Business-Supremacy Treaties (called "free trade")
Richard Stallman's personal site.
For current political commentary, see
the daily
political notes.
RMS's Bio |
The GNU Project
Business-Supremacy Treaties (called "free trade")
2016-03-17
Business supremacy treaties are designed to undermine
democracy. They transfer power from states (which can be more or
less democratic) to businesses (which don't try or claim to
represent the public).
The first method these treaties used was so-called "free trade":
making it easy for businesses to move production from one country to
another. This pressures countries to compete to offer businesses
favorable conditions, such as low wages, poor benefits for workers,
weak environmental protection, low taxes (meaning bad education, bad
health care, crumbling
and toxic
infrastructure, and inadequate support for the young, old,
disabled and unemployed), and the opportunity to ignore laws (lock
fire escapes, steal workers' pay).
Since the 1990s, treaties have proceeded to direct attacks on
democracy: authorizing other countries, or even foreign businesses,
to sue a country in a special international court for failing to
respect the supremacy of business. (When business are allowed to do
this, it is called "ISDS", which informally stands for "I Sue
Democratic States.") Under ISDS, if a country has a law to protect
something important (such as the environment, endangered species,
public health, workers' rights, or the general standard of living),
the international court can label that a "barrier to trade" and
impose fines. The country's "democratic" politicians will then
almost certainly decide to eliminate that law.
These treaties also frequently serve the interests of specific
industries with harsh restrictions on citizens — for instance,
requiring unjust copyright law.
To recover democracy, we must abolish the business-supremacy treaties.
Big corporations are planning use ISDS clauses to sue many countries for taking Covid-19 emergency measures that cut into their profits.
Governments may be able to argue that the losses were due to Covid-19 and its consequences, rather than to the government actions themselves. But that is not reliable.
This page contains a list of ways business-supremacy treaties have
done harm. Most of the items describe specific changes in laws or
policies that were imposed through these treaties.
Please email me at rms at gnu dot org if you know of other specific
laws in any country, that tried to protect something more important
than business profits, that were attacked using a business-supremacy
treaty, or that were voted down on the grounds they would conflict
with such a treaty.
Workers Rights
●
Republican states are deregulating the use of teenage workers,
allowing employers to make them do dangerous jobs or work so many hours
that it cuts into their education.
It's entirely congruent with the Republican philosophy that the wealthy
should be able to pressure everyone else into something close to slavery.
●
"Free trade" means clothing companies anywhere in the
world get
the benefit of the horrible working conditions in Burma.
●
A Mexican worker lost both hands in an industrial accident, working for
a contractor for a multinational brand. She was lucky to get help to
sue for compensation, but
lost
the suit on a technicality.
The article plays for us to sympathize more with her by
mentioning that she had six children. It
is irresponsible
and harmful to have so many children, but a workers' family
size is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The system that puts
workers in danger of injury, then does nothing to compensate
them, is wrong regardless of personal details.
This is what "free trade" does: it enables the
multinational to make countries compete to attract production by
allowing the worst possible working conditions and workers'
rights. Without "free trade", Mexico would have a real
compensation system for accidents at work. An accident like
this would have increased the company's insurance costs; knowing
that, management would have maintained Machine 19 carefully and
followed proper safety procedures, and the accident would
probably not have happened.
Privatization
●
After dictator Pinochet opened the door, Chile has privatized
nearly all its water
supply. Movements
now push to take public control. They face a big obstacle in
the various business-supremacy treaties that would enable the
foreign investors to sue Chile for renationalizing the water
supply.
Privacy
●
The US Trade Representative claims that the European Union can't set
its own data centers to protect privacy and block surveillance
because that would violate a trade treaty.
●
Bell
Canada tried
to insert a ban on VPNs into the new NAFTA.
I appreciate the article, but it does wrong to refer to the
practice of sharing copies as "piracy". Piracy means attacking
ships, which is very bad. Sharing copies is good; what's bad is
using legal or technical methods to prevent sharing.
See this.
Environmental Harm
●
The Tories arranged a business-supremacy treaty with the previous
(planet-roaster) Australian government, and now want to ratify it
without debate. Climate defenders are suing under another treaty
to demand debate and examination of this agreement.
Why doesn't the new Australian government insist on renegotiation?
We must expect by default that any business-supremacy treaty is bad,
but here's more about what's bad in this one.
●
Business-supremacy treaties with ISDS clauses ("I Sue Democratic States")
are becoming a big obstacle to laws to defend the climate from global heating.
●
The company that proposed the Keystone XL planet-roaster pipeline
is using NAFTA (the original version)
to sue
the US for 15 billion dollars for cancelling the pipeline.
This exemplifies the danger of business-supremacy treaties such
as NAFTA to efforts to save the world's ecosphere from fossil
fuel.
●A
US mining company is suing Colombia for establishing a national
park that protects natural areas from toxic mining.
●
When the people of Cochabamba rebelled against water privatization,
Bechtel used a trade treaty to demand 50 million dollars as ransom
for Cochabamba's water.
Bechtel
eventually dropped its case, under pressure from organized
public opinion.
That one victory doesn't make the treaty harmless: we can't always
pressure all companies into dropping all such cases.
Pressure from the World Bank was behind the
privatization attempt.
●
The lawsuit demanding a billion dollars for the rejection of
Keystone XL
is typical of what trade treaties do.
Canada has suffered many such lawsuits.
Businesses are
trying to bully Germany into continuing to use nuclear
power.
Converting to renewable energy is a necessity. What would these
companies do if there were a Fukushima-like disaster near their
factories? Of course, they would demand to place the costs on
others and not them, but even after achieving that, it would
still hurt their production. When companies demand thier
short-term interests override long-term needs, that makes them
enemies of society.
These companies deserve to be picketed in other countries.
The WTO has
ruled
against various national and local policies (in several
countries) that promoted local solar power business.
Every such policy benefits the whole world, even though it
benefits that nation or locality especially.
●
The
TPP would sabotage efforts to curb global heating in several ways.
This is a natural consequence of the way it was drawn up. For each
area of business, the US government asked the companies in that area
what they wanted. The fossil fuel companies asked for policies that
will help them.
Fundamentally, control of greenhouse gas emissions is good for the
people, so it's what democracy will do if it works right.
The TPP and TTIP can sabotage efforts to
avoid global
heating disaster.
●
A Canadian mining company is
trying
to use an existing corporate supremacy treaty to punish Romania
for not authorizing a giant mountaintop removal mine.
●
The WTO decided that protecting dolphins by allowing tuna cans to
carry a "dolphin-safe" label is a
forbidden
"obstacle to trade".
This stems from the wrong fundamental values of the WTO, which place
business profit above everything important.
The TPP would further strengthen the power of businesses to attack
measures to protect the environment.
●
The WTO
ordered the US government to eliminate country-of-origin
meat labeling, or face a fine of a billion dollars.
Congress
used the budget bill as an excuse to surrender to the
WTO: it voted to eliminated country-of-origin meat labeling.
Let's abolish the WTO instead.
●
Washington State planned to legislate a ban on fish farms
that hold non-native fish, because if the fish escape it can cause
permanent ecological damage. In response, a Canadian company planned to sue using NAFTA.
How the new business-supremacy treaty CETA would eliminate existing
national regulations in Europe.
It would oppress Canada as well.
Canada agreed to a business-supremacy treaty with China that requires
building the Unkinder Morgan pipeline. The penalty for not doing so
could be even more billions than the cost of building the pipeline,
and the government might pay it secretly.
The Energy Charter Treaty, a business-supremacy treaty, threatens to
make European countries pay hundreds of billions of dollars in
"compensation" for taking explicit action to cut down on fossil fuels.
When a treaty puts the business interests of private parties over the
vital needs of society, that must make the treaty invalid.
Ecuador has voted to affirm its constitutional ban on ISDS clauses,
which I call "I Sue Democratic States" clauses.
Some have criticized my term, saying that ISDS clauses are not
specifically limited to democratic states. That is true — but in
practice it tends to be democratic states that are targets for them.
That's because the kind of law that foreign corporations target that
way is a kind that tends to be passed by democratic states. Most
dictators rarely pass laws that would make foreign corporations treat
the populace better.
Oil companies invented the ISDS clause ("I Sue Democratic States")
decades ago, and are now using them to make countries pay dearly for
their climate defense actions.
If the fossil fuel companies insist on destroying civilization, the
victims should not go down without a fight. To save millions of lives,
war is justified.
Copyright
●
Ecuador gave in to European bullying by accepting an unjust﹃free
trade﹄treaty which includes heavy punishment for copyright
infringement (and other things that are bad for Ecuador).
●
After the "official" TPP text was posted, a sneaky one-word change was made
that
make the copyright provisions even nastier.
Pharmaceuticals
●
Due to business-supremacy treaties,
nearly
all of the antibiotics used in the US are imported. This
means we cannot rely on them to be made safely and correctly. In
addition, disasters or disputes could entirely shut off the
supply. That threatens US national security — and most
other countries face the same security threat.
●A
proposed business-supremecy treaty for Asia includes
restrictions on generic medicines, and would stop India from
providing many generic drugs to poor people in a number of other
countries.
It is a fundamental mistake to call these restrictions "intellectual
property" because that leads people to confuse them with unrelated
issues such as copyright law. Every time that term is used, it
spreads confusion -- so please, don't use it!
●
Big Pharma companies are trying to use ridiculous patents to crush
generic drugs in India, but so far India
has thwarted them.
The only reason patents on drugs
exist in India is that they were imposed by wealthy countries
through a WTO treaty called TRIPES, the Trade-Restricting
Impediments to Production, Education and Science. (The supporters
of that treaty call it "TRIPS", but that acronym uses their
propaganda term "intellectual property". Since that term
spreads confusion, using it does harm; therefore I go out of
my way not to use it. )
The supporters of that harmful treaty call it "TRIPS", which uses
their propaganda term "intellectual property". Since that term
spreads confusion, using it does harm; therefore I go out of my way
not to use it.
●
The European Commission is
trying to cut off Indian generic drugs
through a proposed trade treaty.
●
GlaxoSmithKline announced it will not patent its new drugs in
countries that are the poorest of the poor, such as Afghanistan,
Rwanda and Cambodia.
I wonder, though, whether this apparent magnanimity will have any
practical effect. I don't think there are generic drug factories in
countries such as Afghanistan, Rwanda and Cambodia. If the countries
such as India that actually make generic drugs are not covered, if GSK
continues using patents to prevent the manufacture of generic drugs in
those countries, this gift will turn out to be an empty gesture.
●
Even in Britain, drug companies sometimes demand prices so high that the
medical system refuses to buy them.
It's much worse in the US where Congress, corrupted by the drug companies,
tied the government's hands about negotiating prices with the drug companies.
The main reason drugs are so expensive is patent law, imposed by the
WTO. This is one of many reasons we need to make big changes in the
WTO or else get rid of it. However, the concentration of the drug
industry, through many mergers, has given the drug companies greater
clout (as has occurred in many other areas of business), and this
contributes to the problem. We need to make big companies split up.
My tax proposal would be one way to do that.
The United States, European Union, United Kingdom, Canada, and
Australia oppose the push for the WTO to waive patent restrictions and
allow all countries to make and use Covid-19 vaccines without paying
for the privilege.
It is worth reminding people that the WTO is the reason why most
countries allow medicines to be patented. That was a scheme to enrich
big pharma companies at the expense of people who can't afford
monopolistic prices for drugs. This system represents a decision to
kill millions of people, and is one of the reasons why we ought to
abolish the WTO.
A special business supremacy treaty specifically for energy
infrastructure has a ISDS clause.
Under this treaty, countries must pay for permission to adopt climate
policies that make foreign-owned fossil fuel infrastructure less useful.
All business-supremacy treaties are instruments to crush democracy.
Countries should refuse to sign them, withdraw from them, ideally join
together to cancel them out entirely.
For this treaty, one possible last-resort solution would be for
countries to declare war on each other and bomb each other's fossil
fuel infrastructure, disabling it from functioning. Then they could
decline responsibility on the grounds that the damage was an act of
war.
I don't suggest bombing the power plant into rubble — that would
cause pollution — just destroying some key part of it, without which
it does not operate.
Is this idea shocking? There are better ways to stop burning fossil
fuels, but it is good to have this fall-back method if the others prove
too difficult. Don't say it can't be done!
Limiting taxation of companies
●
The UK has treaties with many very poor countries,
limiting what taxes
they can charge to UK companies.
Economic Issues
US proponents of these treaties claim their advantage is to boost
exports. If they did that, that would not justify the harm they do
to democracy. But they don't really boost exports anyway, not for
the US. Even in the narrow terms of trade and "national interest",
they are a bad deal.
In general, US
export growth has been low wherever the US has a
"free trade treaty".
Even when these treaties lead to economic growth, they assure the
benefit will go to the rich; working people may become poorer all
the while, as wealth and income become more concentrated.
No wonder
the think tanks that support the TTIP are funded by
plutocrats as a form of "policy laundering".
●
Another European proposal, the "Multilateral Investment Court",
repackages ISDS in a slightly different way.
The multinational corporations can afford to hire thousands of people
to push these proposals: some to publish them, others to applaud them,
and others to lobby for them.
●
The "Investment Court System", or ICS, is a variation on the ISDS
theme,
differing
in some details but just as harmful.
●
Foreign companies could use the TTIP and other such treaties
to forbid states from imposing new taxes.
●
The TPP is
harmful
even if evaluated based on the "free trade" ideology.
Part of the article uses the incoherent term
"intellectual
property". It is always a mistake, without exception, to group
together copyrights and patents as if they were a single issue. And
that term includes several other laws as well, each very different from
the others. If you think they are
similar, perhaps you don't know what they really do.
While Obama claims that the proposed free exploitation treaties
with Colombia and Korea
would increase US exports, its own figures
predict the opposite.
●
On old-fashioned "national trade interests", the TTIP would be
bad
for Europe's small companies and good for US multinationals.
●
The
supposed "economic benefits" of the TTIP would amount to just 4
dollars per day per person in the US, and .2 euro per day per person
in the EU.
●
Joseph Stiglitz: US
trade treaties would block developing countries from making
offered outside investment benefit their people.
●
Economists
report
on how a treaty to give foreign corporations more
power, such as the TPP, can do economic harm.
The US-Korea "free trade" agreement, if evaluated in the conventional
terms of exports and imports, has been a
big
loss for US exports and US employment.
After the US-Korea "free trade agreement", US exports to
Korea have decreased and imports from Korea have surged. In terms
of national competition, the agreement was "bad for the US". In
those same terms, you could say it was "good for Korea."
This is on top of the harm that the treaty does to both countries by
undermining
democracy.
Walden Bello, cofounder of Focus on the Global South, summarizes
how the WTO arranges﹃the corporate capture of international
trade﹄based on an
ideology disconnected
from economic facts.
Alleging that the UK-New Zealand business-supremacy treaty would
cause economic losses and undermine climate defense.
That's in addition to imposing a sort of race-based censorship.
Public Health
●
*Case studies of some of the most
expensive and outrageous ISDS attacks on public health, environmental, and
other critical policies.*
●
Supposedly leftist President Boric wants Chile to sign the TPP —
which would eliminate Chile's right to regulate many areas of
business and health.
Fossil fuel companies use these business-supremacy treaties to attack
measures for decarbonizing.
Boric also wants Chile to sign the Energy Charter Treaty, a
business-supremacy treaty designed specifically to interfere with
measures to reduce use of fossil fuels. It is effectively a suicide
pact.
If you are in Chile, launch a fight against this absurd plan.
●
The TTIP
could force privatization one national health systems,
in the UK and (I presume) in the rest of Europe.
It could also stop the US from setting up a proper national health
service, which it badly needs.
●
The WTO demonstrated its contempt for human life by ruling against a US law to discourage flavored cigarettes that are attractive to teenagers.
Although the US government
did not give in on the ban, other
concessions were made.
●
Philip Morris tobacco company is trying to use the
Switzerland-Uruguay
free trade agreement to
block smoking-reduction measures.
Uruguay's laws
are effective in lowering the rates of smoking.
●
US exports and export policies encourage obesity; watch out for
treaties with the US, since they could block measures to limit obesity.
●
*Law Firms Are Recruiting Corporations to Attack COVID-19 Policies in ISDS
"Corporate Courts."
Human Rights
●
In the 1990s, Massachusetts passed a law to boycott
companies that did business in Burma. At the time, the US had not
yet adopted strong trade sanctions against Burma. Other countries
called this a "non-tariff barrier to trade" and said it violated
the World Trade Organization rules. Congress passed, and President
Clinton signed, a law that prohibited states from adopting such
boycotts: a victory for plutocracy over democracy.
Misc
●
New Study Confirms: Private 'Trade' Courts
Serve the Ultra-Wealthy.
●
The
harmful
effects of 20 years of "free trade" treaties on the US.
●
NAFTA has a special provision
that says Canada cannot reduce its oil exports to the US.
●
The predecessor of NAFTA already put business in the driver's seat so
much that
it blocked
Ontario from adopting no-fault car insurance.
NAFTA, which followed, did this even more. The TPP
does it even more.
The new NAFTA improves many specific points, but its fundamental
effect is still to give businesses more power and democracy less
power, and thus to transfer
income from
workers to business owners.
Copyright 2011, 2016-2019 Richard Stallman
released under Creative Commons Attribution Noderivs 3.0 unported