There are many lessons from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that are relevant to the current debate over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). First, like the TPP, NAFTA was never mostly about trade and even less about free trade. In 1994, the U.S. already had low tariff barriers to Mexican goods. The agreement was much more about creating and expanding new rights and privileges for investors, mostly multinational corporations.
Thank you, Mr. Weisbrot, like all Human Justice advocates and Environmentalists, I also recognize the latent dangers in the ISDS "arrangements."
It was curious to see a number of anti-TPP pundits talk about the copyright item and drug prices, but little else. Ultimately, these ISDS major con jobs grant money--capital--profit primacy over human rights, citizens' collective desires and basic health requirements, and any pretext of functioning Democratic, sovereign nations. Mammon rules!
And for Obama to claim this as the jewel in his crown? I suppose when compared to the continued wars served up as profit-basis to the MIC; and "Obama Care" instituted to return a high percentage pay-off to those interests in F.I.R.E (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) that "invested" in Obama's campaigns as "donors," the guarantee on corporate profits that's written into the TPP/TIPP agreements are the cherry on the toxic cake. After all, these agreements essentially anesthetize empowered entities from the get-go against the inevitable Crimes Against Nature and People that their industries will produce.
Somebody made Obama an offer he can't refuse.
I agree completely. Stop calling it/them FREE trade agreements and start calling the ISDS process CORPORATE State Dispute Settlement processes. As far as I know, the stockholders in these corporations don't vote on whether to sue a foreign government or not.
I believe the ISDS process should more accurately labeled what it exactly is -and that would be cleverly concealed Racketeering EXTORTION-