The Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP)

Today, I signed a petition via Avaaz.org to stop what they are calling ‘the corporate death star’. Now that’s obviously a bit over dramatic in order to attract attention. But to be honest, it would be hard to find a worse piece of legislation for democracy than the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP).

This agreement is being negotiated in the utmost secrecy by global corporations and various national governments. No one outside this select group is being allowed to see any documents from these meetings – not even the respective parliaments etc of the countries negotiating it.

The purpose of the agreement appears to be to extend various, already draconian copyright and patent laws. In this sense, it is the latest in a long line of efforts that include the failed ACTA and SOPA. Clearly all of these, and especially the TPP are worth fighting just for being what they are.

But what is especially worrying is the secrecy and the fact that, if it passes, it will be very difficult indeed to undo. In fact, it is likely to become an international norm.

So here we have yet one more example of governments and corporations colluding, to the detriment of the rest of us. But there is something else here. Many people will be tempted to blame the corporation, to accuse them of immorality.

But what this actually shows is that transnational corporations recognise the essential need for global rules. They see that this is the only way to operate in the global marketplace. Unsurprisingly, they seek to bring about legislation that will most benefit them – which is to say, make them more money.

This should not really shock us, as it is exactly what a business is supposed to do! The morality, the regulation, the control is supposed to come from governance. That governance is supposed to be derived from us, the people. If the corporations can see that global rules are necessary, isn’t it high time that the rest of us caught up?!

As Simpol founder John Bunzl recently put it:

“You’re not going to have a sustainable global economy unless you have governance that’s on the same scale as the economy it’s supposed to bloody govern!”

It’s up to us, the people, to combat this. Right now, I urge you all to go and sign the Avaaz petition in order to try and stop this now.

But, in the longer term, we’re simply going to have to create citizen powered global governance. It’s the only way to stop this happening over and over again.

Advertisements

One thought on “The Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP)

  1. If you have concerns at a stratum of supranational law evolving, and you can fault specific ways that it will erode your liberties, then you ned to know this, circulate this, cite this against the new treaty’s effects:

    THE COURT CHANGE: decisions are not final. Since 7 July 1999 in the Council of Europe countries, US, Canada, since later dates elsewhere, all court or other legal decisions are open-endedly faultable on their logic, instead of final. “Open to open-ended fault finding by any party”.

    Its shifting of power in favour of ordinary people ensures that it has been under a media silence. Still, it is on publicly traceable record through petitions 730/99 in the European, PE6 Scottish, parliaments.

    The silence means there are probably many folks who have never been heard of, who have cases that have created the court change from much earlier dates than me. To get the earliest start date is what matters, so as soon as anyone’s start date earlier than mine is discovered, they take precedence. Until then: the court change starts from my European Court of Human Rights case 41597/98, in 1998-9, on a scandal in Britain of insurance policies requiring evictions of unemployed people from hotels.

    This case referred to violation of civil status from 13 May 1997, yet the admissibility decision claimed the last stage of decision taken within Britain was on 4 Aug 1995. ECHR has made itself illegal, by issuing a syntactically contradictory nonsense decision that reverses the physics of time, says 2 dated events happened in reverse order,and calling it final. This violates every precedent that ECHR member countries’ laws recognise the chronology of cause and effect, in court evidence.

    Hence, the original ECHR is now, and since then, an illegal entity, because it broke all preexisting precedent that courts recognise the correct order of time, and it claimed a power of finality to issue decisions whose content is a factual impossibility. But for the original ECHR to lapse in this way, also breaches the European Convention’s section on requiring an ECHR to exist. Hence, this section requires the member countries to create a new ECHR that removes the original’s illegality. The source of the illegality being left standing was in the claimed power of final decision. Hence, the only way the new court can remove the illegality is by being constituted such that its decisions are not final. If decisions are not final, the only other thing they can be is open-endedly faultable.

    This requires the courts in the member countries to be compatible with open-ended decisions and with doing in-country work connected to them. Hence, legal decisions within the member countries’ courts also cease to be final and become open-ended, in all the Council of Europe countries.

    The concept of “leave to appeal” is abolished and judges no longer have to be crawled to as authority figures. Every party in a case is automatically entitled to lodge a fault finding against any decision, stating reasons. These are further faultable in return, including by the original fault finder, stating reasons. A case reaches its outcome when all fault findings have been answered or accepted.

    The first fault finding to make, is that all unaffordable legal costs are abolished by how they conflict with the world human rights principle of access to justice. Folks have waited centuries for a chance to say this !!! See how far reaching is the reform the court change can do once it starts?

    World trade irreversibly means jurisdictions are not cocooned but have overlapping cases. When a case overlaps an affected and unaffected country, the unaffected country becomes affected, through having to deal with open ended case content open-endedly, that can affect any number of other cases open-endedly. Open-endedness is created in its system.

    So the court change is of far reaching international interest. It complements Simpol, because it is a simultaneous massive advance in democracy that the folks of most of the world can help each other to get. It, and fault findings made under it, can be applied to many of the Simpol issues, on a simultaneous scale.

    When listing the basis that the peoples of each country outside the Council of Europe have, to lay claim to have the court change in their country, it is worth listing autocracies, pending their freer futures, as well as democracies. My list can only be a start, it must be affected my media biases over which cases I have heard of. A better list will emerge from folks with local knowledge of which cases will get each country the earliest start date for the court change.

    United States through many transatlantic cases, pick any, e.g. Natwest 3, Enron, Gary Mackinnon, Richard O’Dwyer, Abu Hamza, Babar Ahmad and Talha Ahsan. Or, my stalled ethical dispute in that period with Arizona university over brain research would get the United States and Canada into the court change right from the same start date as Europe.
    Australia through the long running case about medical harm by British nuclear tests. This gets Australia the same 1999 start date for the court change as Europe, because land groups there and not only British military are parties in the case.
    Also, United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand all through their CJD ban on British blood donations in 2000.

    Israel and Lebanon through the case in Belgium on the Sabra-Chatila massacres.
    North Cyprus through Turkey’s UN legal challenge against South Cyprus joining the EU.
    Belarus through its election dispute with OSCE election monitoring.
    Kosovo through war crimes cases overlapping Serbia.
    Vatican City through Sinead O’Connor’s ordination as a Catholic priest.
    Cuba through Elian Gonzalez.
    Haiti through objecting to receiving petty crime deportations from America.
    Antigua through its constitutional crisis on capital punishment.
    Trinidad through its Privy Council case on capital punishment.
    Jamaica through claims on both sides of American linked arms trade background to its violence.
    Mexico through the Benjamin Felix drug mafia extradition to America.
    Belize through Michael Ashcroft.
    Guatemala through the child stealing and adoption scandal overlapping America.
    El Salvador through the trade union related factory closure there by Nestle that made Transfair, the Fair Trade organisation in Italy, reject the Fair Trade mark for Nestle coffee.
    Honduras through the sex slave trafficking cases from Nicaragua.
    Colombia through America’s supposed human rights policy intervention in training Colombian police and military.
    Venezuela through Luis Posada Carriles.
    Guyana through the £12m debt claim dropped by Iceland (the shop).
    Brazil through EU immigration unfairnesses to its football players, necessitating a mafia trade in false passports.
    Argentina through its ECHR case on the General Belgrano.
    Chile through General Pinochet.
    Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay through Judge Garzon’s citation of Henry Kissinger for the South American military conspiracy Operation Condor.
    Chad and Senegal through a French action in Senegal obtaining Chad’s former dictator Habre for trial under Pinochet’s precedent.
    Algeria through the Harkis’ case from the Algerian war.
    Tunisia through the Lord Shaftesbury murder trial.
    Liberia, Sierra Leone, Mali, Morocco through the Insight News case.
    Ivory Coast through the chocolate slavery scandal.
    Ghana through the World Bank’s Dora slave scandal.
    Togo through the Lome peace accords for Sierra Leone, and their breaking as an issue in factional arms supply to there.
    Burkina Faso through an arms trade case of smuggling through it from Ukraine to civil war factions in Sierra Leone and Angola.
    Niger and Rwanda through Oxfam’s case of buying an arms trade “end user certificate” for Rwanda in Niger.
    Burundi through the war crimes trial of Rwanda’s 1994 head of state.
    Tanzania and Japan through the 2000 G8 summit, because Tanzania Social and Economic Trust broadcast a contradiction in implementing both its wishes for economic advance and its debt relief terms.
    Mozambique through its cashew nuts dispute with the World Bank.
    South Africa and Lesotho through a WHO case against American pharmaceutical ethics there.
    Nigeria through reported Nigerian drug mafia crime in South Africa.
    Cameroon through the Bakassi Peninsula issue with Nigeria.
    Dahomey and Gabon through their slave trafficking scandals overlapping Nigeria and Togo.
    Zimbabwe through its land finances dispute with Britain in 2000.
    Equatorial Guinea through the charges in Zimbabwe of a coup conspiracy.
    Malawi through its arrests of Zimbabwean refugees callously deported from Britain.
    Zambia through Cafod’s collection of objections to food supply and health violations in its IMF structural adjustment program.
    Namibia through the Herero genocide case against Germany.
    Angola, Congo Kinshasa, Ecuador through arms trade smuggling to them from Bulgaria and Slovakia.
    Congo Brazzaville through the Jean-Francois Ndenge case in France.
    Sudan through Al Shafi pharmaceutical factory suing America for bombing it.
    South Sudan through all legal history inherited from before the split, and the border problem at Abyei.
    Madagascar, Mauritania, Nicaragua through the complaint by Jubilee USA and Africa Action that the IMF is breaking the agreed debt relief terms for them.
    Ethiopia through the same, as well as earlier aid sector comment on its conditional debt relief.
    Eritrea through its border dispute with Ethiopia.
    Somaliland through its problem with Russian and South Korean coastal fishing.
    Kenya through the Archer’s Post munitions explosion case overlapping Britain.
    Somalia through the UNHCR coordinator in Kenya protesting and exposing refugee deportations back to Somalia during the 2006-7 crisis there.
    Uganda through the Acholiland child slave crisis and Sudan’s agreement to return children.
    Mauritius through the Ilois rights judgment on the Chagos clearances.
    Yemen through its problem with Spain over the missile shipment.
    United Arab Emirates through Mohammed Lodi.
    Saudi Arabia through the lawsuit by families of 911 victims.
    Qatar through its SS Dignity aid boat turned away from Gaza by Israeli authorities for having peace activists aboard.
    Bahrain through the call for American witnesses in Richard Meakin’s case.
    Kuwait through the terrorism arrests in Saudi Arabia.
    Iraq through the weapons inspection dispute before the invasion. NB this does not mean the dispute or invasion were right!
    Jordan through its threat of “unspecified measures” in its relations with Israel.
    Egypt through its disputes with Tanzania and Kenya over use of Nile water.
    Libya, Syria, Iran through the Lockerbie bomb trial. This is by reason of case content, nothing to do with who was guilty. But for Iran it is now more diplomatic to cite the case of the arrest of Bob Levinson.
    Turkmenistan through Ukraine’s gas pipeline dispute with Russia.
    Kazakhstan through the American court action on oil contract corruption at government level there.
    Uzbekistan through the ambassadorial exposee on evidence obtained by torture there and used in Western courts.
    Kyrgyzia through its anti-terrorist border operations with Uzbekistan.
    Afghanistan through the pursuit of Bin Laden after 911.
    Pakistan through a dispute, reported by BBC in 2000, between supporters of enslaved women and the British embassy for not helping them escape.
    India, Bangladesh, China, Indonesia through the World Wildlife Fund’s campaign for tiger conservation, conflicting western romanticism with local populations affected by the homicidal absurdity of conserving a human predator.
    Nepal through the Gurkhas’ lawsuit for equal pay and pensions.
    Vietnam through a church publicised refugee dispute overlapping China.
    Cambodia through its enactment for a trial of the Khmer Rouge Holocaust.
    Laos through Peter Tatchell’s application to arrest Henry Kissinger.
    Thailand through Sandra Gregory.
    Burma through the Los Angeles judgment on the Unocal oil pipeline.
    Sri Lanka through its call for the Tamil Tigers’ banning in Britain.
    East Timor through public reaction to the judgment against trying Suharto.
    Papua New Guinea through WWF’s Kikori mangrove logging affair.
    Vanuatu through the Raymond Coia investment scam case.
    Nauru through the Australian civil liberty challenge on the Tampa refugees.
    Fiji through its land crisis’s nonracial solubility by a Commonwealth constitutional question on rent and mortgages.
    Tuvalu through environmentalist challenges to America’s rejection of international agreements on global warming and sea level.
    Marshall Islands through the Nuclear Claims Tribunal cases.
    Philippines and Malaysia through the international police investigation in the Jaybe Ofrasio trial in Northern Ireland.
    South Korea through its jurisdiction dispute with the American army.
    North Korea through its apology to Japan for abductions.
    Mongolia through the diplomatic clash over Bat Khurts.

    All members of the Alliance of Small Island States are court change, as from AOSIS’s notice of dissatisfaction with the outcome of the Copenhagen Climate change conference in 2009. This adds the Bahamas, Barbados, Dominican Republic, Dominica, St Kitts-Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent, Grenada, Guyana, Surinam, Guinea Bissau, Cape Verde Islands, Sao Tome e Principe, Seychelles, Comoro Islands, Maldive Islands, Singapore, Palau, Micronesia, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Kiribati, West Samoa, Tonga.

    AOSIS members with court change cases already listed were: Antigua, Cuba, Haiti, Trinidad, Belize, Mauritius, East Timor, Papua New Guinea, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Vanuatu, Fiji.

    Council of Europe members already listed before they joined were:
    Bosnia through a sex slave scandal involving Russian and American military.
    Serbia and Montenegro through war crimes cases in the Yugoslav period overlapping Bosnia.
    Monaco through International Amateur Athletics Federation drug hearings there.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s