Home | About | Donate

Betting the Farm on Free Trade


#1

Betting the Farm on Free Trade

Janet Redman

From her home in Berks County, Pennsylvania, Karen Feridun is helping stage a growing citizen pushback against the expansion of natural gas extraction. But a far-reaching global deal recently signed halfway around the world may make her job much harder.


#2

What this is all about is turning the presumption of innocence clause AROUND so that it protects willful trespassers.

Not only will they rape and plunder the earth, any effort to stop them will result in reverse (Insider Trade/Investor State) lawsuits.

That means either way, the corporations win.

If these entities had a history of doing no harm it would be one thing. But a cursory look around the world from the denuded Amazon forests to the filthy state of the Niger Delta, from the radiation still beaming out of Fukushima to the methane plume just outside of L.A. (to which one must add the sickening rate of species' extinction) prove that these corporations KNOW that their products and protocols do enormous harm.

They almost never clean up their own messes.

They almost never own up with visible shows of accountability.

Like banks that get caught doing illegal financial hustles and ONLY pay fines, the corporations pushing for these disastrous treaties also may pay fines (when their lawyers can't keep the matter tied up in court for years until they get an amicable judge willing to reduce the amount they are obliged to pay)... but they never change the tactics that led to the problem.

Essentially, these treaties are as much a license to plunder as foreign wars of aggression are now sanctioned forms of Crimes Against Humanity.

What isn't established with bombs and bullets, TIPP and TPP will do with the stroke of a pen.


#3

Hmm. So I guess Smith and Wesson could sue a signatory of the TPP if that country had restrictions on sales of hand guns.


#4

"The U.S. government has never lost an investor-state case."

Excuse me? What then was the recent ruling under the WTO declaring "Country of origin" labels on food illegal? Congress quickly repealed those laws. That wasn't a loss? Baloney!


#5

Obama is NOT "playing roulette" in zealously promoting his TPP. The outcome of roulette and other games of chance are not known until the end of the game. Seeing how we already know that TPP is a 100% win for the 1% and a 100% loss for the 99% there is no gamble with the TPP.


#6

i believe the difference is this:

The WTO is not set up with "investor-state dispute settlement" but instead is state-to-state. Corporations can't sue states under the WTO. Only other states can bring disputes.


#7

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#8

Agree with you 100%. I think Aldo Leopold said it best:

"Examine each question in terms of what is ethically and aesthetically right, as well as what is economically expedient. A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise."