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
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: TPP branded as trade agreement, but what's really at stake. From Public Citizen. [View all]riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)35. That doesn't mean we shouldn't lose. For example the despicable Renco case
This is a case of a rich American deliberately, severely, lead poisoning children. These cases will be global with the TPP... You act as though the U.S. has been the good guy in South and Central America. Quelle surprise.
This is a prominent case in Peru where investor-state treaties have provided an avenue for companies to delay or reverse agreements which had been enforceable in courts:
...Renco Group Inc., a company owned by one of the richest men in America, invested in a metal smelter in La Oroya, Peru. The site has been designated as in the top 10 most polluted in the world. The firm has been sued in U.S. court on behalf of severely lead-poisoned children in La Oroya. Sulfur dioxide concentrations at La Oroya greatly exceed international standards, with sulfur dioxide levels doubled in the years after Rencos acquisition of the complex. Rencos Peruvian subsidiary promised to install sulfur plants by 2007 as part of an environmental remediation program. Although it was out of compliance with its contractual obligations, the company sought (and Peru granted) two extraordinary extensions to complete the project.
In December 2010, Renco sent Peru a Notice of Intent that it was launching a U.S.-Peru FTA investor-state attack, alleging that Perus failure to grant a third extension of the remediation obligations constituted a violation of the firms FTA foreign investor rights. The company is demanding $800 million in compensation from Peruvian taxpayers. The Renco case illustrates two deeply worrying implications of investor-state arbitration.
Even the mere threat of a case can put pressure on governments to weaken environment and health policies. Recent developments suggest that the threat of this case was highly effective. While full environmental compliance has yet to be seen, the government has allowed the smelter to restart zinc and lead operations. That would be bad enough, but Renco is also attempting to evade justice in U.S. domestic courts through the investor-state mechanism.
Renco has now successfully argued that the U.S. lawsuit filed on behalf of La Oroyas children must be removed from a U.S. state court, where it had a decent chance of success. Renco tried to derail the case this way three times before without success. But after filing the investor-state case, the firm claimed that the matter now involved an international treaty and thus was outside the state courts remit. In January 2011, the same federal judge who rejected the past attempts determined that the existence of the investor-state case made this a federal issue and allowed Renco to terminate the state court case...
In December 2010, Renco sent Peru a Notice of Intent that it was launching a U.S.-Peru FTA investor-state attack, alleging that Perus failure to grant a third extension of the remediation obligations constituted a violation of the firms FTA foreign investor rights. The company is demanding $800 million in compensation from Peruvian taxpayers. The Renco case illustrates two deeply worrying implications of investor-state arbitration.
Even the mere threat of a case can put pressure on governments to weaken environment and health policies. Recent developments suggest that the threat of this case was highly effective. While full environmental compliance has yet to be seen, the government has allowed the smelter to restart zinc and lead operations. That would be bad enough, but Renco is also attempting to evade justice in U.S. domestic courts through the investor-state mechanism.
Renco has now successfully argued that the U.S. lawsuit filed on behalf of La Oroyas children must be removed from a U.S. state court, where it had a decent chance of success. Renco tried to derail the case this way three times before without success. But after filing the investor-state case, the firm claimed that the matter now involved an international treaty and thus was outside the state courts remit. In January 2011, the same federal judge who rejected the past attempts determined that the existence of the investor-state case made this a federal issue and allowed Renco to terminate the state court case...
read more: http://www.citizen.org/documents/fact-sheet-tpp-and-environment.pdf
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
70 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
TPP branded as trade agreement, but what's really at stake. From Public Citizen. [View all]
madfloridian
Apr 2015
OP
This is an extremely important issue and yet I don't see one single Right-Red Arrow
rhett o rick
Apr 2015
#54
And a really good link here. Often I can not get to Wikileaks, times out on me.
madfloridian
Apr 2015
#9
What's the rush? It's been years in the making (in secret). The least our Congressional leaders can
jalan48
Apr 2015
#12
I'm glad that the word 'sovereignty' has been raised. This is the most concerning
sabrina 1
Apr 2015
#13
And just imagine you are one of those little countries subject to this plan. They would not have the
jwirr
Apr 2015
#26
This is how it would work. Those Corps could sue the US, that would be the people of course,
sabrina 1
Apr 2015
#45
And being more than a trade agreement is not necessarily a bad thing depending on the details.
pampango
Apr 2015
#17
I have. They are. Every complicated agreement has parts I don't like including, I'm sure,
pampango
Apr 2015
#20
When it is too late? So what, the only time it matters to be against is when you can stop it.
TheKentuckian
Apr 2015
#60
You do realize we've never lost an investor-state dispute? Not one? Your claims regarding payout
msanthrope
Apr 2015
#21
"I'm less concerned about the U.S. than other nations." That is an interesting take on TPP.
pampango
Apr 2015
#24
I don't think that it is so much US that will bring down those standards. I think the added power
jwirr
Apr 2015
#30
Because we have enough money to fight - those little countries are not going to be in the same
jwirr
Apr 2015
#28
That doesn't mean we shouldn't lose. For example the despicable Renco case
riderinthestorm
Apr 2015
#35
Yes the corporations deeply wish to include in the agreements a path around regulation
HereSince1628
Apr 2015
#31
Clearly there are two factions re. this issue. The Corp Faction vs. The People Faction.
rhett o rick
Apr 2015
#55
The cream of idiocy was the notion that President Obama would veto the bill if it was bad.
Jesus Malverde
Apr 2015
#57
I'm not sure they ever supported the President, seems they're doing the bidding
Jesus Malverde
Apr 2015
#59
k & R Thanks for this very important post MF. It's the Big Tuna for corps, pols & investors,
appalachiablue
Apr 2015
#56
Ability of corporations to squeeze the life out of individual cities, small nations
lostnfound
Apr 2015
#69