One of the greatest dangers we face from the odious Trans-Pacific Partnership is the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). The pro-TPP forces--who advocate for the non-existent so-called "free trade"--want to ignore the reality of the ISDS and, to do so, they actually have to lie about it. Unfortunately for them, Public Citizen is a tiger that won't let these lies pass.
Forbes tried to foist on the world the elite view via a piece of nonsense entitled "Trade Dispute Settlement: Much Ado About Nothing", which was riddled with stupid stuff--wrong and, if you believe it was done intentionally, flat out lies.
To its credit, Forbes gave Public Citizen's Lori Wallach & Ben Beachy space to rebut the garbage. And the response was epic, and quite informative: Defending Foreign Corporations' Privileges Is Hard, Especially When Looking At The Facts. The explanation first of what ISDS is:
To his credit, it is no easy task to defend a system that empowers foreign corporations to bypass domestic courts and laws to demand taxpayer compensation for domestic policies that apply equally to their local competitors, but that they claim frustrate special privileges granted to them as foreign investors. The cases are heard by extrajudicial tribunals not bound by precedent. Decisions are not subject to substantive appeal.
Facts:
In his quixotic effort to defend the ISDS system, Brinkley made a real mess of the facts. There’s not space to go through all 17 factual errors, but it’s important to correct his biggest blunders.
For instance, Brinkley argued, “What matters is not whether [the foreign corporations] can sue, but whether they can win.” He then proceeded to misstate the win record.
In fact, the United Nations figures on ISDS case outcomes, which Brinkley cited, show that foreign corporations have gained favorable rulings or settlements in 57 percent of the ISDS cases launched to date.
Foreign corporations have “won” against Canada’s ban on hazardous waste exports, the Czech Republic’s decision to not bail out a bank, a Mexican municipality’s decision to not allow the expansion of a contaminated toxic waste facility, and a Canadian requirement for any and all firms obtaining oil concessions to contribute to research and development in the affected province.
And:
Brinkley seems unaware that in fact the United States has lost 61 out of 67state-state cases brought against it at the WTO – a 91 percent loss rate.
The rebuttal is more detailed and worth the read.
It bears pointing out that, putting aside the climate change deal with China, the president was intent on pushing for the TPP to be completed--which, as I wrote, would, among other things, obliterate legally binding pollution control requirements.