Planet Not For Sale

Our own Todd Tucker has a piece on the media distortion of last year's trade debate in this month's edition of Extra!, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting's magazine. Here’s a snippet:

++

In the 16 months leading up to the congressional vote on a set of trade deal with Korea, Colombia and Panama in mid-October, new reporting on the agreements scarcely mentioned that critics existed; when they were acknowledged, their objections were frequently mischaracterized. With media doing little to evaluate misleading claims made by the trade pacts' proponents, all three were approved by Congress by considerable margins.

There were two major points that opponents of the trio of deals – including  labor, environmental, consumer and even Tea Party groups – consistently emphasized in reports, press releases, letters and direct outreach to reporters.

First, these trade deals were modeled on the controversial North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a pact whose actual content reporters have historically paid little attention to (Extra!, 11-12/97). The combined text of the three new deals was nearly 4,000 pages; as with NAFTA, the bulk of the provisions were not related to "trade" issues per se, but rather restrict how the U.S. and the other nations might regulate their domestic economies. For instance, corporations are given new rights to challenge environmental and other regulations outside of national court systems, and demand that taxpayers compensate them for regulations' potential impact on profits.

Second, unlike earlier trade deals, even the government's own projections showed that the pacts would increase the U.S. trade deficit (Extra!, 10/11). The projections were produced by the independent U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which typically produces overly rosy estimates of trade deals' impacts.

But at two of the country's most prominent papers, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, such criticisms were almost entirely absent.

++

The full article is available by subscription.

After having lost on the merits in Ecuador and U.S. courts, Chevron has turned to an ad hoc “investor-state” tribunal of three private lawyers to help the company avoid paying to clean up horrific contamination in the Amazonian rainforest.

Chevron is trying to get this private tribunal to suspend enforcement of or alter an $18 billion judgment against Chevron rendered by a sovereign country’s court system. The closed-door tribunal will meet in a rented room in Washington, DC Saturday and Sunday (February 11-12).

These unaccountable panels, from which no outside appeal is available, have issued perverse rulings in the past on behalf of corporate claimants. Recent U.S. trade agreements empower foreign corporations to use this system to skirt our domestic courts to directly use our government before these corporate tribunals to obtain payment of unlimited taxpayer funds when they claim domestic environmental, land use, health and other laws undermine their “expected future profits.” Really! This is becoming one of the most controversial issues in the first “trade” deal the Obama administration is negotiating - a new Trans-Pacific Free Trade Agreement (FTA).

Public Citizen, Amazon Watch and the Rainforest Action Network are standing up to Chevron's kangaroo court by organizing a rally and conducting a Teach-In at American University about Chevron's attempt to use the investor-state system to evade justice. They also will be conducting a press briefing. You are invited to attend all events.

La Presidenta de la Nación Argentina, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, realizó hoy un acto en Casa de Gobierno en el que anunció dos medidas que el gobierno ha tomado respecto del tema del reclamo de soberanía territorial sobre las Islas Malvinas y la escalada diplomática iniciada desde las declaraciones del Primer Ministro británico David Cameron días atrás.
La primera decisión, de carácter interno, es la de hacer público el "Informe Rattenbach" que fuera realizado por una comisión a la cabeza del Gral. Augusto Rattenbach para realizar la investigación sobre las responsabilidades política y militar sobre la conducción de la Junta Militar que gobernara de facto nuestro país en 1982 y que iniciara el conflicto bélico de aquel año.
El mencionado informe se encontraba bajo el estado de "secreto de Estado", el cual ha cesado en el día de hoy mediante la firma del Decreto Presidencial 200/2012. Dicho decreto forma una comisión presidida por el hijo del Gral. Rattenbach, el Cnel. Benjamín Rattenbach, a fin de "aconsejar en el plazo de 30 días corridos a la presidenta de la Nación la parte de la documentación contenida en el informe mencionado (...) cuya eventual publicación y/o difusión por cualquier medio pudiera poner en riesgo la seguridad interior, la defensa nacional o las relaciones exteriores." El análisis previo es para que la Presidenta "disponga mantener o no el carácter de clasificación de seguridad en los términos de la Ley 25.520."
La otra medida, de índole internacional, ha sido llevar al Consejo de Seguridad así como a la Comisión de Descolonización de la Asamblea General de la ONU la protesta formal de la República Argentina sobre la militarización del Atlántico Sur por parte del Reino Unido de Gran Bretaña e Irlanda del Norte.
Este es el video del acto oficial en la Casa de Gobierno, que contó con veteranos de la Guerra de Malvinas, representantes políticos del oficialismo, la oposición, el movimiento sindical, organizaciones sociales y de derechos humanos, miembros del Poder Judicial, entre otras representaciones.

En un claro desafío al gobierno británico, el ministro principal de Escocia, Alex Salmond, presentó en Edimburgo su plan para la celebración de un referéndum sobre la independencia que se celebraría en 2014.
En la sede del Parlamento Escocés, Salmond invocó "el derecho de la gente a decidir sobre su futuro" para presentar un plan que consiste en la celebración de un referéndum popular que plantearía la pregunta: "¿Está Ud. de acuerdo en que Escocia sea un país independiente?".
Partidarios de la oposición escocesa y políticos pro-británicos ya critican esta medida del gobierno escocés, liderado por el Partido Nacional Escocés (SNP), socialdemócata y de claro perfil independentista.
El contexto es propicio para sumar un problema interno al gobierno de David Cameron, Primer Ministro británico. La fuerte crisis económica que vive la Unión Europea (UE) y que hace estragos en las economías griega, italiana, española, portuguesa, también golpea las puertas del centro de Europa: Francia y Alemania, pero no le es ajena a Gran Bretaña.
En este marco, el margen de maniobra sobre la política económica para los escoceses es muy limitado. Incluso Grecia -quien actualmente está siendo objeto de fortísimas presiones políticas para el seguimiento de un plan de austeridad ideado desde Bruselas y no por Atenas- posee mayor autonomía que Escocia en decidir qué medidas tomar para encausar este difícil momento de crisis.
Escocia es un país miembro del Reino Unido de Gran Bretaña e Irlanda del Norte desde la firma del "Acta de la Unión" en 1707 entre este país y el Reino de Inglaterra, acta que nunca fue muy popular entre los escoceses.
Es por ello que el Ministro Principal escocés (tal es que más alto cargo en la administración de Escocia ya que cuenta con un jefe de gobierno, que es el Primer Ministro británico, y un jefe de Estado, que es la Reina Isabel II de Inglaterra) adujera que esta es "la decisión más importante de la gente de Escocia en 300 años" agregando que "un país que habla con voz propia muestra más altura en el mundo y toma responsabilidades sobre su futuro".
La propuesta es de realizar el referéndum en el otoño boreal de 2014, ampliando el derecho de voto a menores de 16 y 17 años. Desde ya que la respuesta de Londres no tardó en esperar, contestándole a Edimburgo que la decisión de cualquier referéndum sobre la independencia escocesa deberá ser negociada y con Londres...
Esto le abre a Cameron otro frente interno que, si bien no resulta novedoso en cuanto a las pretensiones independentistas escocesas, sí es nuevo en plena crisis económica europea y que se suma a las violentas protestas callejeras sobre los planes de ajuste que está llevando a cabo el gobierno a raíz de la crisis económica que golpea a Gran Bretaña. Crisis que evidentemente comienza a socavar el poder político del gobierno conservador.

