cdrakefairtrade

Unfortunately, the TPP is being kept hidden from the public due to tradition. "Trade" deals were always negotiated secretly, but back in the day, they were only about tariffs and quotas (e.g., a 10% tariff on cheese, and a maximum about of cotton a country might import).

Today, in the age of the internet, government transparency initiatives, and concern about the undue influence of big-monied interests like the Koch Brothers or the Club for Growth, that kind of secrecy shouldn't be tolerated.

Moreover, trade deals are about far more than just tariffs and quotas, they are about health policy, intellectual property, investor rights, environmental protections, and more. Decisions about these policies must be openly debated and decided to have legitimacy.

That's why we oppose Fast Track. Senators Wyden and Hatch and Representative Ryan could have introduced a bill that prevented USTR from behaving as secretly as it does. They could have required US proposals to be published in the federal register. They could have called for a study on whether USTR engages in overclassification; they could have done many things to allow us to participate in making the trade rules that govern our lives.

But they didn't. The Fast Track 2015 bill doesn't help us participate in trade policy making or get to the heart of the legal texts that will affect our lives.

So we urge you to oppose the secretive Fast Track process.

There are no public benefits from ISDS. A case costs an average of $8 million per case in legal and arbitratal fees according to the OECD. So even when governments "win," they lose.

Moreover, firms that win aren't required to share their winnings with their employees, much less the public, so how there really are no benefits for the public.

Finally, how is "the US has never lost a case" a convincing argument? Is that a guarantee that the US will never lose? No, it can't be. And other countries, like Canada, lose, and lose a lot. Why should American citizens support such a system? Undermining democracy isn't good no matter where it happens.

Private tribunals where the panelists are corporate lawyers are NOT in fact better than US courts in which judges have to follow strict codes of conduct and can be impeached. The corporate lawyers who staff ISDS panels cannot be impeached or overruled.

Zients unfortunately omits a lot of important facts about ISDS from his piece, like that suits can be based on a claim that a government has violated an investor's right to "Fair and equitable treatment," a concept that doesn't exist in US law, and therefore a US business cannot seek reimbursement for.

He also fails to not that foreign investors take on NO RESPONSIBILITIES under trade deals; they only get rights.

He also fails to say that the US and Canada, both countries with strong rule of law, are in the top 11 of the most-sued countries under ISDS.

I could go on, but you can read more here: http://infojustice.org/archives/34113

The bottom line is do you believe in one system of justice for all? Or special justice for the elite few?

Unfortunately, this has been longstanding trade practice, which is why trade agreements since NAFTA have harmed workers while increasing profits to global corporations and the 1%. Globally, workers' share of their national income is decreasing even as corporate profits hit record levels. This is no coincidence--and trade isn't the only reason. but trade is a major factor. So long as the door to negotiating trade deals isn't open to workers, consumers, family farmers, small businesses, health advocates, and other "everyday" interests, the deals will continue to constrict democracy and increase inequality. We must draw the line here. No more Fast Track! Workers deserve better!

Great question! Unfortunately, the answer is most likely yes. A similar situation arose in Slovakia when it tried to reduce the role the private sector played in its health care system. It was sued by a foreign corporation, and in December 2012, the investor announced a victory. You can read a bit more about the Slovakia situation here: http://www.iareporter.com/articles/20121210_4 and here: http://www.psiru.org/reports/2010-02-H-tradelaw.doc. What's important to know about this issue is that it is the role of trade agreements, whether the WTO, NAFTA, or the TPP, to restrict the policy space nations have to do all kinds of things, from requiring oil companies to pay into an environmental clean up fund, to restricting where toxic dumps can be operated. One company even challenged Egypt's increase in the minimum wage! And all in the name of advancing trade (not, say, in the name of increasing the standard of living). Now, while we may want to restrict our choices in certain cases (like when all countries agree to ban land mines or chemical weapons), under the investor-to-state dispute settlement system, democracy is not constrained by other democratic nations seeking the good of all, it is constrained by individual for-profit corporations, seeking the good of their investors and managers and no one else. This system has no credible moral or philosophical defense. It doesn't help developing countries to develop their own effective judicial systems, it does nothing to enhance the public good, and it undermines democratic choices as it gives power to unaccountable corporations. Instead of expanding the reach of ISDS, the government should be renegotiating NAFTA to take ISDS out.