
The Trans-Pacific Partnership clause everyone should oppose - walterbell
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kill-the-dispute-settlement-language-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership/2015/02/25/ec7705a2-bd1e-11e4-b274-e5209a3bc9a9_story.html#
======
walterbell
[http://www.stopfasttrack.com](http://www.stopfasttrack.com) — organizations
lending their logo and giving a reason why they oppose, include Reddit, ACLU,
boingboing, Free Software Foundation, EFF, Sierra Club & others.

Edit: illustrated video (2:27) by MoveOn,
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3O_Sbbeqfdw](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3O_Sbbeqfdw)

" _Mind boggling in its complexity (the US takes 80 specialists to each
negotiation, Japan 120, and Australia 22) the negotiating text is secret. Robb
says even most of the negotiators don 't know what's in the whole thing. Each
knows about little more than the chapter they are working on and there are
more than 20 chapters._", [http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-
news/trans-...](http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/trans-
pacific-partnership-whats-the-deal-being-negotiated-in-our-
name-20150220-13jci9.html)

~~~
rsync
"This isn’t a partisan issue. Conservatives who believe in U.S. sovereignty
should be outraged that ISDS would shift power from American courts, whose
authority is derived from our Constitution, to unaccountable international
tribunals. Libertarians should be offended that ISDS effectively would offer a
free taxpayer subsidy to countries with weak legal systems. And progressives
should oppose ISDS because it would allow big multinationals to weaken labor
and environmental rules."

(from the Warren article)

~~~
twoodfin
Any sufficiently complicated trade regime is going to need dispute
arbitration. If we don't like the way that arbitration is playing out for us,
our elected representatives are completely within their power to abridge or
modify our agreements.

This is complete misdirection: If every bit of ISDS were pulled from the draft
negotiations, Sen. Warren would still oppose the pact because she comes from
the protectionist wing of the party.

Maybe we can get Al Gore to take a break from his climate change work and
debate Sen. Warren as he did Ross Perot back in the day.

God I miss free trade Democrats like Bill Clinton.

~~~
walterbell
What's your take on WTO and WIPO, are they not suitable venues for
international trade discussions?

~~~
twoodfin
How would the WTO arbitrate an independent agreement? You'd endorse TPP if it
were just part of the WTO process?

I wish the Doha round had gone somewhere. But it didn't, so here we are.

~~~
walterbell
National legislatures have had decades and centuries to develop governance
models. The WTO process, while much younger, has a longer track record and
greater international investment (than TPP/TTIP) in public debate on issues
related to international trade, governance, disputes.

It would be helpful if trade agreements were documented like open-source
projects which coordinate with larger upstream projects, while retaining
private forks that are not accepted upstream now, but could become more
relevant later.

Is everything in TPP unacceptable to WTO, by definition? If TPP can negotiate
20 chapters independently, why can't WTO unbundle problematic issues to
regional agreements? Governance and trade agreements that affect the lives of
hundreds of millions of humans should not require all-or-nothing bundling.
There is no shortage of paper or electrons to negotiate interoperable
agreements which segment risk and goals.

------
igl
This will come into effect silently without any public discussion about it. I
can only speak about Germany where the news and mainstream-intellectual
talkshows are still dominated by Muslim vs West discussions and reports about
Anti-Muslim demonstration that a few (2000) whackjobs are attending.

The Demonstration against TTIP with roughly 50.000 attendees in Berlin a few
weeks ago received no news, no articles and did not spark discussions other
than satirical/comedy shows making fun about it. I start to believe they aim
to kill the seriousness of the outrage.

~~~
UnoriginalGuy
Why is it that nobody takes seriously the concept that mainstream media is a
propaganda source for government, even in the West?

Everyone jokes about how bad it is developing nations (and dictatorships), and
makes fun of everyone that raises concerned about western countries as being
nut-job conspiracy theorist who believe in lizard people or whatever.

