http://truth-out.org/news/item/22582-new-study-shows-dangers-of-trade-agreements-that-help-corporations-sue-governments
[Multiple links in on-line article]
New Study Shows Dangers of Trade Agreements That Help Corporations Sue
Governments
Thursday, 20 March 2014 12:07
By Robin Broad and John Cavanagh, Triple Crisis | News Analysis
As the Obama administration negotiates new trade agreements with
European and Pacific nations, a battle has emerged over the agreements’
egregious rules that grant giant corporations unreasonable powers to
subvert democracy. These rules, dubbed “investor rights” by the
corporations, allow firms to sue governments over actions—including
public interest regulations—that reduce the value of their investments.
Oxfam, the Institute for Policy Studies, and four other non-profits are
releasing a new study that explains why these rules are so dangerous to
democracy and the environment. We are among the co-authors of this
study, titled “Debunking Eight Falsehoods by Pacific Rim
Mining/OceanaGold in El Salvador.” The report offers a powerful case
study of everything that is wrong with this corporate assault on democracy.
“Debunking Eight Falsehoods” is a careful refutation of the arguments of
a giant Australian/Canadian mining firm, Pacific Rim/OceanaGold, that is
suing the government of El Salvador over that government’s decision to
stop issuing new mining licenses. The Salvadoran government did this
precisely because its citizens deemed the environmental and social costs
too high. Pacific Rim’s proposed gold mine was in the fragile and
already compromised watershed of the key river that supplies water to
over half the country’s people.
Pacific Rim/OceanaGold is, according to a 2013 IPS study, one of 31 oil,
gas, and mining corporations suing governments in Latin America in the
International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID),
based at the World Bank. ICSID is the most frequently used tribunal
under existing pro-corporate, anti-democratic trade and investment rules.
Groups such as Oxfam, the Council of Canadians, and MiningWatch Canada
that are releasing the study feel that this case should be a “poster
child” of what is wrong with such existing rules and why trade
agreements incorporating such rules should not be passed. The study
shows how corporations use their 1% muscle (and threats of suits) to
attempt to force governments into giving them mining licenses. If this
doesn’t succeed, then they file the suits at ICSID and then attempt to
distort reality to justify their view of why their rights to mine must
prevail.
For example, the “8 Falsehoods” study details how Pacific
Rim/OceanaGold, soon after filing its suit, attempted to paint its
opponents as “rogue” NGOs that are “anti-development.” Yet, the reality
is that El Salvador’s decision to stop issuing new mining permits came
after strong public outrage over the devastating impacts of mining. As
the study reveals:
- An independent poll showed 62.4% of the public opposed to mining.
- The highest echelons of the Catholic Church publicly came out
against mining.
- The government’s office of Ombudsman for Human Rights opposes
mining.
- Over 260 international groups have called for the dismissal
of the suit.
In other words, as the study stresses, the groups inside and outside of
El Salvador opposing the mining are anything but “rogue.” Moreover, the
“rogue” label used by Pacific Rim/OceanaGold is reckless amidst the
conflict that Pacific Rim’s proposed mine has brought to the area.
Indeed, since 2009, at least four people opposed to mining have been
assassinated in the area where the company wants to mine.
The study also refutes Pacific Rim/OceanaGold’s claim that it went above
and beyond the guidelines required for mining permits back when the
government was still issuing them. Instead—and this should be key to the
World Bank-based tribunal hearing the case—our study found that the firm
never completed or submitted a feasibility study, nor did it ensure it
had purchased ownership or authorization to use the surface land over
the proposed mine. Rather, Pacific Rim relied on lobbying government
officials to try to get the permit.
The study’s authors contend that for those concerned with democracy and
basic rights, this El Salvador case stands as a potent reminder of how
important it is that we fight such unjust corporate lawsuits. It is
vital not only to support the people in El Salvador and other countries
under assault, but to rally the groups and governments trying to halt
new trade and investment agreements built from this same cookie-cutter
mold. The governments of Chile and other countries are already raising
critical questions about these pro-corporate rules in the proposed
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Social movements in several European
nations are making common cause with their governments in raising
similar concerns in the trans-Atlantic talks. The Pacific Rim/OceanaGold
case is an advertisement of the dangers of such rules.
As we write these words, the Canadian mining company Infinito Gold has
filed a suit (again in the World Bank’s ICSID) against the government of
ecotourism powerhouse Costa Rica. Infinito claims that Costa Rica’s
executive, legislative, and judicial branches are all incorrect in
banning open-pit mining and denying the corporation a license.
It is time to stop the expansion of undemocratic agreements and support
the governments that are seeking alternatives that respect their
sovereignty, their peoples’ rights, and their environment.
_______________________________________________
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel