example could be Greece. I've seen plenty of people here say that Greece should get out of the Euro and go it alone, because fuck those people far away that think they can tell the people of Greece what to do. Basically secession, which isn't normally a popular side to be on. Certainly not when some people in Texas or South Carolina are for it anyway.
Just another subjective aspect of the human experiment.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)I favor the sovereignty of the individual and the nation right up to the point where it infringes on the sovereignty of the individual infringes on the sovereignty of other individuals and the sovereignty of the nation infringes on the sovereignty of other nations.
The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)It can get quite twisted up in knots.
This large nation and global civilization system we have is still relatively new. Human beings still think and exist in the small scale. Which only makes sense. Does what's going on in the Middle East stop anyone in the US from going to work? Hell, in the same state? City? Next door? No.
America(or pick any country really) never would've been allowed to exist as we know it if something like the UN existed back then. At the same time, the UN as we know it wouldn't exist if history didn't play out the way it did.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Since it requires a unanimous vote of the Security Council to impose sanctions and we would have presumably vetoed any sanctions of ourselves we could have plundered as much as our hearts desired...
The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)Doesn't sound like a great defense of the UN though.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)the UN Convention on the Rights of persons with Disabilities.
So you would expect them to be all up in arms about the TPP, right? 
polly7
(20,582 posts)These agreements are garbage, and I have no idea why our gov'ts keep creating new ones that allow overruling laws, except that corporations must be valued above all else. People are just tools now to keep them running.
NAFTA Is Starving Mexico
Free trade has starved Mexico and stuffed transnational corporations.
As the blood-spattered violence of the drug war takes over the headlines, many Mexican men, women, and children confront the slow and silent violence of starvation. The latest reports show that the number of people living in “food poverty” (the inability to purchase the basic food basket) rose from 18 million in 2008 to 20 million by late 2010.
About one-fifth of Mexican children currently suffer from malnutrition. An innovative measurement applied by the National Institute for Nutrition registers a daily count of 728,909 malnourished children under five for October 18, 2011. Government statistics report that 25 percent of the population does not have access to basic food.
A 2008 NAFTA tribunal ruled that Mexico had to pay $58.4 million to CPI. The government paid up on January 25, 2011. CPI posted $3.7 billion dollars in net sales the year of the decision. The fine paid by the Mexican government could have provided a year’s worth of the basic food basket to more than 50,000 poor families.
http://fpif.org/nafta_is_starving_mexico/
How NAFTA Drove Mexicans into Poverty and Sparked the Zapatista Revolt
By EDELO, Creative Time Reports
The North American Free Trade Agreement, passed 20 years ago, has resulted in increased emigration, hunger and poverty (with Video)
December 30, 2013
In light of the 20th anniversary of NAFTA’s implementation and the Zapatista uprising, we set out to explore both the positive and negative effects of the international treaty. The poverty caused by NAFTA, and the waves of violence, forced migration and environmental disasters it has precipitated, should not be understated. The republic of Mexico is under threat from multinational corporations like the Canadian mining company Blackfire Explorations, which is threatening to sue the state of Chiapas for $800 million under NAFTA Chapter 11 because its government closed a Blackfire barite mine after pressure from local environmental activists like Mariano Abarca Roblero, who was murdered in 2009.
Still, one result of the corporate extraction of Mexico’s natural resources and displacement of its people that has followed the treaty has been the organization and strengthening of initiatives by indigenous communities to construct autonomy from the bottom up. Seeing that their own governments cannot respond to popular demands without retribution from corporations, the people of Mexico are asking about alternatives: “What is it that we do want?” The Zapatista revolution reminds us that not only another world, but many other worlds, are possible
Full Article: http://www.alternet.org/world/how-nafta-drove-mexicans-poverty-and-sparked-zapatista-revolt?akid=11347.44541.RWB6aQ&rd=1&src=newsletter941851&t=19
NAFTA's Chapter 11 Makes Canada Most-Sued Country Under Free Trade Tribunals
Canada is the most-sued country under the North American Free Trade Agreement and a majority of the disputes involve investors challenging the country’s environmental laws, according to a new study.
The study from the left-leaning Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) found that more than 70 per cent of claims since 2005 have been brought against Canada, and the number of challenges under a controversial settlement clause is rising sharply.
snip~
“Thanks to NAFTA chapter 11, Canada has now been sued more times through investor-state dispute settlement than any other developed country in the world,” said Scott Sinclair, who authored the study.
snip~
There are currently eight cases against the Canadian government asking for a total of $6 billion in damages. All of them were brought by U.S. companies.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/01/14/canada-sued-investor-state-dispute-ccpa_n_6471460.html
The study notes that although NAFTA proponents claimed that ISDS was needed to address concerns about corruption in the Mexican court system, most investor-state challenges involve public policy and regulatory matters. Sixty three per cent of claims against Canada involve challenges to environmental protection or resource management measures.
Currently, Canada faces nine active ISDS claims challenging a wide range of government measures that allegedly interfere with the expected profitability of foreign investments. Foreign investors are seeking over $6 billion in damages from the Canadian government.
These include challenges to a ban on fracking by the Quebec provincial government (Lone Pine); a decision by a Canadian federal court to invalidate a pharmaceutical patent on the basis that it was not sufficiently innovative or useful (Eli Lilly); provisions to promote the rapid adoption of renewable energies (Mesa); a moratorium on offshore wind projects in Lake Ontario (Windstream); and the decision to block a controversial mega-quarry in Nova Scotia (Clayton/Bilcon).
Canada has already lost or settled six claims, paid out damages totaling over $170 million and incurred tens of millions more in legal costs. Mexico has lost five cases and paid damages of US$204 million. The U.S. has never lost a NAFTA investor-state case.
More: https://www.policyalternatives.ca/newsroom/news-releases/nafta-investor-state-claims-against-canada-are-out-control-study
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023210314