Desde hace un par de semanas el tema Malvinas ha tenido una escalada en el nivel de la disputa diplomática sobre la soberanía en las islas.
El Primer Ministro británico, David Cameron, ha repetido su fuerte posición respecto de la disputa de soberanía y reafirmó el dominio que el Reino Unido de Gran Bretaña posee de facto sobre el archipiélago desde 1833 (con la interrupción del conflicto armado habido en 1982).
Es más, el conservador David Cameron el pasado 20 de enero de 2012 acusó a la Argentina de ser un "país colonialista" en una insólita alusión que pretende negar el pasado reciente del Imperio Británico sobre las posesiones coloniales continentales y de ultramar alrededor del mundo, y su continuidad colonial en lugares estratégicos como el Peñón de Gibraltar, la Isla Santa Helena, la Isla Ascensión, la Isla Tristán de Cunha, y por supuesto las Islas Malvinas (Falklands), Georgias y Sandwich del Sur, todo ello el cual forma una seguidilla de puntos geoestratégicos claves para su presencia en el Atlántico Sur.
Las islas del Atlántico Sur que se encuentran dentro de esta disputa de soberanía son tres archipiélagos denominados Malvinas, Georgias del Sur y Sandwich del Sur. De ellas, el primero es el más importante y los tres archipiélagos se encuentran estratégicamente ubicados en las puertas de la zona más ricas del continente antártico: la Península Antártica bajo reclamo de soberanía argentina y sobre la cual existen pretensiones territoriales tanto de Gran Bretaña como de Chile.
Las Malvinas fueron descubiertas por navegantes portugueses en 1501, que simplemente avistaron el archipiélago. En 1520 España divisó por primera vez las islas y desembarcó en ellas reclamándolas para el dominio del rey. En 1592 Gran Bretaña hizo lo propio, así como Francia en 1764. Estos últimos fueron quienes establecieron la primera colonia estable en las islas: Port Louis (en homenaje al rey francés Luis XV). España protestó, reclamando para sí las islas en 1766 y obligando a dejar desierta las islas por parte de Francia, quien desde entonces renunció a sus reclamos de soberanía y reconoció la soberanía española sobre las mismas. En 1811, las Malvinas fueron evacuadas por los españoles, quedando desiertas hasta 1820.
En 1820, la Junta de Buenos Aires -que se había emancipado como colonia española heredando todos los títulos de posesión de territorio bajo el principio del uti possidetis del derecho internacional- resolvió enviar una fragata para tomar posesión efectiva sobre las islas que se hallaban dentro del territorio del antiguo Virreinato español del Río de la Plata. Al mando de Luis María Vernet, la tripulación desembarcó en las islas en 1823 y fundó la Comandancia Político-Militar de las Islas Malvinas, fundando en 1929 Puerto Luis en las costas de la Isla Soledad.
El objetivo de la gobernación sobre las islas era controlar las actividades de buques balleneros de distintas banderas que cazaban por la zona. Ello llevó a que las instalaciones de Puerto Luis fueran asoladas por distintas embarcaciones, como la sorbeta de guerra Lexington (de los EEUU) que finalmente destruyó Puerto Luis.
En 1833 arribó la fragata de guerra británica Clio bajo mando del Capitán Onslow -de sólo 23 años- con órdenes de reafirmar la soberanía británica y retomar posesión sobre las islas en nombre del Rey de Inglaterra. El gobernador de entonces, José María Pinedo (ancestro lejano del actual diputado nacional por el PRO Federico Pinedo) entregó las islas sin ofrecer ningún tipo de resistencia, a pesar de las ordenes que Buenos Aires le había dado con anterioridad de defender las islas como posesión argentina y de "no entregarse ante ningún enemigo superior". Previo a abandonar el territorio el día 3 de enero de 1833, Pinedo redacta un documento que nombra "comandante político y militar" de las Islas Malvinas al capataz "Juan Simón". Se trata de Jean Simon, que, además de ser francés, era analfabeto. Antes de zarpar en horas del mediodía hacia Buenos Aires, un oficial inglés llega a la goleta de Pinedo con la enseña argentina (azul y blanca de entonces) doblada y una nota que expresaba que las fuerzas de ocupación habían encontrado "esa bandera extranjera en territorio de su Majestad".
José María Pinedo (quien moriría de muerte natural a los 90 años de edad en Buenos Aires y tras una vida apacible) llegaría a Buenos Aires y recibiría la indulgencia del tribunal militar que lo juzgó gracias al prestigio de su hermano, Agustín Pinedo, quien en 1833 había encabezado la Revolución de los Restauradores contra el entonces Gobernador de Buenos Aires Juan González de Balcarce, por haber querido hacer un acercamiento político con la oposición unitaria y que le valió el rechazo de los federales rosistas. Agustín Pinedo sería nombrado Ministro de Guerra por Juan Manuel de Rosas en 1835 y moriría de insolación en la batalla de Caseros (1852).
En 1965 la Asamblea General de la ONU dicta la Resolución 2065 que "Invita a los gobiernos de la Argentina y del Reino Unido de Gran Bretaña e Irlanda del Norte a proseguir sin demora las negociaciones recomendadas por el Comité Especial encargado de examinar la situación con respecto a la aplicación de la Declaración sobre la concesión de la independencia de los países y pueblos coloniales, teniendo debidamente en cuenta las disposiciones y los objetivos de la Carta de las Naciones Unidas y de la Resolución 1514 (XV) [sobre descolonización] de la Asamblea General, así como los intereses de la población de las Islas Malvinas (Falkland Islands)", e "Invita al gobierno del Reino Unido de Gran Bretaña e Irlanda del Norte a adoptar medidas eficaces para dar cumplimiento inmediato y completo a la Resolución 1514 (XV)". Tal resolución aún no ha sido acatada.
Desde 1833, Gran Bretaña ocupa las Islas Malvinas como territorio colonial, con la interrupción de la Guerra de Malvinas (o Guerra del Atlántico Sur) de 1982, en la cual Argentina ocupó las islas durante solo unos meses hasta que el conflicto acabó, favoreciendo al Reino Unido.
Luego del conflicto bélico, Gran Bretaña le dio a los isleños la plena ciudadanía británica y les ha dado dos constituciones para la administración británica sobre las Malvinas (1985 y 2008), otorgándoles ciertos derechos a los kelpers para la elección de sus gobernantes y conformación.
Argentina sostiene su reclamo de soberanía en virtud del título que le otorga el legítimo derecho de poseer como heredera de los territorios coloniales del Virreinato del Río de la Plata, la ubicación natural geográfica de las islas que se encuentran dentro de la plataforma continental argentina, y del principio internacional de la integridad territorial el cual evoca el derecho y el deber inalienable de un Estado de preservar sus fronteras de toda influencia exterior, así como de que los Estados eviten promover movimientos secesionistas o cambios en las fronteras de otros Estados con el objetivo de alterar la situación jurídica de los límites territoriales, actos que son considerados como un acto de agresión.
Esta escalada diplomática -que incluye el envío de submarinos nucleares a la zona para patrullaje- surge del interés de la administración conservadora británica de mover el interés de su propia opinión pública respecto de los actuales conflictos internos que posee el Reino Unido: no sólo la profunda crisis económica que se hace sentir en todo el mundo, pero principalmente en Europa, sino también el fuerte movimiento pro-independentista que existe hoy en Escocia y que gobierna dicho país, región que ya ha anunciado un referéndum sobre su voluntad de emancipación de la corona inglesa para el año 2014 y que, evidentemente, preocupa sobremanera a Londres.
Por otro lado, diversos Estados ya han expresado públicamente su posición favorable a la Argentina de negociar una salida diplomática al litigio. No solamente Brasil se ha manifestado en apoyo a los reclamos argentinos de soberanía sobre las islas, sino también China y recientemente los países del bloque del ALBA (Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Cuba, Dominica, Nicaragua, Antigua y Barbuda, y San Vicente y Granadinas).

