Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumJulian Assange on the TPP: Secretive Deal Isn’t About Trade, But Corporate Control-Democracy Now!
Published on May 27, 2015
http://democracynow.org - As negotiations continue, WikiLeaks has published leaked chapters of the secret Trans-Pacific Partnership a global trade deal between the United States and 11 other countries. The TPP would cover 40 percent of the global economy, but details have been concealed from the public. A recently disclosed "Investment Chapter" highlights the intent of U.S.-led negotiators to create a tribunal where corporations can sue governments if their laws interfere with a companys claimed future profits. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange warns the plan could chill the adoption of health and environmental regulations.
Democracy Now! is an independent global news hour that airs weekdays on 1,300+ TV and radio stations Monday through Friday. Watch our livestream 8-9am ET: http://democracynow.org
Please consider supporting independent media by making a donation to Democracy Now! today: http://democracynow.org/donate
pa28
(6,145 posts)Nice description of the chilling effect TPP will have on governments considering new public interest laws and regulation.
mother earth
(6,002 posts)AMY GOODMAN: We return to our exclusive interview with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. I spoke to him inside the Ecuadorean Embassy in London on Monday.
AMY GOODMAN: Julian Assange, lets stay with the United States for a moment, with the TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which certainly doesnt only involve the United States, but theres a huge debate within the United States about it right now. And I dare say, some of that debate is as a result of what WikiLeaks revealed. For some people, this treaty, that will determine 40 percent of the global economy, the only thing that we have seen about it comes from WikiLeaks. Explain what the TPP is and the information that you got, that you put out about this top-secret agreement.
JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, the TPP is an international treaty that has 29 different chapters. We have released four of them, and we are trying to get the remainder. For the information that has been released, through the chapters that we got hold of and through some congressmen who have seen the contents of some of the others, but they are not allowed to write it down
AMY GOODMAN: They can go into a room and look at it.
JULIAN ASSANGE: They can go into a room. It has beenits not formally classified, but its being treated as if it was classified, in terms of how the information is being managed. They go into a room. If they try and take notes, the notes have to be handed over to the government for safe keeping. And, of course, congressmen under those situations wont take notes. So it is very well guarded from the press and the majority of people and even from congressmen. But 600 U.S. companies are part of the process and have been given access to various parts of the TPP.
OK, so its athe largest-ever international economic treaty that has ever been negotiated, very considerably larger than NAFTA. It is mostly not about trade. Only five of the 29 chapters are about traditional trade. The others are about regulating the Internet and what InternetInternet service providers have to collect information. They have to hand it over to companies under certain circumstances. Its about regulating labor, what labor conditions can be applied, regulating, whether you can favor local industry, regulating the hospital healthcare system, privatization of hospitals. So, essentially, every aspect of the modern economy, even banking services, are in the TPP.
And so, that is erecting and embedding new, ultramodern neoliberal structure in U.S. law and in the laws of the other countries that are participating, and is putting it in a treaty form. And by putting it in a treaty form, that meanswith 14 countries involved, means its very, very hard to overturn. So if theres a desire, democratic desire, in the United States to go down a different pathfor example, to introduce more public transportthen you cant easily change the TPP treaty, because you have to go back and get agreement of the other nations involved.
Now, looking at that example, what if the government or a state government decides it wants to build a hospital somewhere, and theres a private hospital, has been erected nearby? Well, the TPP gives the constructor of the private hospital the right to sue the government over the expectedthe loss in expected future profits. This is expected future profits. This is not an actual loss that has been sustained, where theres desire to be compensated; this is a claim about the future. And we know from similar instruments where governments can be sued over free trade treaties that that is used to construct a chilling effect on environmental and health regulation law. For example, Togo, Australia, Uruguay are all being sued by tobacco companies, Philip Morris the leading one, to prevent them from introducing health warnings on the cigarette packets.
AMY GOODMAN: That we have in the United States on our own cigarette packages.
JULIAN ASSANGE: Yes. And its not even an even playing field. Lets say youll say, OK, well, were going to make it easier for companies to sue the government. Maybe thats right. Maybe the government is too powerful, and companies should have a right to sue the government under various circumstances. But its only multinationals that get this right. U.S. companies operating purely in the U.S., in relation to investments that happen in the U.S., will not have this right, whereas large companies that are multinationals, that have registrations overseas, can structure things such that theyre taking investments from the U.S., and that then gives them the right to sue the government over it.
Now, its not so easy to get up these cases and win them. However, the chilling effect, the concern that there might be such a case, is severe. Each one of these cases, on average, governments spend more than $10 million for each case, to defend it, even successfully. So, if you have, you know, a city council or a state considering legislation, and then theres a threat from one of these multinationals about expected future profits, they know that even if they have the law on their side, even if this TPP is on their side, they can expect to suffer.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)is flat-out lying.
mother earth
(6,002 posts)benefitting, given what we do know, a self-serving group of multinational corporations override power not just in the USA, but globally. More and more our gov't is preoccupied with serving big monied interests, and it never results in anything good for people, and now, not even anything good for nations.
As always, reasons for secrecy become apparent, and on the fast track, what convenience is indulged.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
KoKo
(84,711 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Either it's your OPs today, or the fact that I'm reading more of them.
Excellent! K&R
mother earth
(6,002 posts)TY, MrMickeysMom for your words on both.
polly7
(20,582 posts)I'll change mine.
And, kick and recommend!
mother earth
(6,002 posts)But, TY, polly.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)to defend it, even successfully"
Talking about when a multinational corporation would be able to sue a local or state government over "expected losses of profit."
The chilling effect, as Julian Assange says. Who would try to pass some law if they don't have $10 million or so to defend themselves in court?