May, 02 2016, 08:30am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Dutch media please contact Greenpeace Netherlands, +31 (0)6 21 29 68 95, persvoorlichting@greenpeace.nl
Brussels media please contact Greenpeace EU press desk, +32 (0)2 274 1911, pressdesk.eu@greenpeace.org
International media please contact Greenpeace International press desk (24 hours), +31 (0)20 718 2470, pressdesk.int@greenpeace.org
Greenpeace Netherlands Releases TTIP Documents
AMSTERDAM
Today Greenpeace Netherlands releases secret documents of the EU-US TTIP negotiations. On www.ttip-leaks.org the documents will be made available for everyone to read, because democracy needs transparency.
"These documents make clear the scale and scope of the trade citizens of the United States and the European Union are being asked to make in pursuit of corporate profits. It is time for the negotiations to stop, and the debate to begin.
Should we be able to act when we have reasonable grounds to believe our health and wellbeing is at risk, or must we wait until the damage is done?
Were our governments serious in Paris when they said they would do what was necessary to protect the planet, and keep climate change under 1.5 degrees?
Environmental protection should not be seen as a barrier to trade, but as a safeguard for our health, and the health of future generations.
We call on citizens, civil society, politicians and businesses to engage in this debate openly and without fear. We call on the negotiators to release the latest, complete text to facilitate that discussion, and we ask that the negotiations be stopped until these questions, and many more have been answered. Until we can fully engage in a debate about the standards we and our planet need and want" - Sylvia Borren, Executive Director Greenpeace Netherlands.
Which documents are we releasing?
The documents that Greenpeace Netherlands has released comprise about half of the draft text as of April 2016, prior to the start of the 13th round of TTIP negotiations between the EU and the US (New York, 25-29 April 2016). As far as we know the final document will consist of 25 to 30 chapters and many extensive annexes. The EU Commission published an overview stating that they have now 17 consolidated texts. This means the documents released by Greenpeace Netherlands encompass 3/4 of the existing consolidated texts.[1]
Consolidated texts are those where the EU and US positions on issues are shown side by side. This step in the negotiation process allows us to see the areas where the EU and US are close to agreement, and where compromises and concessions would still need to be made. Of the documents released by Greenpeace Netherlands, in total 248 pages, 13 chapters offer for the first time the position of the US.
How have the documents been handled?
The documents we received had clearly been treated to make it possible to identify individual copies. Prior to release they have been retyped and identifying features removed. We have not altered content of the documents and have preserved the layout. For this reason we are not offering access to the original documents.
How do you know the documents are genuine?
After receiving the documents both Greenpeace Netherlands and Rechercheverbund NDR, WDR und Suddeutsche Zeitung, a renowned German investigative research partnership have analysed them and compared them to existing documents. The Rechercheverbund, which consists of different German media outlets, has covered, amongst other big stories, the Snowden leaks and the recent Volkswagen emissions scandals.
What are the first conclusions from the documents?
From an environmental and consumer protection point of view four aspects are of serious concern.
Long standing environmental protections appear to be dropped
None of the chapters we have seen reference the General Exceptions rule. This nearly 70-year-old rule enshrined in the GATT agreement of the World Trade Organization (WTO), allows nations to regulate trade "to protect human, animal and plant life or health" or for "the conservation of exhaustible natural resources" [2]. The omission of this regulation suggests both sides are creating a regime that places profit ahead of human, animal and plant life and health.
Climate protection will be harder under TTIP
The Paris Climate Agreement makes one point clear: We must keep temperature increase under 1.5 degrees to avoid a climate crisis with effects on billions of people worldwide. Trade should not be excluded from climate action. But nothing indicating climate protection can be found in the obtained texts. Even worse, the scope for mitigation measures is limited by provisions of the chapters on Regulatory Cooperation or Market Access for Industrial Goods. [3] As an example these proposals would rule out regulating the import of CO2 intensive fuels such as oil from Tar Sands.
The end of the precautionary principle
The precautionary principle, enshrined in the EU Treaty[4], is not mentioned in the chapter on Regulatory Cooperation, nor in any other of the obtained 12 chapters. On the other hand the US demand for a 'risk based' approach that aims to manage hazardous substances rather than avoid them, finds its way into various chapters. This approach undermines the ability of regulators to take preventive measures, for example regarding controversial substances like hormone disrupting chemicals.
Opening the door for corporate takeover
While the proposals threaten environmental and consumer protection, big business gets what it wants. Opportunities to participate in decision making are granted to corporations to intervene at the earliest stages of the decision making process.
While civil society has had little access to the negotiations, there are many instances where the papers show that industry has been granted a privileged voice in important decisions. [5] The leaked documents indicate that the EU has not been open about the high degree of industry influence. The EU's recent public report [6] has only one minor mention of industry input, whereas the leaked documents repeatedly talk about the need for further consultations with industry and explicitly mention how industry input has been collected.
###
Notes:
[1] The documents we are releasing are
[chapter 1.1.] National Treatment and Market Access for Goods
This chapter addresses trade in goods between EU and US.
[chapter 1.2.] Agriculture
This chapter deals with trade in agricultural products and illustrates EU-US disagreements on matters such as genetically modified organisms.
[chapter 1.3.] Cross-Border Trade in Services
This chapter addresses trade in the service industry sector.
[chapter 1.4] Electronic Communications
This chapter addresses Internet and telecommunications issues.
[chapter 1.5.] Government Procurement
This chapter deals with purchases by government entities within the EU and US.
[chapter 1.6.] Annex Government Procurement
The annex of the previous chapter, with additional information about a US-proposed chapter on anti-corruption.
[chapter 1.7.] Customs and Trade and Facilitation
This chapter addresses differences among various customs regulations.
[chapter 1.8.] EU - US revised tariff offers
These are the respective positions regarding tariffs.
[chapter 2.1.] Regulatory Cooperation
In this controversial chapter EU and US aim for joint regulations on products and services, for example for food and cosmetics safety.
[chapter 2.2.] Technical Barriers to Trade
This chapter addresses differences between EU-US regulations and the ways in which they affect trade.
[chapter 2.3.] Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
This chapter deals with the protection of plant and animal health.
[chapter 3.1.] Competition
This chapter deals with competition between parties.
[chapter 3.2.] Small and Medium-sized Enterprise
This chapter addresses enterprises smaller than multi-national corporations.
[chapter 3.3.] State-owned Enterprise
This chapter addresses nationalised enterprises.
[chapter 4.] Dispute Settlement
This chapter deals with resolving disagreements between the EU and the US.
[chapter 5.] Tactical State of Play
Not intended for public viewing, this document describes EU-US disagreements and shows how much private industry influences the TTIP negotiations.
[2] Most of the WTO's agreements were the outcome of the 1986-94 Uruguay Round of trade negotiations. Some, including GATT 1994, were revisions of texts that previously existed.
[3] Nothing in the relevant Articles 10 (Import and Export Restrictions) and 12 (Import and Export Licensing) of the Chapter on National Treatment and Market Access for Goods shows that necessary trade related measures to protect the climate would be allowed as a trade restriction under GATT Article XX (see footnote 1).
[4] "The precautionary principle is detailed in Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (EU). It aims at ensuring a higher level of environmental protection through preventative decision-taking in the case of risk. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=URISERV%3Al32042
[5] e.g. "While the US showed an interest, it hastened to point out that it would need to consult with its industry regarding some of the products" - Chapter 'Tactical State of Play', paragraph 1.1, Agriculture.
[6] 'The Twelfth Round of Negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)' https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/march/tradoc_154391.pdf
Greenpeace is a global, independent campaigning organization that uses peaceful protest and creative communication to expose global environmental problems and promote solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future.
+31 20 718 2000LATEST NEWS
Poll Shows US Voters Have Disapproved of Trump's War of Choice Against Iran From Beginning to End
Only 38% of Americans supported the war in its first days, and nearly two-thirds said in the latest polling they disapproved of the president's handling of Iran.
Jun 19, 2026
As talks to end the US-Israeli war on Iran were delayed Friday by continued attacks by the Israel Defense Forces in Lebanon, new polling showed Americans are eager to see the conclusion of the conflict that began in February—confirming that at no point since the Trump administration and Israel began the assault has the war been popular with the public.
Nearly two-thirds of respondents to an Associated Press/NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll taken from June 11-17 said they were unhappy with President Donald Trump's handling of issues with Iran, which he began attacking as he insisted the country must not have enriched uranium that can be used to make a nuclear weapon and that the US must "destroy their missiles."