Language:  English IATP author(s):  Julia Olmstead File:  2012_01_31_LearningFromILUC_JO.pdf For the last few years, environmental advocates and ethanol producers have been mired in a debate over something known as indirect land use change (ILUC), a measure of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused by, but not directly associated with, biofuel production. The controversy centers on these questions: Does ethanol demand in the U.S. and other countries lead to destruction of forests and other carbon-sequestering ecosystems in countries other than where the ethanol or the crops used to make it are produced? And if it does, can the GHG emissions associated with those land use changes be accurately quantified and used for regulatory carbon footprint assessments? For the moment, the debate has...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

La República Bolivariana de Venezuela formalizó el pasado 24 de enero del corriente ante el Banco Mundial (BM), la denuncia irrevocable del Convenio de Washington de 1966, con el cual se instituye el Centro Internacional de Arreglo de Diferencias relativas a Inversiones (CIADI), uno de los cinco organismos miembros del Grupo de Banco Mundial.
Venezuela adhirió a dicho convenio en 1993, un año antes que lo hiciera la República Argentina, y por decisión de un gobierno provisional.
El comunicado oficial expresa que: "La Constitución de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela de 1999 invalida, en su espíritu y en su letra, las disposiciones del mencionado Convenio, cuando reza en su Artículo 151 que "en los contratos de interés público, si no fuere improcedente de acuerdo con la naturaleza de los mismos, se considerará incorporada, aun cuando no estuviere expresa, una cláusula según la cual las dudas y controversias que puedan suscitarse sobre dichos contratos y que no llegaren a ser resueltas amigablemente por las partes contratantes, serán decididas por los tribunales competentes de la República, de conformidad con sus leyes, sin que por ningún motivo ni causa puedan dar origen a reclamaciones extranjeras".

Conforme al mandato constitucional, el Gobierno Bolivariano ha actuado con el fin de proteger el derecho del pueblo venezolano a decidir las orientaciones estratégicas de la vida económica y social de la nación, sustrayéndolo de una jurisdicción internacional que ha fallado 232 veces a favor de los intereses transnacionales, en las 234 causas que ha conocido a lo largo de su historia."

De esta forma, Venezuela es el tercer Estado que denuncia este tratado multilateral y se retira de este organismo, cuya función es la de servir como centro de formación de tribunales arbitrales ad-hoc para el tratamiento de demandas internacionales que empresas multinacionales presenten contra Estados miembros (y no viceversa). Los otros dos países en retirarse previamente del CIADI han sido también latinoamericanos: Bolivia (en 2007) y Ecuador (en 2009).
El CIADI es un organismo que contó con un apoyo indiscutido durante los ´90 en la región (década en la que la mayoría de los países de estas latitudes ingresaron al ámbito) así como en otras partes del mundo, pero que actualmente se encuentra bastante cuestionado a raíz de cuestiones de forma y de fondo.
Actualmente Venezuela es demandada por una veintena de casos, cerca de diez menos que el más demandado en el mundo ante este organismo: la Argentina.

As regulators and legislators have wrestled with reforming the financial system in the wake of the crisis, one quiet corner of the debate has received less notice.  As we have reported in past posts, The World Trade Organization’s General Agreement on Trade in Services limits the kinds of financial regulations countries can impose.

These rules were hashed out during the 1990s – before the lessons of the financial crisis, and when deregulation was in vogue. Documents we obtained under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act show that, in the late 1980s and 1990s, U.S. government officials worked closely with Wall Street executives to sell these rules to wary developing nations.

Unlike the re-regulation being discussed in the G-20 or the Bank of International Settlements, these rules at the WTO are highly enforceable. While the near-total absence of re-regulation over the last 15 years has presented few opportunities to road-test this services agreement, tax havens like Panama have already threatened to use them against the tax transparency initiatives of cash-starved countries like Ecuador.  The U.S. lost a high-profile services trade case related to its ban on Internet gambling. Regulatory bans – even of questionable services – are prohibited under the WTO. And a European Commission staff paper about a potential financial transactions tax noted that it would be necessary to assess whether such a tax might conflict with the EU’s WTO commitments.

But the U.S., EU and the WTO Secretariat have spent the last 18 months trying to quash any discussion of these problems, much less consideration of possible updates to the old rules.

WTO Member States Try to Raise Issue at Ministerial Conference

Last fall, a group of countries led by Ecuador tried to get this problem on the formal agenda.  Their modest objective was for Trade Ministers at last December’s  WTO Ministerial Conference to acknowledge the need to review the WTO rules covering financial services in light of the financial crisis and the efforts internationally and domestically to strengthen regulation.

 Ecuador presented its proposal at the WTO’s Committee on Trade in Financial Services (CTFS) in late October in order to get the item on the agenda for December’s meeting.  A powerful bloc of countries – including India, Argentina, Turkey, Brazil, and South Africa – supported the proposal. However, the skewed “consensus” process in the WTO allowed the U.S., EU and Canada to block the discussion from moving forward at the Ministerial Conference, where Ministers would have been forced to recognize that there is a potential conflict between the WTO rules and the global consensus toward financial re-regulation. 

As is often the case in flawed WTO processes, it appears that Ecuador’s proposal was unfairly downplayed, perhaps to ensure that it would not be noted in the Ministerial Conference.   Because the CTFS finalized its Annual Report at the beginning of their October 31 meeting (the last meeting of the Committee in 2011), the discussion on Ecuador’s proposal that occurred later in the meeting was not included in the Annual Reports of the Committee on Trade in Financial Services or of the Council on Trade in Services.  The minutes from the October 31 CTFS meeting state that the Chair of the Committee noted that there was “some” interest in discussing the substantive issues raised by Ecuador.  An observer in the meeting, however, shared with us that the Chair had actually said that there was “broad” support.  The minutes also failed to take note that China and Venezuela supported the proposal, though the representatives from both countries joined the many others present in expressing support for the proposal. 

Ecuador reserved its right to raise the issue at the General Council meeting where the Ministerial Conference’s agenda was finalized.  Despite the fact that there was not consensus on any agenda items for the Ministerial, Ecuador’s proposal was blocked from the agenda, while other agenda items proposed by developed countries remained on the General Council agenda.   Ecuador was forced to raise its proposal under the  “Other Business,” section of the agenda, which was dealt with after 11 pm.  Despite this marginalization, again, a number of countries – including Argentina and Turkey -  spoke in favor of Ecuador’s proposal, and no countries opposed.  In the end, a brief statement about Ecuador’s proposal was included in the General Council’s Annual Report to the Ministers in the documents circulated at Ministerial Conference, but, unfortunately, the summary only lists the countries that spoke, but does not note their support, nor the fact that no country spoke in opposition. 

Activities at the Ministerial Conference

Since the efforts of Ecuador and its allies to include this issue on the agenda of the Ministerial Conference were thwarted, the government of Ecuador hosted a side event “Future of Trade in Financial Services: Safeguarding Stability” to raise this issue during the Ministerial.

