For current political commentary, see the daily political notes.
RMS' Bio | The GNU Project
Toggle Dark Theme
Business supremacy treaties are designed to undermine democracy. They transfer power from states (which can be more or less democratic) to businesses (which don't try or claim to represent the public).
The first method these treaties used was so-called "free trade": making it easy for businesses to move production from one country to another. This pressures countries to compete to offer businesses favorable conditions, such as low wages, poor benefits for workers, weak environmental protection, low taxes (meaning bad education, bad health care, crumbling and toxic infrastructure, and inadequate support for the young, old, disabled and unemployed), and the opportunity to ignore laws (lock fire escapes, steal workers' pay).
Since the 1990s, treaties have proceeded to direct attacks on democracy: authorizing other countries, or even foreign businesses, to sue a country in a special international court for failing to respect the supremacy of business. If the country has a law to protect something important (the environment, endangered species, public health, or the general standard of living), the court can label this a "barrier to trade" and impose fines. The country's "democratic" politicians will then almost certainly decide to eliminate that law.
These treaties also frequently serve the interests of specific industries with harsh restrictions on citizens -- for instance, requiring unjust copyright law.
To recover democracy, we must abolish the business-supremacy treaties.
This page contains a list of ways business-supremacy treaties have done harm. Most of the items describe specific changes in laws or policies that were imposed through these treaties.
Please email me at rms at gnu dot org if you know of other specific laws in any country, that tried to protect something more important than business profits, that were attacked using a business-supremacy treaty, or that were voted down on the grounds they would conflict with such a treaty.
Nobody should have six children, but that is a separate issue. Even if she chose to have so many children (rather than being pressured by some men), that can't justify the way she has been treated after her injury, nor the dangerous conditions maintained at her workplace.
This is what "free trade" does: it enables the multinational to make countries compete to attract production by allowing the worst possible working conditions and workers' rights. Without "free trade", Mexico would have a real compensation system for accidents at work, the company would have maintained Machine 19 carefully and followed proper safety procedures, and this accident would probably not have happened.
Bechtel eventually dropped its case, under pressure from organized public opinion. That one victory doesn't make the treaty harmless: we can't always pressure all companies into dropping all such cases.
Pressure from the World Bank was behind the privatization attempt.
Businesses are trying to bully Germany into continuing to use nuclear power.
Converting to renewable energy is a necessity. What would these companies do if there were a Fukushima-like disaster near their factories? Of course, they would demand to place the costs on others and not them, but even after achieving that, it would still hurt their production. When companies demand thier short-term interests override long-term needs, that makes them enemies of society.
These companies deserve to be picketed in other countries.
This is a natural consequence of the way it was drawn up. For each area of business, the US government asked the companies in that area what they wanted. The fossil fuel companies asked for policies that will help them.
Fundamentally, control of greenhouse gas emissions is good for the people, so it's what democracy will do if it works right.
The TPP and TTIP can sabotage efforts to avoid global heating disaster.
This stems from the wrong fundamental values of the WTO, which place business profit above everything important.
The TPP would further strengthen the power of businesses to attack measures to protect the environment.
Congress used the budget bill as an excuse to surrender to the WTO: it voted to eliminated country-of-origin meat labeling.
Let's abolish the WTO instead.
It is a fundamental mistake to call these restrictions "intellectual property" because that leads people to confuse them with unrelated issues such as copyright law. Every time that term is used, it spreads confusion -- so please, don't use it!
I wonder, though, whether this apparent magnanimity will have any practical effect. I don't think there are generic drug factories in countries such as Afghanistan, Rwanda and Cambodia. If the countries such as India that actually make generic drugs are not covered, if GSK continues using patents to prevent the manufacture of generic drugs in those countries, this gift will turn out to be an empty gesture.
US proponents of these treaties claim their advantage is to boost exports. If they did that, that would not justify the harm they do to democracy. But they don't really boost exports anyway, not for the US. Even in the narrow terms of trade and "national interest", they are a bad deal.
In general, US export growth has been low wherever the US has a "free trade treaty".
Even when these treaties lead to economic growth, they assure the benefit will go to the rich; working people may become poorer all the while, as wealth and income become more concentrated.
No wonder the think tanks that support the TTIP are funded by plutocrats as a form of "policy laundering".
Part of the article uses the incoherent term "intellectual property". It is always a mistake, without exception, to group together copyrights and patents as if they were a single issue. And that term includes several other laws as well. If you think they are similar than you don't understand what they really do.
While Obama claims that the proposed free exploitation treaties with Colombia and Korea would increase US exports, its own figures predict the opposite.
The US-Korea "free trade" agreement, if evaluated in the conventional terms of exports and imports, has been a big loss for US exports and US employment.
After the US-Korea "free trade agreement", US exports to Korea have decreased and imports from Korea have surged. In terms of national competition, the agreement was "bad for the US". In those same terms, you could say it was "good for Korea."
This is on top of the harm that the treaty does to both countries by undermining democracy.
It could also stop the US from setting up a proper national health service, which it badly needs.
Although the US government did not give in on the ban, other concessions were made.
Uruguay's laws are effective in lowering the rates of smoking.
Copyright 2011, 2016 Richard Stallman released under Creative Commons Attribution Noderivs 3.0 unported