US News in particular is breathtakingly propagandist. It is like watching a US
themed Russia Today. And only the "comedy" shows in the US, and some internet-
only sources really provide a moderately unbiased view.

~~~
leereeves
Every media source is biased. Even The Daily Show and Colbert Report. Even
reddit and Hacker News are biased (reddit calls it the hivemind).

That's not the same as being a propaganda source for government, unless the
only viewpoint anyone is allowed to express is the one approved by the
government.

~~~
grecy
> _That 's not the same as being a propaganda source for government, unless
> the only viewpoint anyone is allowed to express is the one approved by the
> government._

In the west (especially the US) I'd say the media is a propaganda source for
big businesses, and the only viewpoint anyone express is the one approved by
big businesses.

~~~
leereeves
I agree. The media IS big business, owned by even bigger business, and that's
their point of view.

~~~
grecy
And that big business is buying the government more and more every day.. which
indirectly means the only view in the media is that of the (big business
owned) government.

------
olefoo
This is why it's important to prevent fast-track legislation that would allow
for congress to pass this on an up and down vote with little or no public
scrutiny of the actual text of the treaty.

It's a power grab, pure and simple. It's kind of bold to be undermining state
sovereignty, but other than that it's your standard attempt to tilt the
playing field.

Also, what if one of these three-judge panels gets asked to rule on the
legality of debt-slavery? What are the limits these panels operate under?

~~~
walterbell
Further, how could so many TPP/TTIP countries choose (vote?) multiple panels
of "international judges" that could override the decisions of "national
judges"? That seems even harder than picking judges for a nation's Supreme
Court, a process which has been through decades to centuries of constitutional
law debate and debugging.

------
danbruc
This is pretty funny, for many Europeans ISDS is one of the main reasons why
they oppose TTIP [1]. They fear US companies suing European countries because
of stricter regulations, with food and environmental standards being popular
examples.

[1] [https://stop-ttip.org/](https://stop-ttip.org/)

~~~
lumberjack
It's stupid to see this as US companies vs. EU consumers and vice versa. It
should be seen as gigantic companies against small companies and consumers.
American or European makes little difference.

It's still an affront to democracy that commercial entities with enough
political clout can sue whole countries because those countries dared to
believe in their sovereignty.

I understand that it is a mechanism to reduce risk and therefore incentive
wealth creation but when you have to make exceptions to democracy and
sovereignty is when I say that your pursuit of wealth creation has become a
bit too fanatical.

~~~
danbruc
The opinions are not all that simple, I just focused on that because the
article also focuses an it. But big US oil companies vs European tax payers
compensating them because they are denied to use fracking techniques does
obviously not require many words to explain and therefore opinions are
certainly dominated by simple arguments.

~~~
kretor
The oil companies could only successfully sue for compensation for being
banned from fracking, when the ban only applies to foreign companies, i.e.
only when the ban is discriminatory.

Source: The EU commission says “The protection given covers a limited number
of specific actions which can concretely affect an investor’s daily business
operations in a foreign market, i.e. discrimination, denial of access to
justice, expropriation without compensation and the inability to transfer
capital to invest.“

~~~
walterbell
Some rebuttals to EU commission rebuttals on ISDS,
[http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-enterprise/ttip-
up...](http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-enterprise/ttip-update-
iii-3569416/)

------
dash2
The argument is really compelling. There are good reasons to be suspicious
when corporations want to go over the heads of national democratic legal
systems.

That said, the basic idea of TTIP is a REALLY GOOD THING. It's not just about
making it easier to trade across the Atlantic, which could give a huge fillip
to both US and EU economies. It's also about the political results that will
cement our relationship. Both the US and EU are facing rising powers which do
not share our fundamental values. We will be stronger if we stand together.
Binding our economies closer will help that happen.

Not wishing to close criticism down, but TTIP is too big an opportunity to be
spoilt by the greed of some lobbyists - or by knee-jerk opposition. Fight over
the details, not over the principle.

~~~
danbruc
Actually one of the main reasons I want TTIP not to happen is because I don't
want any closer relationships with the USA. US foreign policy has been
somewhere between awful, irresponsible and plain evil for the last couple of
decades. Don't get me wrong, it is not unreflected anti-Americanism, I am
German and hugely thankful for what the USA has done for Germany in the past,
especially of course during and after World War II.

But that changed. I would love if we could distance ourselves from the USA for
a multitude of things from spying over torturing to the offensive war against
Iraq, to just name some obvious examples. If we as Europeans impose sanctions
on Russia right now for their actions related to the Ukraine, we should have
imposed sanction on the USA long ago.

But we can not because we are so dependent on the USA, especially when it
comes to IT with most of the major players like Microsoft, Intel, Google, IBM
and Apple being US companies. We would be screwed without them. Could we
openly oppose the USA and still do business with them? Maybe. Do we want to
find it out, test who gets hurt more? Not really.

In the same way the USA is doing business with regimes like Saudi Arabia we
keep doing business with the USA. But I am convinced we should really avoid
getting even more entangled with the USA wherever possible to not risk
worsening our position further. At least until US politics gets sane again.

~~~
Ilverin
What is the United States doing currently that deserves sanctions?

~~~
bwb
Ya I have to 2nd this one, why on earth would germany impose sanctions?

~~~
danbruc
I did not necessarily mean exactly right now, but the Iraq war was obviously
worth sanctions. Also distancing from the USA does not necessarily imply
imposing sanction, but the US spying programs and the drone war are recent and
current activities that make me want to get as far away from the USA as
possible.

------
TeMPOraL
Half a year ago I watched Continuum - a sci-fi TV series, which feature a
dystopian Earth ruled by so called Corporate Congress - corporations bought
out governments and created their own. It was an interesting concept to watch,
but I haven't really expected to see it forming in front of me, in the real
world...

~~~
f055
Try Person of Interest. A bit cheesy at first, I watched it pre-Snowden, and
about 3 seasons in, the NSA leaks appeared - and all of the sudden the series
turned not so cheesy anymore...

~~~
TeMPOraL
PoI is actually my favourite show right now. It's perfect on many levels, from
acting to storyline to humour to getting a lot of infosec right. Just few
episodes ago they were dropping a ShellShock test...

And it's not just about Snowden leaks. I've been reading a lot on AI topics in
past few years, and the show resonates with my interests strongly.

EDIT: even previous week's episode - I thought that people hired to listen to
queries spoken to in-show equivalent of Siri was writer's invention, only to
learn just few days ago that it is in fact real...

~~~
voltagex_
Is it worth continuing past the start of the second season?

~~~
TeMPOraL
It is definitely worth continuing. Third and fourth seasons are amazing - they
focus less on the crime-of-the-week and more on the Machine arc. But you get a
lot of deep and complex characters in those seasons.

------
jrochkind1
This kind of provision is in NAFTA too, 20 years old.

I wonder if there's ever a case where a U.S. law has actually been
invalidated, and the U.S. hasn't just ignored the ruling, with no real
consequences. Anyone know? In general NAFTA has served as a weapon to make
sure third world economies stay maximally exploitable by U.S. corporations --
as it was intended.

This isn't a reason to support such provisions, of course. It's not right,
it's not fair -- AND the U.S. won't be this powerful forever. We'd all be
better of strengthening democracy, not strengthening corporate rule -- the
corporations don't really care which country is on top, as long as it's one
that they can control.

But it is noteworthy that NAFTA isn't even mentioned in Warren's piece; how's
that working out?

------
AnthonyMouse
It's looking more and more like TPP is the new ACTA. What does it take to sink
the whole agreement?

~~~
walterbell
Edit: EFF has put together an Act Now page to lobby three key representatives
for tie-breaking votes in next week's debate:
[http://boingboing.net/2015/02/27/act-now-congress-wants-
to-f...](http://boingboing.net/2015/02/27/act-now-congress-wants-to-fas.html)

There's 18 months of updates on ComputerWorld's UK blog about the EU TTIP
agreement, [http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-enterprise/ttip-
up...](http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-enterprise/ttip-updates--the-
glyn-moody-blogs-3569438/) but I haven't seen a similarly consistent US
reporting effort on TPP. The EFF has covered some copyright topics,
[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/white-house-doesnt-
wan...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/white-house-doesnt-want-you-
know-tpp-effects-us-copyright-laws) . Twitter has activity, including lobbying
of Sen. Ron Wyden on fast-track,
[https://twitter.com/search?q=%23tpp](https://twitter.com/search?q=%23tpp)

------
walterbell
John Oliver explains a "corporate sovereignty" (ISDS) dispute in Australia,
[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150216/17390930032/john-...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150216/17390930032/john-
oliver-highlights-ridiculousness-corporate-sovereignty-provisions.shtml)

 _" That's right. A company was able to sue a country over a public health
measure, through an international court. How the fuck is that possible? Well,
it's really a simple explanation. They did it by digging up a 1993 trade
agreement between Australia and Hong Kong which had a provision that said
Australia couldn't seize Hong Kong-based companies' property. So, nine months
before the lawsuits started, PMI put its Australian business in the hands of
its Hong Kong-based Philip Morris Asia division, and then they sued, claiming
that the "seized property" in question, were the trademarks on their cigarette
packages."_

Another dispute, between Canada and Eli Lilly on IP,
[http://www.thestar.com/business/2015/02/11/canadian-reply-
to...](http://www.thestar.com/business/2015/02/11/canadian-reply-
to-500-million-us-pharma-suit-guesses-dont-make-valid-patents.html)

 _" The Canadian government has delivered a scathing response to a $500
million lawsuit from the American pharmaceutical industry, dissecting the
intellectual-property practices of the company that launched the case. .. Eli
Lilly had filed for 12 separate patents between 1992 and 2004 claiming it
could treat psoriasis, stuttering, incontinence, hot flashes, anxiety,
learning disabilities, tic disorders and, finally, ADHD. .. “Canadian law does
not grant patents for almost-inventions,” said the submission. “Even if the
applicant’s speculation at the time of filing is later confirmed.”_

There is a proposed US-EU equivalent of the Australia - Hong Kong arbitration
panel for ISDS (Investor-State Dispute Settlement) in TTIP,
[http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-enterprise/ttip-
up...](http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-enterprise/ttip-
update-l-3596807/)

 _" So what the European Commission is proposing with the dispute resolution
chapter is how future clashes with the US over those key social constructs
should be resolved. And the answer is: by a three-person arbitration panel.

That is, key aspects of everyday life - the social, environmental and safety
protections that have been laid down over decades or more - can be thrown out
purely on the say of those three people if it is decided that they clash with
TTIP. And remember: "The ruling of the arbitration panel shall be
unconditionally accepted by the Parties." So if, for whatever reason, the
arbitration panel says a well-established regulation protecting health and
safety, or the environment, has to go, well, it has to go, even if the vast
majority of the public that it will effect disagrees."_

~~~
fit2rule
It should be noted that Australia is often a test-bed for these sorts of
activities before being exported to the International sphere. As a nation, it
has been a playground for corporate interests since its inception as a state.
Australians are generally ignorant of the role their legal system plays in
corrupting the wider International community.

The point is, it works both ways: if you want to know what the corporate elite
will try to do in 5 years, watch what they're doing in Australia today ..

~~~
chrisbolt
Why does Australia play such a large role?

~~~
fit2rule
Because Australia, by necessity, has been run by corporations and companies
and non-state actors since its inception, and its current government is
extremely pro-business in its desire to build the national infrastructure,
exploit the massive resource treasure of the land, and construct a 'next
generation' society built on principles its learned from other failures
through contemporary history. Australia influenced Marx, it influenced Stalin,
and during the period of the modern era has provided corporate elite with an
industrial playground in which policies can be tested, adjusted and improved.
The Australian people are very eager, culturally, to play that role.

------
rurban
Ha! Clickbait.

> "What’s so wrong with the U.S. judicial system? Nothing, actually"

That's a very unique point of view only the government paper can present.

In this special case having a bit more international law would do better for
everybody. The post should rather critize the TPP where it really is broken,
not with this international arbitration argument. Read the TPP leaks Wikileaks
published and you will be surprised.

------
MagicWishMonkey
It's pretty neat that the Democrats and Republicans have no problem
cooperating when it comes to screwing the American people.

------
whybroke
I wonder what it would have been like to live back in those decades when
democracy was expanding instead.

------
skybrian
The White House response:

[http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/02/26/investor-state-
dis...](http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/02/26/investor-state-dispute-
settlement-isds-questions-and-answers)

~~~
jedberg
Which sadly completely dodges the main issue, which is that a foreign tribunal
can extract potentially billions of dollars from US taxpayers and the US would
have no say in the matter.

Our justice system is far from perfect, but at least it allows the accused a
say in the matter.

~~~
twoodfin
Why "potentially billions" and not "potentially trillions"? I mean, if this is
truly a totally unaccountable, unelected body...

The truth is that if the TPP ever stops being a net win for the United States,
we can leave it.

Would you only support a trade system that forgoes _any_ neutral arbitration
between partners?

------
swatow
I'm a big supporter of free trade, but the article makes some good points.
Free trade agreements where companies agree not to impose import tariffs are a
simple and good way to encourage free trade. But when it comes to government
regulation that might in some sense be regarded as restricting free trade,
things are a lot murkier. I wonder why these free trade agreements don't just
lower tariffs even further, instead of setting up this sort of agreement. E.g.
Australia still has a luxury car tax, which is a barrier to free trade that
could easily be removed.

~~~
nickbauman
TPP is not about free trade, it's about helping bigger players getting a
deeper dip in the trough. Pretty much the opposite of freedom to trade.

(As usual, "free trade" or "free markets" is a euphemism for "trade policy
that will help the guy using the term 'free trade'". Truly free markets would
entail lots of bad things like freedom of children to work and the freedom to
create Bohpal disasters. This is no exception)

~~~
swatow
Free trade is not a euphemism when it means eliminating tariffs.

It allows a lot of good things like Chinese workers being able to earn $2 an
hour instead of $0.20 an hour.

EDIT: $2 an hour is from about 5 years ago when Chinese manufacturing was more
controversial. Now it's more like $3.50 ([http://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-
manufacturing-wages-rise...](http://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-
manufacturing-wages-rise-7-202130472.html))

~~~
slantedview
I know what you mean, but in America free trade means NAFTA and TPP so it
basically is a euphemism.

------
nraynaud
Interesting, since the US sent some European countries to WTO arbitration when
they banned American GMO food.

~~~
walterbell
A2K has published books on lessons learned from WTO and WIPO, free PDFs

2010 handbook,
[http://a2knetwork.org/handbook](http://a2knetwork.org/handbook)

2010 case studies, [http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/access-knowledge-age-
intellect...](http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/access-knowledge-age-intellectual-
property)

------
guelo
Really hope Warren beats out Hillary in the Dem primaries. If it's another
Clinton vs Bush election it will really feel like this country is done for.

~~~
briandear
Elizabeth Warren? Isn't she the one that claimed to be native Anerican to get
affirmative action benefits? We really want to elect someone that commits
fraud? If George W. Claimed to be 1/12 black in order to get an affirmative
action job, would you feel the same way?

I completely agree about Bush III though. He's a unprincipled fake. Rand Paul
is a far better choice. Come to think of it, a Warren Paul race would actually
be interesting and likely filled with more constructive disagreement on policy
which would give voters a clear choice. A Clinton Bush race would be boring;
they're two sides of the same coin.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
>Isn't she the one that claimed to be native Anerican to get affirmative
action benefits?

No [1]. (And keep in mind, I _don 't_ want her to run for President. She's far
more useful as a policy wonk in the Senate.)

>Rand Paul is a far better choice.

Rand Paul? You mean the far-right anarcho-capitalist who considers one of the
provisions of the Civil Rights Act unconstitutional[2], said that criticizing
BP for trying to get out of paying for their own oil spill was "un-American
... criticism of business"[3], fought to defend tax-evaders who stash their
money in Switzerland[4], and says that he's "not a firm believer in
democracy"[5]?

Your post smells like you may be one of those people with a hobby of walking
into places on the internet and trying to act like we all, for some strange
reason, need to vote for the Pauls. While Clinton and Bush would indeed be two
sides of the same coin, _as was Obama vs Romney_ , Warren vs Paul would simply
be a centrist vs an anarcho-capitalist, a distinction without a difference due
to the present climate already being very firmly right-wing on economic
matters[6] -- and that assumes Warren wouldn't be transformed into a
Clintonite by the machinery of presidential campaigning.

[1] -- [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-
checker/post/rand-p...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-
checker/post/rand-pauls-rewriting-of-his-own-remarks-on-the-civil-rights-
act/2013/04/10/5b8d91c4-a235-11e2-82bc-511538ae90a4_blog.html)

[2] --
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren#Native_America...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren#Native_American_ancestry_controversy)

[3] -- [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/21/rand-paul-obama-
sou...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/21/rand-paul-obama-sounds-
un_n_584661.html)

[4] -- [http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/rand-paul-tax-swiss-
ba...](http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/rand-paul-tax-swiss-
banks-104148.html)

[5] -- [http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/06/why-rand-
paul-d...](http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/06/why-rand-paul-
distrusts-democracy.html)

[6] --
[http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012](http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012)

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> Rand Paul? You mean the far-right anarcho-capitalist who considers one of
> the provisions of the Civil Rights Act unconstitutional[2], said that
> criticizing BP for trying to get out of paying for their own oil spill was
> "un-American ... criticism of business"[3], fought to defend tax-evaders who
> stash their money in Switzerland[4], and says that he's "not a firm believer
> in democracy"[5]?

The problem with calling Rand Paul "far-right" is that he isn't anything like
Dick Cheney. Calling someone "far-right" who agrees with the Green Party on so
many social issues is just... odd.

So let's go through your list for a second, because it's kind of unreasonable
to criticize someone for taking positions that are essentially correct.
Forcing employers to hire people they don't want to is pretty clearly a
violation of the freedom to associate, regardless of whether you think it's a
good idea. It _is_ political pandering for politicians to lambast a company
which is taking full responsibility for a disaster and doing the cleanup by
the book. Blocking a privacy-invading treaty that requires companies to
provide the government with private financial records without any suspicion of
wrongdoing is entirely the right thing to do. And the idea that democracy can
lead to tyranny of the majority is so old and well-established that I'm not
sure how you even expect to question its veracity.

Moreover, the idea that Elizabeth Warren is "centrist" is as wrong as the idea
that Rand Paul is far-right. Centrist doesn't mean anything. If you can
describe a candidate who agrees with Republicans and Democrats on half of the
issues each as "centrist" but apply the same label to someone who takes
exactly the opposite position on everything then the label is useless. It
typically gets applied to the professional politicians who never take a
position on anything and therefore seem to be inoffensive to everyone, which
is exactly the opposite of what Elizabeth Warren is.

Elizabeth Warren will tell you what she thinks. You may not always agree with
it, but at least you know what it is, which is more than you can say for
Clinton, but really quite similar to Rand Paul. Which is why Paul vs. Warren
would be interesting -- the campaigns would be spectacular because they're
both candidates who take actual positions on things.

But Elizabeth Warren has stated unequivocally that she's not running.

------
briandear
It's ironic that Warren opposes this international trade court even when it
supplants a government's own court, yet she supports the international
criminal court which does the exact same thing.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
It's not really ironic. Warren supports international human-rights law, but
opposes "international" trade treaties that treat First World countries like
Third World beggar-nations under IMF supervision. Simply put, establishing the
sovereignty of human rights as a legally-enshrined standard is just plain
morally superior to establishing the sovereignty of multinational financial
and industrial corporations.