One independent voter from Plano, Texas told the AP that he was frustrated by Trump's decision to wage an unprovoked war on Iran—which followed an invasion of Venezuela and threats against Greenland and Cuba—after the president made ending US foreign wars a central campaign promise in 2024.
“I would like the war to end,” the voter, Donald McBride, told the AP. “The original objective of the war was to end the Iranian regime, and that’s just not possible. I don’t really know why we’d continue fighting.”
The poll was in line with an analysis of eight reputable surveys that were taken in early March, just days after Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began the attacks—a decision Secretary of State Marco Rubio said was made by the Trump administration because the White House believed Iran would retaliate against bombing that Israel was intent on starting.
Those surveys found that just 38% of voters approved of the military strikes against Iran in the days after they began, with polling expert G. Elliott Morris warning that "wars only get less popular” over time.
That quickly proved true in this case, with Americans almost immediately feeling the effects of Iran's retaliatory strategy after the country effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, sending gas prices skyrocketing. In late April, 78% of respondents to a Reuters/Ipsos poll said they were very concerned about the rising cost of fuel, and 77% blamed Trump.
Fifty-eight percent also told Reuters two months into the Iran War that they'd be less likely to vote for a candidate who supported Trump's actions against Iran.
In the poll released Friday, 53% of voters said the US military action against Iran has gone "too far," slightly down from 59% who said so in March. The poll was taken as the US released a memorandum of understanding with Iran and as the president indicated a retreat from the central demands he had made regarding Israel's missiles and nuclear program, which Iranian officials have maintained is not for military purposes.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Psychopath' Ben-Gvir Slammed for Demand That 'All Lebanon Must Burn'
Ben-Gvir's invocation of mass slaughter came as the US is trying to negotiate an end to President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran.
Jun 19, 2026
Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir drew widespread condemnation on Friday when he declared that "all Lebanon must burn" shortly after four Israeli soldiers were killed in a fight with Hezbollah.
In a social media post, Ben-Gvir said that Israel should retaliate for the deaths of the soldiers with a scorched-earth military campaign aimed at killing large numbers of Lebanese people.
"For every tear of an Israeli mother, a thousand Lebanese mothers must weep," the far-right Israeli Cabinet member wrote. "Enough with the ping-pong. In the Middle East, you don’t win with measured responses and restraint—you need to go berserk. To obliterate. To crush the terror."
Ben-Gvir also took a subtle shot at the Trump administration, which has called for Israel to cease its military operations in Lebanon so that the US and Iran can negotiate an end to the illegal war of choice President Donald Trump launched earlier this year.
"With all due respect to the Americans, Israel must make it clear to the entire world that the blood of our sons and the security of our citizens are not forfeit," he wrote. "All of Lebanon must burn."
Ben-Gvir's demands for mass slaughter were widely condemned as the ravings of a genocidal maniac.
"You are a psychopath and one of the greatest threats to the security of Israel and of Jewish people around the world," journalist Yashar Ali wrote in response to Ben-Gvir. "You belong in a psychiatric institution, not in a government role."
Humza Yousaf, former first minister of Scotland and leader of the Scottish National Party, argued that Ben-Gvir's ravings should end any question about the nature of Israel's current government.
"For those who continue to deny Israel has any intention of committing genocide then read this tweet from a minister at the heart of the Israeli government," Yousaf wrote. "He belongs in the Hague, convicted and in a jail cell."
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said that Ben-Gvir's post should make Western nations reconsider which nation is the largest obstacle to achieving peace in the Middle East.
"While regional states are intrinsically involved in efforts to bring about peace in the region," Parsi noted, "this Israeli cabinet minister tweets that 'All of Lebanon must burn!' And he repeats that call twice in the post. When will the West ask the question that never gets asked: How is the rest of the region supposed to live in peace and security next to a state that behaves like this?"
British journalist Owen Jones remarked that, in calling for mass killing in Lebanon, Ben-Gvir "sounds like a Nazi."
"If this wasn't Israel," Jones added, "everybody would say he sounds like a Nazi."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Pro-Democracy Coalition Plans Mass Mobilization to Counter Trump-Centered 250th Birthday
The Next250 coalition is focused on building a future in the US in which Americans declare their "interdependence" and work together to secure economic justice and an inclusive democracy.
Jun 19, 2026
With the 250th anniversary of the United States' independence approaching, much of the planned celebration has been centered not on highlights of the country's history, the communities that changed the nation by demanding progress on voting and civil rights, or how far the US has come since the Declaration of Independence was signed.
Instead, President Donald Trump has increasingly placed himself and his own views on American history at the center of the semiquincentennial celebration—insisting on a "Freedom 250" UFC fight on the White House lawn, arranging for his own image to appear on US passports and commemorative gold coin, calling himself “the Number One Attraction anywhere in the World" as he stepped in to headline the Great American State Fair after numerous performers dropped out, and using taxpayer dollars earmarked for the 250th birthday to hold an event devoted to the absurd and ahistorical claim that the US was founded as a Christian nation.
Ahead of the official "Freedom 250" events planned for July 4, a coalition of progressive groups—including One Fair Wage, Workers Center for Racial Justice, the Council on American Islamic Relations, and Jews for Racial and Economic Justice—are mobilizing to direct the country's attention away from Trump, Christian nationalism, and even the country's history and its independence—and toward a future in which Americans celebrate their "interdependence."
"Interdependence means recognizing that our lives, communities, and futures are connected," reads the Next250 coalition's website. "It means understanding that none of us are free, safe, or thriving alone, and that the well-being of our communities, democracy, environment, and future generations depends on how we care for one another now."
On June 27, a week before Independence Day, people from across the US are planning to attend a national mobilization in Washington, DC where the coalition will "reckon with our nation’s history and simultaneously declare a shared vision for the future of the country."
The event will amplify the Declaration of Interdependence, a document that focuses on the "collective destiny" of everyone in the US.
"We are one nation, interdependent, woven together by the strength of our ideals, our shared history, and the extraordinary land we live on—stewarded since time immemorial by Indigenous nations whose sovereignty and leadership continue today," reads the declaration. "We can bring this vision to life only by recognizing our common destiny, honoring our shared humanity, and working together."
"Today, too many people in the United States are struggling to meet their basic needs, while a tiny few have more money than nations," the document continues. "Too many of us are feeling disconnected from our neighbors, have lost faith in government, and are longing for community. People do not feel safe from violence. Wildfires, floods, and extreme weather are destroying whole communities. We join together in our shared values to carve a path toward a better future for ourselves and each other."
The declaration pledges to look ahead and build a nation where:
- All people are treated with dignity and respect;
- Everyone feels safe in every community;
- Access to clean, green spaces is abundant;
- Every person who works earns a living wage and benefits that allows families work-life balance.
The mass mobilization planned for June 27 has been years in the making. Key organizers—including political activists Linda Sarsour and Carmen Perez-Jordan and One Fair Wage president Saru Jayaraman—have gathered inspiration for the gathering and the declaration from communities across the country at town halls in Hartford, Detroit, and New York City, as well as "listening sessions" in dozens of states.
The town halls, like the event planned for the 27th, have included music and art exhibitions as well discussions about a more inclusive and democratic future for the US.
The organizers, Sarsour told Common Dreams, "really tried to use the themes, the words that came out of those listening sessions, and to develop this Declaration of Interdependence."
"What it really reaffirmed for me personally and for the folks that were involved is that majority of people agree on very fundamental universal values and principles," Sarsour added. "People want safety. People want dignity. People want to thrive. People are tired of just the survival mode."
The coalition found that "living wages" were an issue that people across the country "fundamentally agree on."
"Everyone, regardless of political party, regardless of where you live in the country, no one wants to work three jobs to support their families," said Sarsour. "So this idea of economic justice and living wages is actually a universal principle and value that people hold in this country."
A majority of Americans also agree on "sensible gun reform," she told Common Dreams, and—despite Trump's insistence that the climate crisis is a "scam," most people in the US do not agree with him. Widespread agreement has also been found when it comes to reproductive rights, with voters in red states like Kansas and Kentucky voting in favor of protecting abortion access in recent years after the Supreme Court's right-wing majority overturned Roe v. Wade.
"I think that when you have conversations about universal values, the question is like, 'What do you think your neighbors want?'" said Sarsour. "And I think everyone is like, 'Yeah, of course, why wouldn't my neighbor want to also make a living wage? Why wouldn't my neighbor also want to have access to healthcare?' It's just, we just never give the opportunity to our people to, to think about these things or ask them, prompt them on these questions about others."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular