Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

marmar

(77,064 posts)
Wed Jan 22, 2014, 10:41 PM Jan 2014

WikiLeaks on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Environment Chapter: "Toothless Public Relations Exercise


WikiLeaks on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Environment Chapter: "Toothless Public Relations Exercise"

Wednesday, 22 January 2014 09:37
By Yves Smith, Naked Capitalism | News Analysis


WikiLeaks has thrown yet another wrench in the negotiations over the sellout-to-multinationals-masquerading-as-trade-deal otherwise called the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Wednesday, on the eve of an expected-to-be-contentious Senate Finance Committee hearing on the Administration’s request for “fast track” authority for the TPP, WikiLeaks released another important draft chapter from the pact, this on environmental regulations. It’s relatively current, as of the last day of the Salt Lake City session in November, putting it only one negotiating round the behind the actual draft. And this, like the intellectual property chapter that WikiLeaks published last year, is one that shows the parties to the deal at loggerheads.

WikiLeaks also published an analysis by Professor Jane Kelsey of New Zealand. Given how difficult it is to parse the text (particularly since one also needs to understand how its provisions relate to other international agreements to appreciate the significance), her report provides a good, technical overview.

The main points of her analysis of the chapter proper are that despite aspirational language, the draft chapter has few definitions of key terms and has no mechanism for providing penalties. The one stab at defining terms is “environmental laws” and that is narrow, including only environmental protection and human health and safety. It excludes prudent resource management practices and also appears to impinge on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which all parties to the pact save the US have signed. Among other things, it protects the rights of indigenous people over traditional knowledge, specifically:

…genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora…and … the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions.


Seeds? Monsanto is going to cede control over seeds to savages indigenous people? Similarly, Big Pharma has been scouring exotic locations to try to find new molecules and treatments to exploit. It would be a shame if pesky natives stood between them and their profits. You can see why the Administration keeping these notions out of the text. ..............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://truth-out.org/news/item/21372-wikileaks-on-the-trans-pacific-partnership-environment-chapter-toothless-public-relations-exercise



3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
WikiLeaks on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Environment Chapter: "Toothless Public Relations Exercise (Original Post) marmar Jan 2014 OP
^ Wilms Jan 2014 #1
du rec. xchrom Jan 2014 #2
Clearly, ProSense Jan 2014 #3

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
3. Clearly,
Thu Jan 23, 2014, 09:45 AM
Jan 2014

"WikiLeaks on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Environment Chapter: 'Toothless Public Relations Exercise'"

...the speculation is entering crazy town. I mean, which is it "tootheless" or the second coming of the North American Super Highway that the loon Jerome Corsi used to push?

The Trans-Pacific Partnership looks like a giant step toward the end of sovereign nations.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024374691

I say "speculation" because Dean Baker (who opposes it) and Krugman (who dismisses the furor) both agree that it will likely have little impact on the economy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024365795#post24

Baker takes the position that it isn't about trade, but he acknowledges that his position about its potential impact on the regulatory processes is speculative based on leaks.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»WikiLeaks on the Trans-Pa...