Their public letter is the latest example of a growing backlash against ISDS that the European Commission admitted had become “the most toxic acronym in Europe,” during the controversial U.S.-EU trade talks. As the number of ISDS cases filed each year has exploded and corporations have won billions of dollars in attacks on a stunning array of environmental, health, and other public interest laws, governments from South Africa to Indonesia have terminated many of their treaties that include ISDS. Even the United States, Mexico, and Canada have agreed to roll back ISDS in the new North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

The organizations that signed the letter urge fundamental reform of this ISDS system that: “empowers one class of interests – multinational corporations, billionaires and investors – to sue governments outside of domestic court systems for unlimited amounts of compensation, including for the loss of expected future profits. A vast array of domestic laws, court rulings, regulations, and other government actions are subject to such attack, including non-discriminatory policies enacted in order to promote public welfare.”

The letter is addressed to member governments attending meetings of the little-known UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), which provides one set of rules under which many ISDS cases are litigated. After years of public outcry against ISDS, UNCITRAL has decided to convene a working group to engage in a discussion about the need to reform ISDS. But the signatories of today’s letter fear that those who wish to save the ISDS regime are aiming to hijack the UNCITRAL reform discussion to maintain the status quo or promote half-measures around the margins that do not address ISDS’s fundamental flaws.

The signatory organisations demand that, “instead of focusing on procedural tweaks on the margins of the ISDS system, governments in UNCITRAL should put their efforts into discussing how to move away from the current investment treaty system altogether. Thus, a more constructive focus for UNCITRAL would be to concentrate on the structural problems of the investment treaty regime and to facilitate a discussion on termination or wholesale replacement of existing agreements.”

They also specifically reject attempts by the European Union to push a “Multilateral Investment Court” as a “solution,” explaining that this EU proposal “would not only fail to address most of the fundamental flaws of ISDS and the current investment treaty regime, but seems designed to keep many of ISDS’s most damaging features (and flaws) intact.”

"Communities democratically opposing projects that pollute their lands and damage the climate, they remain powerless in front of corporate tribunals which either award multinationals with billions in compensation or oblige governments to change policies out of fear. The EU's proposals for a Multilateral Investment Court will not diminish the power of this undemocratic system, it will just expand it worldwide," said Lora Verheecke from Friends of the Earth Europe.

-See the full text of the letter and list of signers here.

Ken Neumann is the United Steelworkers’ national director for Canada

Lost in the debate on the Canadian government’s many concessions in the proposed United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement – “Canada gave very graciously,” as U.S. President Donald Trump’s economics adviser gloated – are disturbing provisions allowing Mr. Trump and future U.S. presidents to continue to impose baseless “national-security” tariffs on key Canadian exports.

When the USMCA was announced last week, it was both shocking and profoundly disappointing to see Canadian officials toasting this new trade deal while the United States maintained devastating tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum exports.

The Trump administration imposed the tariffs – 25 per cent on Canadian steel and 10 per cent on Canadian aluminum – on June 1, on the spurious basis that these imports pose a threat to U.S. national security under Section 232 of American trade law.

For the 175,000 Canadian workers whose jobs are directly or indirectly tied to the steel and aluminum industries, these tariffs represent a serious threat to their jobs and communities. From the outset, the United Steelworkers, the union representing steel and aluminum workers on both sides of the border, condemned these tariffs and questioned the direction of American trade policy.

While imposing the tariffs, Mr. Trump explicitly noted they could be lifted if Canada and the United States could agree on a new trade deal to replace the North American free-trade agreement, hence the shock in Canada when the Trudeau government agreed to the USMCA even though the unjustified U.S. tariffs are still in effect.

Of course, the Canadian government expressed dismay that the tariffs remain in place. Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland has attempted to justify the situation by arguing steel and aluminum tariffs remain a separate discussion from the USMCA negotiations. However, even a cursory examination of the agreement reveals this is clearly not true.

In fact, the USMCA validates and makes several accommodations on U.S. national-security tariffs.

First, while the USMCA leaves room for significant growth of Canadian auto exports, it does not close the door to future Section 232 tariffs. Second, there is a new protocol for the imposition of future U.S. national-security tariffs against Canada, without eliminating the current Section 232 tariffs on our steel and aluminum exports.

What is most disconcerting is that these provisions essentially legitimize the right of the U.S. president (the U.S. Congress has little say on the matter) to impose more “national-security” tariffs against Canada in the future.

For example, the United States has initiated a Section 232 investigation into uranium imports. Canada is a significant exporter of uranium to the United States. Workers in Canada who mine and process uranium should be very concerned, because our government has essentially agreed to a process for the United States to impose Section 232 tariffs on Canadian uranium exports.

The notion that Canadian exports of steel, aluminum or uranium pose a threat to U.S. national security has no basis in fact. Canada and the United States have a long-standing relationship that ensures economic co-operation in the event of threats to national security. So why, then, is Canada agreeing that such tariffs can be imposed?

While trade negotiations with the Trump administration were no doubt challenging, in the end it seems the Trudeau government and certain stakeholders were relieved they had preserved protections for some parts of the Canadian economy.

Most notably, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Ms. Freeland have cited the preservation of the Chapter 19 dispute-resolution mechanism as a key achievement. But Chapter 19 provides no protection against U.S. national-security tariffs.

The new USMCA will be a key determinant of the entire economic relationship between Canada and the United States for decades to come. For hundreds of thousands of Canadian workers in industries now vulnerable to U.S. tariffs, a key question must be answered by their government: Why does this new trade agreement allow protectionists south of the border to impose punishing tariffs on Canadian industries without any basis whatsoever?

Canadians also can rightfully ask parliamentarians to think twice about ratifying a trade agreement that contains such a fatal flaw, on top of all the other concessions made by their government.

OTTAWA — After weeks of intense negotiations behind closed doors, a renegotiated North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has emerged. Like the original NAFTA, the new U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, falls short when it comes to protecting workers’ rights, the environment, farmer livelihoods and the health and wellbeing of people across the continent.

Early analysis shows that the new agreement fails to address many of the long-term problems caused by NAFTA: wage stagnation and rising inequality, deterioration of farmer livelihoods, inadequate protection of public services and environmental degradation. In fact, USMCA may worsen the situation for many communities and industries.

USMCA will undermine access to affordable medicines in Canada. The deal extends the patent protection term for biologic medicines to 10 years (from 8 years), thereby delaying the entry of generic drugs into the market and contributing to rising drug costs. This change will impede access to affordable medicines and make it more difficult to develop a pharmacare program in Canada.

The new deal grants U.S. farmers greater access to Canada’s dairy market. In a move similar to liberalization under the CPTPP (Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership), the North American deal opens up 3.59% of Canada’s supply management system. This will jeopardize the viability of supply management, which ensures decent farmer livelihoods and high quality, affordable products for consumers.

USMCA fails to offer genuine environmental protection. The deal contains limited environmental provisions and lacks an effective enforcement system, which will allow corporations to continue to evade environmental policies by shifting toxic pollution to countries with weaker environmental regulations. This illustrates a step in the wrong direction when it comes to tackling climate change and meeting Canada’s commitments under the Paris Agreement.

It is worth noting that the new agreement removes the Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism between Canada and the US. Though long overdue, this move represents a huge win for the labour, environmental and social justice movements that have long called for the elimination of ISDS. Unfortunately, Mexico will continue to be subject to ISDS provisions.

Despite the Trudeau government’s commitment to negotiate strong provisions on labour rights, gender equality, Indigenous rights and environmental protection, as part of its Progressive Trade Agenda, USMCA fails to provide these tools for building a more just and sustainable economy that benefits people across the continent.

The Canadian government seems to have succumbed to the thinking that without NAFTA we would have no trade, although this myth has been disproved by experts. As a result, Canada sold out its “progressive trade” principles and the best interest of its communities and industries.

Much work remains to be done to improve the trading relationships across North America. Any new deal must be environmentally sustainable and benefit people across the continent, not just multinational corporations. We, Common Frontiers, the Council of Canadians and the Trade Justice Network, urge the Canadian Parliament to undertake a robust public consultation before ratifying the agreement.

REGISTER NOW

Examining the effect of sanctions on human rights in Venezuela with SURES

SURES recently released a 30 page study investigating how sanctions, also known as unilateral coercive measures deprive the population of basic products which are important for every day life. They will share their findings from the study and provide some recommendations from their prospective as a Venezuelan human rights organization.

Special Report: Unilateral Coercive Measures Against Venezuela and it's Impact On Human Rights

Speakers

Maria Lucrecia Hernadez, Director @SURES

Maria Lucrecia Hernadez is a lawyer and a graduate from the University of Buenos Aires with master's degrees in human rights, criminal and procedural law from the University of Barcelona, Spain and the Latin American Council of Social Sciences, CLACSO. She has been a consultant for United Nations organizations, UNICEF and United Nations Development Programme. She has been Vice Chancellor of the National Experimental Security University and is currently director SURES.

Aura Rosa Hernandez, Training Coordinator @SURES

Aura Rosa Hernandez is a political scientist graduating from the Central University of Venezuela. She received a master's degrees in constitutional law from the University of Valencia and a master's degree in political science from the Simon Bolivar University in Venezuela. She has been a consultant on women's rights for the Venezuelan government and is currently the Training Coordinator for SURES.

-more information

Lago Agrio, September 10, 2018- Once the arbitration award regarding the lawsuit that the oil company Chevron pursued against the Ecuadorian State – known as Chevron III – has been made public, members of the UDAPT stated that it is not the first time this Arbitral Tribunal issues rulings that cannot be complied with, in an attempt to stop the trial against Chevron. The Ecuadorian Courts have already ruled in this regard, stating that the highest duty of the State is to guarantee the effective enforcement of the human rights recognized in the Constitution and in international treaties, a duty that goes beyond international trade obligations. For this reason, the new ruling is inapplicable to the Ecuadorian plaintiffs.

Pablo Fajardo, the lawyer for Ecuadorian indigenous people and settlers who won the private trial against the oil company, explained that an arbitral tribunal cannot force a State to violate its constitutional norms, disrespect the separation of powers and jeopardize the constitutional and legal guarantees protecting the human rights of Ecuadorian citizens.

Furthermore, he stated that it is inadmissible for a Court of Arbitration to order a State to annul a verdict ruled in trial between private individuals and which has been ratified by all judicial instances. This ruling clearly undermines the sovereignty of the State and its judicial independence, and above all it puts forward the supposed interests of “investors” over the human rights of the settlers who were affected by decades of deliberate contamination. This is unacceptable for any jurisdiction in the world, as their judicial systems would be simply reduced to lower courts in relation to those of arbitration.

-read the entire story on texacotoxico.net>