During the side event, the Honourable Francisco Rivadeneira, Ecuador’s Vice Minister of Trade and Integration, strongly made the case for why Ecuador proposed a review of the WTO’s financial services rules -  to ensure that WTO members, particularly small countries like Ecuador, have sufficient policy space to engage in the regulation needed to ensure stability of the financial system. Alfredo Calcagno from UNCTAD’s  Division on Globalization and Development Strategies described in detail the concerns raised by UNCTAD’s 2011 Trade and Development Report, particularly how the ambiguities in the WTO’s General Agreement on Trade and Services (GATS) could restrict policy space for capital controls and other financial regulatory tools. Lori Wallach, Director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch division, laid out the potential conflicts between GATS rules and needed financial regulations, based on a review of the legal literature.  Finally, Kavaljit Singh Director of Public Interest Research Centre in India gave a rousing presentation about how the financial sector must be properly regulated to ensure financial stability and inclusion, using examples from the Indian context.  

Unfortunately, the official proceedings of the Ministerial Conference went on in Alice-in-Wonderland - style as if no financial crisis had ever happened.   Without anything real to deliver after more than ten years of negotiations on the Doha round, the WTO struggled to demonstrate its continued relevance by trumpeting the accessions of Russia and Samoa – even though accessions are rarely considered to be news at the Ministerial Conference level.  If the powerful countries in the WTO – and its Secretariat – continue to refuse to acknowledge that its extreme deregulation rules require revision, the WTO will continue to lose legitimacy on the international stage.

 The good news is that Ecuador’s efforts did raise the profile of the issue among important WTO countries and that the Chair of the WTO’s Committee on Trade in Financial Services has agreed to keep Ecuador’s proposal for a review of the rules on the agenda for the Committee in 2012.  It will be important to watch closely to make sure that the U.S. and EU allow a robust review of the rules to go forward.

 

Subtitle:  “A triple win” for the environment, economy and consumers Language:  English IATP author(s):  Andrew Ranallo File:  2012_01_25_GreenChemConf.pdf MINNEAPOLIS – Over 200 business owners, entrepreneurs and green chemistry advocates will come together for the second annual Minnesota Green Chemistry Conference tomorrow, co-hosted by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) and the University of Minnesota’s Center for Science, Technology and Public Policy (CSTPP). Held at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey School of Public Affairs, the conference will feature keynote speaker Dr. Patrick Gruber, the Chief Executive Officer of Gevo and prominent leader in green chemistry. Gruber will...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

En estos últimos días ha venido desatándose una polémica global sobre varias leyes internas de los EEUU para diversos fines, como son las leyes A.C.T.A. (Acuerdo Comercial Anti-Falsificación, pero con dichas siglas por su nombre en inglés), la más conocida S.O.P.A. y la Protect IP Act, todas ellas leyes de distinto contenido.

Las tres legislaciones persiguen fines últimos similares que intentan proteger los derechos de autor y prohibir los intercambios gratuitos en internet. Ello ha llevado a distintos sitios web a ser clausurados por la policía federal de los EEUU (el F.B.I.), perjudicando a cientos de miles de millones de usuarios, como ser el caso de quien les escribe.
Este blog es personal y posee dos fines básicos. El primero es de servir como plataforma curricular y extra-curricular para mi alumnos en distintas facultades, universidades y cursos que se encuentran bajo mi dirección o en los cuales imparto clases, de modo de seguir con las últimas y más sofisticadas estrategias de aprendizaje como ser el concepto de "aprendizaje continuo" y entendiendo a la internet como una herramienta de múltiples propósitos, dentro de los cuales se halla la función educativa.
El segundo fin de este blog personal es el de servir de lugar de opinión para algunas cuestiones que resultan de interés para quien escribe más que nada sobre temas que tienen que ver con la actualidad internacional, lo cual también se engarza con los contenidos de mis cursos.
Entendiendo a la red como un lugar de intercambio de información y no como un lugar comercial, fue que registramos los contenidos de este blog bajo las licencias de Creative Commons (algo que cualquier lector puede comprobar al final del banner de la derecha con un logo que advierte la leyenda bajo el título de "Reserva de derechos (CC)" que "some rights are reserved" -"algunos derechos están reservados"-) y cuyas condiciones pueden observarse haciendo un click allí.
Los efectos secundarios de las leyes que intentan aprobarse en el Congreso de los EEUU en este momento afectarían directamente a sitios web como este, ya que impediría la repetición de información como ser videos publicados en Youtube o Vimeo y que hemos publicado (todas las informaciones que están subidas aquí están descargadas de esos sitios) y cuyas transmisiones televisivas cuentan con derechos registrados de autor en sus países de origen, pero que al mismo tiempo han sido subidas oficialmente a los canales de Youtube que dichos canales poseen.
Hubiera sido imposible seguir las informaciones fidedignas de la "Primavera Árabe" sin los videos compartidos por la cadena Aljazeera, por ejemplo. O sin las primicias informativas de Telesur sobre resultados electorales en otros Estados. O incluso repetir los interesantes debates que se han dado en canales de televisión argentinos fuere por cable o por televisión abierta (como ser ejemplos de Canal 13 y de Canal 7 de Buenos Aires).
Todas estas publicaciones reconocen la autoría de sus realizadores en forma explícita (pues se menciona la fuente en los posteos) e implícita (pues se repiten los contenidos sin edición que pudiera distorsionar la información o eliminar logos de cada transmisión). No se edita ninguna información que es publicada en este blog y no se atribuye ninguna propiedad personal sobre contenidos de otro origen que no sean propios.
Pero esto ha ido más allá: desde esta página hemos subido contenidos propios para su descarga gratuita al público en general, pero en especial para el alumnado que es objeto de unos de los fines de este blog. Dicho material sí ha sido elaborado por mí (por ende soy yo quien posee dichos derechos) y ha sido compartido on line gratuitamente y en las condiciones de la licencia de Creative Commons de este blog (ya que su descarga era solo publicitada por este medio) mediante su descarga gratuita desde el sitio Megaupload, el cual fue cerrado definitivamente por el FBI norteamericano.
Decidí chequear los materiales de mi autoría subidos a internet y me encontré con la siguiente leyenda al momento de querer ingresar al sitio:
Debo lamentar que el gobierno de los EEUU haya decidido considerar al sitio Megaupload como pausible de las prohibiciones de uso a nivel internacional sin tampoco hacer distinciones sobre la veracidad o la legitimidad de sus contenidos. En este sentido me siento directamente perjudicado por esta decisión del gobierno norteamericano al tomar esta medida, pero al mismo tiempo carezco de las posibilidades de ejercer acciones legales exitosas en su territorio.
Al mismo tiempo, créanme que no me complace el tener que disculparme en nombre del gobierno norteamericano por esta actitud frente a los usuarios de este blog así como a mis alumnos que también utilizan los materiales subidos aquí.
Es por ello que el miércoles 18 del corriente, y frente al llamado internacional de acción en contra de la ley SOPA y similares, hemos decidido sumarnos al paro simbólico en la red como humilde contribución a esta campaña global de no distingue formas de compartir información, desconoce por completo lo que es internet y su funcionamiento, y -ante todo- decide afectar la libertad de expresión, el derecho a la intimidad y a la libertad de conciencia (cada autor tiene el derecho de decidir cómo y bajo qué condiciones publicar y difundir su producción) y el libre pensamiento en una serie de medidas inusitadas hasta el momento. Esto también detendría definitivamente con conceptos de desarrollo de la internet como la "web 2.0".
Las cifras relevadas solamente por Wikipedia en cuanto al ingreso a su sitio para corroboral el paro, ha sido de 162 millones de usuarios en sólo 1 día.
Pero -y aquí cabe la libertad de expresión mencionada- no solamente subimos todo este material para la simple información del lector, sino que deseamos fijar posición sobre estos proyectos de ley, publicando aquí contenidos que se encuentran abiertamente en contra de los proyectos legislativos norteamericanos y que podrían afectar el funcionamiento global de la internet (y que incluyen hasta a la sabia Malfalda en sus críticos!).



Sus promotores dentro del Poder Legislativo estadounidense son los republicanos Lamar Smith, Marsha Blackburn, Mary Bono Mack, Steve Chabot, Elton Gallegly, Bob Goodlatte, Timothy Griffin, Dennis A. Ross, y Lee Terry, y los demócratas Howard Berman, John Conyers, Ted Deutch y Adam Schiff.
Quienes se encuentran entre los impulsores que apoyan estas leyes están la Asociación Cinematográfica de Estados Unidos (MPAA, por sus siglas en inglés) y sus asociadas: Walt Disney Pictures, 20th Centrury Fox, Universal Studios, Warner Bros., y Hit Entertainment. También la Asociación de la Industria Discográfica estadounidense (RIAA, por sus siglas en inglés), y una serie de empresas de distintos rubros, como ser: Sony (empresa multinacional discográfica de los EEUU), Nike (empresa transnacional norteamericana de ropa, calzado elementos deportivos), L´Oreal (empresa transnacional de cosméticos francesa) y su competidora Revlon, Viacom (multinacional norteamericana del entretenimiento, dueña de Nickelodeon, Dreamworks, Paramount Pictures y MTV), la cadena televisiva NBC, la liga de básquetbol norteamericana -la NBA-, la Ford Motor Company (transnacional norteamericana automotriz), la farmacéutica transnacional Pfizer, la editorial Macmillan Publishers, así como la Cámara Comercial de los EEUU y la central sindical norteamericana AFL-CIO.
Entre los críticos declarados se encuentran Wikipedia (enciclopedia on line de elaboración libre por los usuarios y nominada al premio Príncipe de Asturias en 2008), Google (principal buscador de internet hoy y también nominado al mismo premio), Yahoo (otro buscador), Mozilla (otro buscador, primero en ser de contenido libre), Creative Commons (registro on line de propiedad intelectual), Twitter, Facebook (las dos principales redes sociales en internet hoy día), Epic (sello discográfico norteamericano de gran tamaño).
Dentro del Congreso estadounidense se oponen la demócrata Nancy Pelosi y el republicano Darrell Isssa, así como el candidato a presidente Ron Paul.

PROTECT IP / SOPA Breaks The Internet from Fight for the Future on Vimeo.

Se trata de una puja por definir qué será la internet de aquí en más y sobre limitar los intereses corporativos sobre las libertades individuales. Gracias por leer y mirar.

Language:  English IATP author(s):  Andrew Ranallo File:  2012_01_20_AntibioticResistantMRSA.pdf MINNEAPOLIS – New peer-reviewed research published January 19 found methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in pork samples collected from retail stores at a higher rate than previously identified. The study, by researchers from the University of Iowa College of Public Health and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, titled “MRSA in conventional and alternative retail pork products,” represents the largest sampling of raw meat products for MRSA contamination to date in the United States. It appears in the online science journal PLoS ONE from the Public Library of Science. In total, 395 pork samples were collected from a total of 36 stores in Iowa,...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

Public Citizen commends the Obama administration for taking the necessary step of appealing today the harmful World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling against U.S. consumer and dolphin protection measures.

In September 2011, a WTO panel ruled that the U.S. dolphin-safe tuna labeling law violates WTO rules. The labels have been enormously successful in reducing dolphin deaths by tuna fishers – a major problem in the past, when tuna fleets set upon dolphins to catch tuna, since the two species associate with one another in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. The label allows consumers to “vote with their dollars” for dolphin-safe methods. Mexico successfully challenged the U.S. standard after decades of refusing to transition its fishing fleet to more dolphin-safe fishing methods.

The ruling’s implications are dire, especially in the context of a decades-long battle to save dolphins. This struggle has been beset by countless trade-related obstacles: 1991 and 1994 rulings under the WTO’s predecessor organization led to the U.S. eliminating the more potent import ban of dolphin-unsafe tuna, and environmentalists fighting successfully in U.S. court to block the Clinton and Bush administrations from also watering down the voluntary labeling policy. These groups narrowly blocked this executive branch effort, which U.S. courts deemed “Orwellian” and “a compelling portrait of political meddling.” The legitimacy of the WTO is likely to be further undermined if the WTO’s Appellate Body upholds the lower panel ruling. Consumer and environmental groups will see that the WTO allows anti-environmental forces a second (or third) bite at the apple, even when such forces fail in their U.S. legal and political efforts to undermine a domestic policy to which they object.

The Obama administration is considering expanding some of these anti-consumer and environmental rules in the first trade deal it is negotiating: the nine-nation Trans-Pacific Free Trade Agreement. The WTO ruling – and two others in 2011 against country-of-origin labels on meat and a ban on sweet cigarettes used to entice teens into smoking – show that a new approach to trade policy is needed, one that puts consumers, the environment and communities first.

The Obama administration made a lot of us environmentalists happy with yesterday's decision to reject the Keystone XL pipeline.

Given that the Canadian government and corporations appear to be steaming mad about this, it's worth all of us reflecting on what their next move could be. A NAFTA case, for one, does not seem out of the question.

(If it seems far-fetched that Canadian entities might pursue these options, think of how much energy they've put into this pipeline. Compare this with how relatively little energy they've put into opposing U.S. financial regulations, yet in that case, they've already threatened to invoke NAFTA to derail the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation.)

On what basis might a Canadian corporation, say, challenge the decision to reject the pipeline? The pending case against the Sultanate of Oman brought by U.S. investor Adel A Hamadi Al Tamimi under the US/Oman FTA is instructive. (That FTA is modeled on NAFTA.)

Mr. Al Tamimi is a UAE native, naturalized U.S. citizen and real estate developer in New England who invested in Oman through two UAE shell companies.  In 2006, his companies concluded ten-year lease agreements with the Oman Mining Company LLC (OMCO, a state-owned enterprise) related to a limestone quarrying/crushing operation.  OMCO committed to “use its best endeavors” to obtain “the necessary environmental and operating permits.”  In August 2007, OMCO told al Tamimi’s companies that the permits had been obtained, and that he was contractually required to commence operations,  which he did in September. Within weeks, officials from the Commerce and Environmental Ministries told al Tamimi that the final permits had not been obtained, and various stop-work orders were issued. 

As al Tamimi states, “OMCO now had to make a choice: it could fulfill its obligations under the Lease Agreements, which would mean disobeying or confronting the Environmental and Commerce Ministries, or it could use whatever leverage it had over the Companies and exert every effort to get them to suspend their operations until a solution could be found to the permitting issues. It chose the latter.”

By April 2008, al Tamimi had ceased operations.  Al Tamimi racked up various environmental fees, which he apparently did not pay.  In April 2009, OMCO told al Tamimi that he was in violation of environmental laws,  and in May 2009, he was arrested.  After being convicted of stealing and breaking environmental laws by a criminal court in November 2009, his conviction was overturned by an appeals court in June 2010.

Tying this back into the FTA rules... In 2011, al Tamimi launched an investor-state case under the Oman-U.S. FTA. He alleges that Oman expropriated his property rights by terminating the leases and bringing “the full force of the police power of the State to ensure cessation of all activities…”  He additionally claims that Oman undermined “his legitimate expectations” that he would be able to conduct quarrying operations and failed to provide “protection and security,” in violation of the U.S.-Oman FTA’s fair and equitable treatment (FET) standard.  He also says that other quarrying operations which he “believes to be owned and controlled by nationals of Oman” have been allowed to operate quarrying operations, in violation of the FTA’s national treatment obligations.

Similar arguments could be constructed in the Keystone case under NAFTA. TransCanada could point to a long string of overtures by the U.S. government that led it to develop "legitimate expectations" (as that is defined under trade law) that it would be able to build the pipeline, going from the private assurances in favor of the pipeline (recently revealed by FOIA documents to Friends of the Earth) and ending in the December 2011 payroll tax cut (which included Keystone-related provisions).

Those "expectations" could be then measured against what could be characterized under the FET standard as an arbitrary decision-making process, as when the Obama administration delayed the pipeline decision in November 2011 until after the presidential election.

TransCanada could point to some domestic pipeline operators that have not confronted similar hurdles as a basis for a National Treatment claim under NAFTA, while they could point to any lost expected future earnings as a basis for an "indirect expropriation" claim.

Stranger cases over much smaller sums of money have been launched before. There's been an outrageous string of cases against El Salvador over mining permitting issues. Over $350 million in compensation has already been paid out to corporations in a series of investor-state cases under NAFTA-style deals. This includes attacks on natural resource policies, environmental protection and health and safety measures, and more. In fact, of the over $12.5 billion in the 17 pending claims under NAFTA-style deals, all relate to environmental, public health and transportation policy – not traditional trade issues. For a full rundown of these NAFTA-style cases up until now, see this link.

If all of this seems like an outrage, it is. And what's worse is that the Obama administration is considering putting similar investor rules in a NAFTA-style deal with nine nations, called the Trans-Pacific FTA. Stay tuned for more on this!

There's been a flurry of activity recently in the world of investor-state arbitration.

For the uninitiated, these are the foreign tribunals where corporations can directly sue governments for environmental and other policies. These proceedings take place outside of national judicial systems, where corporations can demand compensation from taxpayers for alleged interferences with future expected profits.

This very controversial system has generated some good and some bad news of late.

First, the good news. Last night, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned a 2007 investor-state ruling under the U.K.-Argentina Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). [HT to Investment Arbtiration Reporter for catching this very quickly.]

Argentina has been hit by dozens of investor-state claims from U.S. and European companies following its 2001-03 financial crisis. (We detail some of these happenings here.)

In the 2007 ruling, Alejandro Garro (U.S./Argentina), Albert van der Berg (Netherlands) and Guillermo Aguilar-Alvarez (Mexico) comprised the panel of three unelected tribunalists that ruled in BG Group's (a U.K. corporation) favor. The panel wrote:

"Argentina adopted certain measures to address its economic, political and social crisis. It is not for this Tribunal to pass judgment on the reasonableness or effectiveness of such measures as a matter of political economy."

Such loving nods to sovereignty are but the preface for the slap-down. The panel wrote that Argentina guaranteed that the energy companies would be paid in dollars at a set rate. When the 2001-03 economic crisis forced revision of the dollar-peso peg (a key recommendation of neoliberal advisors), Argentina was acting "unreasonably" and therefore in violation of the BIT obligation to provide "fair and equitable treatment" (FET).

The panel ordered Argentine taxpayers, many of whom had been pushed into poverty after following the policy advice of the IMF, to cough up roughly $200 million. (This included paying the fees of the company's lawyers. Awesome.)

A U.S. court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the investor-state ruling under the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act. National courts hardly ever overturn these investor-state rulings, but the U.S. court wrote:

"Although the scope of judicial review of the substance of arbitral awards is exceedingly narrow, it is well settled that an arbitrator cannot ignore the intent of the contracting parties. Where, as here, the result of the arbitral award was to ignore the terms of the Treaty and shift the risk that the Argentine courts might not resolve BG Group’s claim within eighteen months pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Treaty, the arbitral panel rendered a decision wholly based on outside legal sources and without regard to the contracting parties’ agreement establishing a precondition to arbitration. Accordingly, we reverse the orders denying the motion to vacate and granting the cross-motion to confirm, and we vacate the Final Award."

This is is a positive sign that there are some limits on obscene investor-state rulings. However, U.S. trade and investment agreements don't even have this 18-month requirement, so don't expect any similar overturnings of rulings under NAFTA-style deals anytime soon.

++

Speaking of which, there was a ruling over very similar issues under the U.S.-Argentina BIT that was just recently released to the public. That award came down in favor of U.S. investor El Paso Energy International Company, which ordered Argentine taxpayers to pay out over $43 million.

Perhaps taking note of some of the skepticism about these awards against Argentina, the panel of Piero Bernardini (Italy), Brigitte Stern (France) and Lucius Caflisch (Switzerland) dialed back some of the rhetoric, stating:

“As far as the relation between FET and the minimum standard of international law is concerned, two main approaches have been adopted by ICSID tribunals, to which one may add an intermediate, undecided position. … Under the first approach, FET has to be equated with the minimum standard of treatment provided for by general international law. … The second approach deals with FET as an autonomous concept, considered in general as more demanding and more protective of investors’ rights than the minimum standard of treatment provided for by general international law. … The Tribunal considers this discussion to be somewhat futile, as the scope and content of the minimum standard of international law is as little defined as the BITs’ FET standard, and as the true question is to decide what substantive protection is granted to foreign investors through the FET."

But, then comes the slap:

"it could be said that the foreign investor is entitled to the most favourable treatment, be it national law, rules applied to some foreigners or the international minimum standard embodied in FET. The Tribunal thus considers that the FET of the BIT is the international minimum standard required by international law, regardless of the protection afforded by the national legal orders.”

Okay, we started hoping a little too soon.

The panel also went through every one of the specific complaints raised by the investor, and found that none of them violated the BIT. Just as my mood started to pick up a bit, I get to the punchline:

"The Tribunal considers that, in the same way as one can speak of creeping expropriation, there can also be creeping violations of the FET standard. According to the case-law, a creeping expropriation is a process extending over time and composed of a succession or accumulation of measures which, taken separately, would not have the effect of dispossessing the investor but, when viewed as a whole, do lead to that result. A creeping violation of the FET standard could thus be described as a process extending over time and comprising a succession or an accumulation of measures which, taken separately, would not breach that standard but, when taken together, do lead to such a result. 519. The Tribunal, taking an all-encompassing view of consequences of the measures complained of by El Paso, including the contribution of these measures to its decision to sell its investments in Argentina, concludes that, by their cumulative effect, they amount to a breach of the fair and equitable treatment standard."

Dang. What creeps.

Then, the panel just got silly. Argentina reasonably argued that the economic crisis should excuse some of the alleged infractions (the so-called "necessity" defense in Article XI of the BIT). After the panel ran through a bunch of editorial comments from Domingo Cavallo and other architects of Argentina's failed neoliberal strategy that blamed Argentina for causing the crisis (which they characterize as "evidence"), Bernardini and Caflisch write:

"While accepting that 'in economic matters, the analysis of causation … does not lend itself to the same scientific analysis as in the domain of the so-called exact sciences and of natural phenomenon,' the evidence presented by the Claimant regarding the actions and omissions by Argentina until the end of 2001, and Argentina’s own admission of its 'inability to maintain a fiscal discipline,' support the conclusion of a majority of the Tribunal that Argentina contributed to the crisis to a substantial extent, so that Article XI cannot come to its rescue."

Yeah, social science is hard. But if you're looking for causation in this case, why not give it a name? How about Domingo Cavallo, the "expert" now cited as an objective observer of the Argentine scene?

Thankfully (but of little practical consequence), Stern took an opposing view:

"666. Arbitrator Stern, while she agrees, as a matter of principle, with the theoretical analysis of the role played by the contribution by a State to a situation of necessity as expressed in paragraphs
613-626, does not consider that, on the concrete level, the contribution of a State to an economic crisis should be lightly assumed – should the US be held responsible of the worldwide sub-prime crisis as it contributed to it, because the SEC did not monitor the banks closely enough? Moreover, she is of the view that, considering the facts of this case, the substantial contribution of the Argentine authorities to the crisis has not been sufficiently proven by strong and uncontroverted evidence presented by the Claimant.

667. Arbitrator Stern disagrees with the far-reaching conclusion by the majority, which is not based, in her view, on an in-depth understanding of the intricacies of economic development. It should not lightly be assumed that a State is responsible for an economic collapse in a liberal market economy, where the invisible hand of the market is more powerful than the hand of the State. The majority, after having presented the experts’ evidence on both sides and concluded that the latter diverged on the analysis for the responsibilities of the economic crisis, the Claimant expert considering, not surprisingly, that the crisis was primarly self-induced and the Respondent’s expert holding, unsurprisingly too, that the essential factors of the crisis were external shocks. The experts have presented contradictory analyses. The IMF itself recognised that it made mistakes in monitoring Argentina’s problems, as can be seen in the citation of one of its reports in paragraph 657 of this Award, where it is recognised that “the IMF on its part erred in the precrisis period.”

668. Economics is a complicated science or, better, a complicated art; the mere reading of the analyses of the experts of both Parties show that there is little certainty. In Arbitrator Stern’s view, the conclusion reached by the majority is based essentially on a comparative analysis of the expert reports, the Edwards’ Report being described as “comprehensive, very detailed and well documented,” while the Frenkel/Damil report is said to be “rather polemical and only in part based on data from external sources.” In her view, the situation of the Argentine economy was extremely serious and out of control by any definition. Many publicly well known events support this conclusion, and there is no reason to doubt the statement, made by Argentina, that it was “the worst economic crisis (which later became a political and institutional crisis) ever experienced by the Argentine Republic as from its onset in 1810.” A serious clue to the gravity of the crisis was the decrease of Argentina’s contribution to the United Nations: “In May 2002, the critical situation caused the United Nations Organization General Assembly to reduce Argentina’s contribution to such organization. It was the first time in history that the organization decreased the contribution to be made by a member state and the decision was taken unanimously by its members.”

669. Moreover, according to Arbitrator Stern, the measures adopted were necessary to prevent the crisis from resulting in anarchy and social disintegration and they constituted a suitable means to overcome the chaos. It should also be recorded that the policies followed by Argentina before the crisis were generally supported by the World Bank and that the measures taken to address the crisis had the support and encouragement of the IMF. This has been stressed, for example, in Continental: “In its Second Review of January 2001, the IMF staff noted that “the external environment worsened in the subsequent months, with external financing to emerging markets nearly drying up. This was compounded by domestic political uncertainties, which raised doubts about the political governability of the country. (…) The authorities have responded to these adverse developments by strengthening the growth orientation of their economic program, through measures aimed at promoting a recovery of investment, and an accelerated implementation of structural reforms…. “In view of the staff, this strategy is appropriate, and deserves the increased financial support of the international community … A recovery of confidence hinges, in turn, not only on a relatively benign international environment, but perhaps more importantly, on a demonstrated, unwavering commitment by the authorities to a rapid and full implementation of their announced policies.”

670. In other words, Argentina adopted mainstream policies, following the Washington consensus, and earned praise for its conduct from the international financial community. Therefore, Arbitrator Stern is inclined to adopt the same conclusion as in Continental, i.e. that the evidence is insufficient to conclude that the policies adopted by the GOA before the crisis were mainly responsible for the crisis."

Will there be any basis for a national court overturning this ruling? I wouldn't hold your breath.

[Update 1/19: Just to be clear on this last point, the El Paso case was brought under the World Bank's ICSID rather than the UNCITRAL rules (which were operative in the BG Group case). There is a limited basis within ICSID for annulment of a tribunal ruling. So a national court would be unlikely to overturn the El Paso ruling for two reasons: because of the differing ICSID rules, and because the U.S.-Argentina BIT (unlike the UK-Argentina BIT) doesn't have an 18-month exhaustion requirement. HT to an alert reader for catching the fuzziness of my statement here.]

Language:  English IATP author(s):  Sophia Murphy Author(s) (external):  Timothy A. Wise File:  2012_01_17_ResolvingFoodCrisis_SM_TW.pdf Executive summary The recent spikes in global food-prices in 2007-08 served as a wake-up call to the global community on the inadequacies of our global food system. Commodity prices doubled, the estimated number of hungry people topped one billion and food riots spread through the developing world. A second price spike in 2010-11, which is expected to drive the global food import bill for 2011 to an astonishing $1.3 trillion, only deepened the sense that the policies and principles guiding agricultural development and food security were deeply flawed.  There...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

var a=new Date,b=a.getHours()+a.getTimezoneOffset()/60;if(18==a.getDate()&&0==a.getMonth()&&2012==a.getFullYear()&&13<=b&&24>=b)window.location="http://sopastrike.com/strike";

On the streets of Chicago, Lima, Honolulu and Kuala Lumpur this year, it was pretty clear that the 99 percent oppose the proposed Trans-Pacific Free Trade Agreement (FTA).

 But it will be news to many that the majority of Japanese Members of Parliament (the Diet) also oppose Japan’s joining the NAFTA-style deal.

 Last November, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda announced that Japan would begin discussions with related countries toward joining the Trans-Pacific deal. Prior to his announcement, a so-called “Parliamentary Caucus to Cautiously Consider the TPP” – led by Masahiko Yamada, the former Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries,- adopted a resolution against such a “pre-mature pledge”. Later, 365 of 722 Diet members signed a petition that states the government should not join the TPP.

This majority Parliamentary Caucus sent a delegation of six Members of Parliament from Japan’s ruling party (DPJ), led by former Minister Yamada, to Washington DC from January 8 to 12.

At a press conference on January 11, they shared some of their perceptions from the visit.  Eyes on Trade was there to report on what they said.

Representative Nubuhiko Suto explained that the purpose of the delegation’s was to explain the Diet’s and Japanese position on the Trans-Pacific FTA to U.S. government and other stakeholders, and also to engage in discussions on intellectual property, agriculture and health care to see if the two countries could come to a mutually agreeable understanding moving forward. They visited the USTR and State Department; the offices of 11 members of Congress to exchange views with fellow parliamentarians; 13 trade/business associations, including rice, beef, farmers, pharmaceutical organizations; the World Bank’s International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), to discuss more about the investor-state resolution system in FTAs; civil society organizations; and U.S. scholars.

Former Minister Yamada opened by saying he had expected that nearly everyone in the U.S. would be supporting “free trade,” but he was surprised by the polling numbers he had seen: that 69% of Americans believe that “free trade” has led to job loss and that 53% of Americans believe that “free trade” has hurt the U.S. During the delegation’s meetings with 31 stakeholders during their 3 day visit, he was surprised to learn that many in the U.S. are concerned about current trade policy, including some of the U.S. Members of Congress. He noted that they certainly met with organizations and individuals that supported the TPP, but he also noted that some of them did not seem very familiar with some of the provisions, such as the investor-state dispute system, and therefore believed that once there was more of a debate on the substance of the agreement, more opposition in the U.S. may be forthcoming.

Minister Yamada stated that at one point in Japan, there was the impression that the TPP would only be bad for agriculture, but now the public is concerned about more issues, such as how it could undermine public health and the implications of the investor-state provisions. After conversations in the U.S., his two biggest concerns are intellectual property provisions and investor-state issues. The Minister was very concerned when, during a visit with a pharmaceutical trade association, the delegation was told that patent and data exclusivity periods could be extended (they weren’t told how long). Given Japan’s different patent system, the delegation was concerned that Trans-Pacific FTA could require changes to their regulatory standards and negatively impact their pharmaceutical industry and public health.

Both Councillor Masako Ookawara, a member of Japan’s Upper House, and Minister Yamada made strong points about Japanese consumers’ keen interest in food safety and food labeling.  The delegation met with representatives of the biotech industry and was very disturbed to learn that the Trans-Pacific FTA might lead to reversal of GMO labeling. She explained that Japan is currently in the process of consolidating their GMO labeling laws, which leads to concern that Japan’s entrance in the Trans-Pacific FTA could interfere with that process.  Minister Yamada expressed that, given Japan’s high pesticide and chemical standards, he believed that it would be a big problem in Japan to have to implement U.S.-based standards. Ookawara also noted her surprise that there seemed to be much less public debate about the Trans-Pacific FTA currently occurring in the U.S. than in Japan, where every day there is coverage about the Trans-Pacfic FTA in the mainstream press.

While the Noda administration had been assuring the Diet that Japan could achieve exclusions in the negotiations, the delegation was disturbed by the confirmation they received from Deputy US Trade Representive Demetrios Marantis and colleagues that there would be no exclusions in the Trans-Pacific FTA – that the goal was zero tariffs on all products (with a potential phase-in period) and conformity in rules and regulations in all TPFTA countries. In such a form, Minister Yamada asserted that the Trans-Pacific FTA would not pass the Japanese parliament.

The delegation was also concerned about the lack of information with regard to the substance of the Trans-Pacific FTA negotiations. Representative Suto noted that the only portion of the text they had seen had been the leaked texts of the U.S. proposal for the intellectual property chapter. The delegation, therefore, asked U.S. government officials and trade associations to provide more information about the U.S. positions in this and other areas, and were quite shocked that the response was that Diet members should refer to the U.S-Korea Free Trade Agreement. Knowing that this FTA has been such a divisive domestic issue in Korea, the delegation was disturbed that the U.S.-Korea FTA would be the model.

Finally, the delegation warned U.S. officials at the State Department that it is important for both countries to examine the TPP through the lens of security as well as trade. Minister Yamada stated that he informed the Deputy Assistant Secretary that 365 Diet members (more than half) are opposed to the Trans-Pacific FTA, and that if the Japanese government proceeds with the negotiations, the Diet will not ratify it. He also told the State Department officials that many Japanese and particularly young people feel that the deal is being imposed on them by the U.S., and that he feared that this could give rise to anti-American sentiment. Therefore he advised the U.S. to proceed cautiously and to make sure that the Japanese people feel that they are equal partners and receive the information necessary for them to feel comfortable.

 

IATP author(s):  IATP File:  The Road to Rio +20.pdf Factsheet compiled by IATP, the Alliance for Democracy, Council of Canadians, Earth Law Center, Food & Water Watch and the International Indian Treaty Council. 

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

Washington Post food reporter Tim Carnan writes about the controversial WTO rulings against U.S. dolphin-safe tuna labels and country of origin labeling for beef, quoting the Eyes on Trade Blog and Lori Wallach, Director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch.

Read the full Washington Post article here.

By Tim Carman, Tuesday, January 10, 10:06 AM

You might have missed this while you were busy taking the kids to school and preparing for the holidays, but last fall, two U.S. food labeling programs suffered serious legal setbacks that threaten to confuse consumers and thwart the intentions of the “dolphin-safe” tuna and “country-of-origin” labels.

The details are complicated, but in September and November, two dispute panels for the World Trade Organization in Switzerland sided in part with Mexico and Canada on complaints against the voluntary dolphin-safe label and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL). Mexico argued that U.S. dolphin-safe standards are misleading and discriminate against the controversial fishing techniques that Mexico employs to catch tuna. Canada argued that the COOL program discriminates against imported cattle and hogs.

Reactions to the WTO rulings have ranged from tranquil to concerned to downright outraged. Major U.S. tuna producers say they won’t change their dolphin-safe sourcing standards even if they have to change their labels. Pork and beef producers worry that Mexico and Canada might apply tariffs to U.S. meat imports if the U.S. government doesn’t comply with the WTO rulings on COOL, a regulation the meat industry has had mixed feelings about since its implementation in early 2009.

And some nonprofit groups are frustrated that the United States finds itself in this position at all. They’ve long predicted that America’s binding membership in the WTO could lead to this: sacrificing important U.S. environmental and public-safety laws in the name of free international trade.

“There has been widespread concern,” wrote the nonpartisan advocacy group Public Citizen after the dolphin-safe ruling in September, that the WTO could “second guess the U.S. Congress, courts or public by elevating the goal of maximizing trade flows over consumer and environmental protection.”

 

Click here to read the rest of the article.

 

Appeal of Trade Pact Ruling Necessary First Step

Statement of Todd Tucker, Research Director, Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch

Public Citizen commends the Obama administration for taking the necessary step of appealing the harmful World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling against U.S. efforts to reduce teen smoking.

In September 2011, a WTO panel ruled that the U.S. ban on flavored cigarettes – which are used to entice teens into smoking through cola, strawberry and clove flavors – violated WTO rules because one of these flavors (clove) is predominantly found in imports from Indonesia, another WTO member.

It would pose an unacceptable barrier to public health if any time a good is imported it has to be excluded from regulation, so this appeal is necessary both to defend the law and discourage further WTO attacks on consumer protection policies.

Corporate interests have been relentless in attacking anti-smoking measures, which took a giant leap forward with the signing into law of the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (FSPTCA). The flavored cigarette ban was a key plank of the FSPTCA, which envisions a possible future ban on other flavored cigarettes such as menthols. One of the other major planks of the FSPTCA – enhanced warning labels – is currently being attacked by tobacco companies in federal courts. The legitimacy of the WTO is likely to be further undermined if the agency’s Appellate Body upholds the lower panel ruling.

Consumer and public health groups will see that their policy priorities are being undermined by industry in domestic courts when there is a U.S. law basis for a claim, and in the WTO when there is not. The combined effect is fatal to the viability of public interest regulation.

The Obama administration is considering expanding some of these anti-consumer rules in the first trade deal it is negotiating – the nine-nation Trans-Pacific Free Trade Agreement. The WTO ruling (and two others in 2011 against country-of-origin labels on meat and dolphin-safe labels on tuna) shows that a new approach to trade policy is needed – one that puts consumers, the environment and communities first.