They
already have de facto political power, don't they?
Obama,
Cameron Promote Trade Deal Granting Corporations Political Power
13
May, 2013
WASHINGTON
-- President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron on
Monday pledged to pursue a broad trade agreement between the U.S. and
European Union, amid growing domestic unrest with the Obama
administration's plans to include new political powers for
corporations in the deal.
Negotiations
have not formally begun, but a series of meetings between U.S. and EU
officials have established some ground rules and the preliminary
scope of the talks. Since tariffs are already low or nonexistent, the
agreement will focus on regulatory issues. That emphasis has
concerned food safety advocates, environmental activists and public
health experts, who fear a deal may roll back important standards.
Obama
and Cameron were vague on Monday, while celebrating the potential for
a trade pact to create jobs.
"Our
extensive trade with the U.K. is central to our broader transatlantic
economic relationship, which supports more than 13 million jobs,"
Obama said at a press conference Monday. "I believe we’ve got
a real opportunity to cut tariffs, open markets, create jobs, and
make all of our economies even more competitive."
The
13 million figure is a broad measure of the total jobs in U.S. and
Europe "supported" by both trade and financial investment.
U.S. exports to Europe support 2.4 million American jobs, according
to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
"To
realize the huge benefits this deal could bring will take ambition
and political will -- that means everything on the table, even the
difficult issues, and no exceptions," Cameron said. "It’s
worth the effort. For Britain alone, an ambitious deal could be worth
up to £10 billion ($15.3 billion) a year, boosting industries from
car manufacturing to financial services."
The
negotiation has received little attention after being endorsed by
Obama in February during his State of the Union address, and the
official public comments system for a deal at regulations.gov
received 347 comments, mostly from corporations and corporate
lobbying groups.
Last
week, however, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) delivered more than 10,000
citizen comments to the U.S. trade representative that he received
through an online campaign protesting the inclusion of new political
powers for corporations under a controversial process known as
"investor-state dispute resolution." In April, the Office
of the U.S. Trade Representative told HuffPost that the agency will
seek to include such a process in the EU trade deal.
Investor-state
resolution grants corporations the political power to appeal one
government's laws and regulations to an international court. If the
court rules that the government's standards violate the terms of a
trade agreement, it can impose financial penalties and other
sanctions.
The
mechanism has been included in U.S.-negotiated pacts with individual
nations since the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994. But
the resolution is not currently permitted in disputes with the U.S.
and with EU nations, currently governed by World Trade Organization
treaties. Under WTO rules, a company must persuade a sovereign nation
that it has been wronged, leaving the decision to bring a trade case
in the hands of elected governments.
Granting
corporations the political power to appeal regulations and laws to an
international court is usually defended as a way to protect companies
from arbitrary dictators or weak court systems in developing
countries. But the expansion of the practice to first-world relations
exposes that rationale as disingenuous. Rule of law in the U.S. and
EU is considered strong because the court systems are among the most
sophisticated and expert in the world.
Public
interest groups said they worry that an investor-state resolution
system between the U.S. and the EU would allow corporations to
compare regulatory standards in different countries, and sue the
nation with the strongest rules. EU food safety regulations, for
instance, are more robust than those in the U.S., while American bank
regulations are stricter than those the many EU countries, including
the U.K.
Grayson's
website, www.tradetreachery.com, allowed citizens to submit a form
letter opposing the plan.
"I
oppose including an 'investor-state' dispute resolution in this trade
agreement," the form letter read. "Corporations should not
be allowed to sue my country to break the laws that they do not
like."
"We
welcome all input from Members of Congress and their constituents,"
USTR spokeswoman Carol Guthrie told HuffPost. "We are in contact
with Rep. Grayson's office directly to make sure we take in all
comments."
Companies
have grown increasingly ambitious about bringing investor-state cases
under NAFTA in recent years. Exxon Mobil and Dow Chemical have
challenged Canadian rules that apply to offshore oil drilling,
hydraulic fracturing and the use of pesticides. In December, drug
giant Eli Lilly brought a NAFTA case against the Canadian government
after it invalidated a patent for one of the company's medications.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.