Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
May 29, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

Truthdig Bazaar
Caspian Rain

Caspian Rain

By Gina B. Nahai

more items

Ear to the Ground
Email this item Print this item

TPP Is ‘Fundamentally Flawed’ and Should Be Resisted, Says U.N. Human Rights Expert

Posted on Feb 3, 2016

  A 2014 protest in Tokyo against the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. (Shizuo Kambayashi / AP)

The leading United Nations expert on human rights is calling upon the 12 nations considering the Trans-Pacific Partnership to reject the trade agreement, out of concern that it “is out of step with today’s international human rights regime.”

Alfred de Zayas, the U.N.’s independent expert on the promotion of democratic and equitable international order, said the TPP “is fundamentally flawed and should not be signed or ratified unless provision is made to guarantee the regulatory space of [s]tates.”

“I am concerned that notwithstanding enormous opposition by civil society worldwide, twelve countries are about to sign an agreement, which is the product of secret negotiations without multi-stakeholder democratic consultation,” de Zayas said in a statement ahead of Thursday’s meeting in New Zealand of trade representatives for the 12 Pacific Rim nations involved in the secretive talks over the TPP.

“Trade agreements are not ‘stand-alone’ legal regimes, but must conform with fundamental principles of international law, including transparency and accountability,” de Zayas said. “[Trade agreements] must not delay, circumvent, undermine or make impossible the fulfillment of human rights treaty obligations.”

From Russia’s RT:

De Zayas was referring to indications that the TPP will come with a private tribunal system, or an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) process, in which multinational corporate entities will be granted broad powers to challenge sovereign nations’ government regulations, rules, actions and court rulings if those laws or policies are perceived as cutting in on intellectual property values and profits.

The trade pact currently involves Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam. These nations together comprise 40 percent of the global economy. Other nations, such as Thailand and Cambodia, have expressed interest in eventually participating in the agreement.

Any economic benefits of the deal will go to corporations, not workers in any of the participating nations, opponents say. Labor unions, among many others, have lined up to oppose the TPP based on concerns over a number of issues, including currency manipulation, environmental and health protections, food safety, pharmaceutical monopolies, offshoring of jobs, internet privacy, government transparency, and local governmental control.

One of the most contentious sections of the TPP is the intellectual property chapter, which has been negotiated away from the public gaze – while major corporations and trade groups have had access and involvement – for the last five and a half years.

“If TPP is ratified, people in the Pacific-Rim countries would have to live by the rules in this leaked text,” said Peter Maybarduk, director of Public Citizen’s Global Access to Medicines Program, following a leaked release of the pact’s intellectual property chapter by Wikileaks in October. “The new monopoly rights for big pharmaceutical firms would compromise access to medicines in TPP countries. The TPP would cost lives.”

Leaked drafts of TPP negotiations have suggested that corporations would be allowed to sue governments in private courts over lost profits due to regulation, elevating corporate entities to the status held by sovereign nations.

De Zayas said the ISDS system would be “fundamentally imbalanced and unjust, since investors can sue governments whereas governments cannot sue investors before these ad hoc tribunals.”

Read more here.

—Posted by Roisin Davis


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments
Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook