New World Order, Inc.
Just yesterday, I read that the belief "that we could have utopian prosperity if we got rid of private businesses and had the government run everything" should be marked down to "stubborn stupidity." Fair enough. As hyperbolic and Straw Manned-up as that statement is, thwarting all independent economic activity would be a bit delusional, given that nobody even agrees upon the definition of "individual", let alone of "collective."
That said, I find it fascinating how many screeds railing against "statism" (again, whatever that might be) completely ignore the actual clear and present danger that non-state actors are continuously exacting on the right of countries to exercise any semblance of sovereignty, and all under the geas of "free trade." Don't these folks know that given enough size, a corporation today has-via the power granted by over-reaching trade agreements-greater legal right than most countries?
Let's ignore the bugaboo of ooga-booga over the concept of a state, for right now, and just recognize actual states as they act to protect and improve the lives of their citizens. Egypt, for example, fairly recently raised minimum wages for some category of employees. All well and good, one might think. Ah, but Egypt signed a trade agreement with other EU countries. In return, they got private investment dollars. When they raised the minimum wages in their country, one investing multinational, Veolia, realized the potential profit on their investment was lowered as the required cost of operation in Egypt increased through higher wages, and is now sueing Egypt for the difference between the former and current wages.
How can Veolia get away with this? Many trade agreements, it turns out, now have "investor protection rules and investor-state dispute settlement" clauses in them that bias the private investor over the interests or political conditions of entire countries. That's right, folks. If you think those bastards that built the factory are despoiling the drinking water, or paying too little, or just might do any thing that demands public action; and as a country you pass legislation to address these grievances; too fucking bad. If you lose the ensuing arbitration hearing by pencil-pushers in some other country, you will have to pay restitution to that company. After all, you caused them to lose money.
That is happening in other countries as well. In El Salvador, the citizens rose up against a Canadian-owned gold mine, blocking its continued operation (and the continued use of massive amounts of water, the effluent issues, worker safety . . . the list is long). The company, Pacific Rim, is now "suing the government there to recoup more than $100 million in lost investments and unrealized profits" over the El Salvadorean government's decision to close the El Dorado mine.
Now, if an international arbitration board finds in favor of the corporation, Salvadoran President Mauricio Funes would be obligated to reimburse the company’s previous investments plus profits it would theoretically have earned if the mine opened.
I caught wind of this stink not from the "liberal" press of commercially-supported radio or television or ad-supported news desks from what few print journalists are still drawing a paycheck, but from a simple listener-supported podcast. In the interview kmo conducts with Arthur Stamoulis, executive director of Citizens Trade Campaign, I learn that the above two examples about Egypt and El Salvador are small potatoes compared to the corporate over-reach envisioned by the Trans Pacific Partnership currently being negotiated. Not heard of this TPP thing? I'm not surprised.
According to Stamoulis, in fact, members of Congress had a hard time getting details about what is being negotiated in their name. After a great deal of pressure, some members were given a chapter or two-highly redacted chapters, at that. Who is getting full access to the treaty under construction? Why, Wal-Mart, for one. That's right, folks; the corporate interests that would be served by this treaty have full access to the 29 chapters, not the lawmakers who will ultimately be asked to pass the treaty along a straight up-or-down vote, and certainly not the citizens whose lives will undoubtedly be impacted by the terms under which their personal and collective sovereignty will be compromised. What little has been learned of the TPP was leaked to Stamoulis' organization.
If this treaty is ratified by any of the participants in the ongoing negotiations, the power of any of the citizens within the countries affected to challenge the actions or profit strategies of investing corporations will likely be negated. Just as the World Trade Organization, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Central America Free Trade Agreement and many other so-called treaties do, the Trans Pacific Partnership will bias economic gain over the long-term viability of entire economies, biozones and cultures. The one difference the TPP has over the others, though, is one of scale, again according to Stamoulis. Leaked drafts of the TPP reveal that it gives to corporations power and authority not seen in the United States since the days of the East India Company. And let's remember how that worked out.
So, anti-statists out there. Do me a favor. The next time you bitch about "coercion" or other such non-sense, puh-leaze have the decency to include corporate over-reach in your criticism. They are, after all, quite literally collective in nature.
That said, I find it fascinating how many screeds railing against "statism" (again, whatever that might be) completely ignore the actual clear and present danger that non-state actors are continuously exacting on the right of countries to exercise any semblance of sovereignty, and all under the geas of "free trade." Don't these folks know that given enough size, a corporation today has-via the power granted by over-reaching trade agreements-greater legal right than most countries?
Let's ignore the bugaboo of ooga-booga over the concept of a state, for right now, and just recognize actual states as they act to protect and improve the lives of their citizens. Egypt, for example, fairly recently raised minimum wages for some category of employees. All well and good, one might think. Ah, but Egypt signed a trade agreement with other EU countries. In return, they got private investment dollars. When they raised the minimum wages in their country, one investing multinational, Veolia, realized the potential profit on their investment was lowered as the required cost of operation in Egypt increased through higher wages, and is now sueing Egypt for the difference between the former and current wages.
How can Veolia get away with this? Many trade agreements, it turns out, now have "investor protection rules and investor-state dispute settlement" clauses in them that bias the private investor over the interests or political conditions of entire countries. That's right, folks. If you think those bastards that built the factory are despoiling the drinking water, or paying too little, or just might do any thing that demands public action; and as a country you pass legislation to address these grievances; too fucking bad. If you lose the ensuing arbitration hearing by pencil-pushers in some other country, you will have to pay restitution to that company. After all, you caused them to lose money.
That is happening in other countries as well. In El Salvador, the citizens rose up against a Canadian-owned gold mine, blocking its continued operation (and the continued use of massive amounts of water, the effluent issues, worker safety . . . the list is long). The company, Pacific Rim, is now "suing the government there to recoup more than $100 million in lost investments and unrealized profits" over the El Salvadorean government's decision to close the El Dorado mine.
Now, if an international arbitration board finds in favor of the corporation, Salvadoran President Mauricio Funes would be obligated to reimburse the company’s previous investments plus profits it would theoretically have earned if the mine opened.
I caught wind of this stink not from the "liberal" press of commercially-supported radio or television or ad-supported news desks from what few print journalists are still drawing a paycheck, but from a simple listener-supported podcast. In the interview kmo conducts with Arthur Stamoulis, executive director of Citizens Trade Campaign, I learn that the above two examples about Egypt and El Salvador are small potatoes compared to the corporate over-reach envisioned by the Trans Pacific Partnership currently being negotiated. Not heard of this TPP thing? I'm not surprised.
According to Stamoulis, in fact, members of Congress had a hard time getting details about what is being negotiated in their name. After a great deal of pressure, some members were given a chapter or two-highly redacted chapters, at that. Who is getting full access to the treaty under construction? Why, Wal-Mart, for one. That's right, folks; the corporate interests that would be served by this treaty have full access to the 29 chapters, not the lawmakers who will ultimately be asked to pass the treaty along a straight up-or-down vote, and certainly not the citizens whose lives will undoubtedly be impacted by the terms under which their personal and collective sovereignty will be compromised. What little has been learned of the TPP was leaked to Stamoulis' organization.
If this treaty is ratified by any of the participants in the ongoing negotiations, the power of any of the citizens within the countries affected to challenge the actions or profit strategies of investing corporations will likely be negated. Just as the World Trade Organization, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Central America Free Trade Agreement and many other so-called treaties do, the Trans Pacific Partnership will bias economic gain over the long-term viability of entire economies, biozones and cultures. The one difference the TPP has over the others, though, is one of scale, again according to Stamoulis. Leaked drafts of the TPP reveal that it gives to corporations power and authority not seen in the United States since the days of the East India Company. And let's remember how that worked out.
So, anti-statists out there. Do me a favor. The next time you bitch about "coercion" or other such non-sense, puh-leaze have the decency to include corporate over-reach in your criticism. They are, after all, quite literally collective in nature.