February, 29 2020, 11:00pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Jean Blaylock, Policy and campaign manager:
jean.blaylock@globaljustice.org.uk
What's Wrong With the US-UK Trade Deal
On Monday, the UK is expected to release its negotiating objectives for a trade deal with the United States, at the same time as it begins formal negotiations with the European Union over future trade arrangements.
A US-UK trade deal could have far reaching implications for global justice - this briefing outlines the big issues to watch out for, including what we already know has been discussed, the secrecy of the negotiations, and the timeline for the talks.
LONDON
On Monday, the UK is expected to release its negotiating objectives for a trade deal with the United States, at the same time as it begins formal negotiations with the European Union over future trade arrangements.
A US-UK trade deal could have far reaching implications for global justice - this briefing outlines the big issues to watch out for, including what we already know has been discussed, the secrecy of the negotiations, and the timeline for the talks.
1) What are the big issues?
Food, environmental and other standards
The US wants the UK to move to the US approach to standards. This is the fundamental play-off between a deal with the US and a deal with the EU - it's not possible to align closely with both. Leaks from the talks so far reveal that US officials said that commitment to a level playing field with the EU would make a US deal a "non-starter".
In general, the UK's current approach is that products must be proved safe before they can go on the market, whereas in the US the burden is the other way around - products can be on the market unless and until they are proven unsafe. The UK has traditionally also taken more account of factors such as animal welfare.
Particular issues for the UK public include:
- Chlorine chicken: this iconic issue is primarily an animal welfare issue. Currently we take a 'farm to fork' approach that seeks to improve hygiene and conditions at every stage, whereas the US tolerates dirty, crowded conditions until the end and then blitzes the carcases with chlorine or acid washes. Spraying the bleaches can cause health problems for workers. And on top of this, recent evidence from the University of Southampton suggests that chlorine may not remove bacteria but just mask it.
- Cosmetics: Over 1,300 toxic ingredients have been banned from use in cosmetics in the UK, with restrictions of another 500 ingredients. By comparison, only 11 are banned in the US - for instance formaldehyde, which causes cancer, is allowed there. Animal testing of cosmetics is legal in the US, but banned in Britain.
- Baby food: the UK has specific regulations for baby food, over and above normal food standards. These ban pesticide residues, arsenic traces and artificial food colour e-numbers, and set limits for added sugar. The US has none of these.
- Hormone beef and ractopamine pork: hormones and steroids such as ractopamine are used to promote growth in pigs and cattle in the US, despite the risks both for the animals and for human consumption. These are banned in the UK
Climate
A US-UK trade deal will have implications for fossil fuel emissions and could prevent necessary climate action. The recent Heathrow decision reinforces the need for all public policy to be coherent with climate goals. Yet leaks last year showed that the US has refused to even discuss climate change in talks with the UK.
Trade deals tend to promote trade in fossil fuels and carbon intensive sectors such as industrial agriculture and transport, while at the same time insisting that rules cannot consider the climate impact of different products and sectors. Recent US trade deals and mini-deals with China, Canada and Mexico, and the EU have even specifically required increased trade in fossil fuels at a time when we should be leaving them in the ground.
To tackle the climate crisis we need strong binding regulation that can shift us out of decades of inertia and business as usual. Yet trade rules are written to prioritise voluntary self-regulation - exactly the approach that has resulted in continued inaction.
This is not the only way that trade deals can block climate action. If meaningful regulation on climate issues is passed, corporations can turn to 'corporate courts' to seek damages (see below). This has already started to happen elsewhere. The Netherlands recently took the decision to phase out coal power over the next decade in the light of climate change. In response a German energy company, Uniper, which owns a power station in the Netherlands, has started threatening to sue in a corporate court. In Canada, when the province of Quebec introduced a fracking moratorium, energy company Lone Pine sued in a case that is still ongoing.
Corporate courts
There is a high risk that a trade deal with the US will include 'corporate courts', officially known as investor-state dispute settlement or ISDS. These allow transnational corporations to sue governments outside of the national courts. The amounts involved can be in the billions, and even the threat of a case can be enough to cause governments to change policies and plans.
The range of cases is huge:
- Cargill sued Mexico when it first introduced tax on sugary drinks;
- Ethyl sued Canada over a ban on the chemical MMT in petrol, which is suspected of causing nerve damage;
- Vattenfall is suing Germany for deciding to phase out nuclear power following the Fukushima nuclear disaster;
- Philip Morris sued both Australia and Uruguay over anti-smoking measures;
- Infinito Gold is suing Costa Rica over the introduction of a ban on open-cast mining for metals.
Last year's trade leaks revealed that US and UK officials have had extensive discussions about the inclusion of corporate courts in a trade deal.
Medicine prices
Leaks from the talks with the US have shown that there are proposals for the extension of monopolies for big pharmaceutical corporations, which could massively increase the cost of medicines for the NHS. There is also mention of another US concern: at present the NHS's bulk purchasing power allows it to negotiate prices, while the regulator, NICE, assesses whether medicines are effective enough to justify their price. Trump considers this to be 'freeloading' and has asked trade negotiators to fix it.
The two sides have effectively concluded all the preliminary negotiations they need in this area and say, in the leaked papers, that they are ready to begin agreeing text on this for the final deal.
NHS
A sweeping opening up of services is a big focus of the talks. The US is insisting on an approach called 'negative list' where everything is on the table unless it is specifically excluded. Trade deals usually have a standard exemption for public services, but the existing level of privatisation and internal market within the NHS means that it doesn't fall within the definition. It and many other public services would have to be specifically excluded - and we know that in the previous negotiations between the EU and the US over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the UK chose not to do so when other European countries did.
Power of internet platforms
Governments are just beginning to address the challenges posed by the internet and the power of online platforms such as Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple - issues such as fake news, political advertising, hate speech and online bullying. Yet leaks show that in the talks so far the US has been pushing to protect big tech platforms from regulation in trade rules.
Ensuring that big tech companies pay the tax they owe is also increasingly urgent, and the UK now plans to introduce a digital services tax. The US has publicly threatened to impose trade sanctions if it does.
The US is also pushing for an unrestricted 'free flow of data' between the two countries, which would undermine existing data protection and privacy standards in the UK. It could also prevent data flows between the EU and the UK.
2) Secrecy
Much of what we know about the US-UK trade talks is from leaks, because negotiations are being conducted in great secrecy, without democratic oversight.
The UK parliament does not get to approve the objectives, does not get to properly scrutinise progress, nor is it guaranteed a vote on the final deal. The devolved administrations and legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are similarly shut out, even though the negotiations will touch on areas of devolved responsibility, such as agriculture and health.
A US-UK trade deal will impact on many issues which are usually assumed to be part of domestic policy making, and there is a strong public interest in knowing what is on the table in the negotiations.
3) What is the timeline?
The first formal round of negotiations with the US is expected to be held in the near future. The pressure is then on for the next four months, to see if a deal can be agreed by the summer, before the US goes into election mode. As six informal rounds of trade talks have already been held since 2017, the negotiations are not starting from scratch, so it is feasible that some kind of deal could be reached in this period.
The US should need Congress's approval for the deal. This would mean that the deal would need to be put together by 26 June in order for Congress to be given the required 90 days notice to vote on it before breaking up for the elections. Alternatively it could be left a bit later and be voted on in the lame duck session after the elections.
It is also possible that a mini-deal could be done that the Trump administration would argue does not need Congressional approval.
Global Justice Now is a democratic social justice organisation working as part of a global movement to challenge the powerful and create a more just and equal world. We mobilise people in the UK for change, and act in solidarity with those fighting injustice, particularly in the global south.
020 7820 4900LATEST NEWS
US Reportedly Working to Stop ICC From Issuing Arrest Warrant for Netanyahu
"There is absolutely no reason for Biden to be involved in this," said one analyst. "But once again, Biden steps in to protect Netanyahu from the consequences of the war crimes he commits."
Apr 28, 2024
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is reportedly growing increasingly concerned that the International Criminal Court is preparing to issue arrest warrants for him and other top government officials for committing war crimes in the Gaza Strip.
The Times of Israelreported Sunday that the Israeli government, in partnership with the U.S., is "making a concerted effort to head off" possible arrest warrants from the ICC, which first launched its war crimes investigation in the occupied Palestinian territories in 2021.
Israel does not recognize the ICC's jurisdiction and has refused to cooperate with the probe. The ICC says it has jurisdiction over Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem.
Citing an unnamed Israeli government source, The Times of Israel reported that "a major focus of the ICC allegations will be that Israel 'deliberately starved Palestinians in Gaza.'" Other officials who could face arrest warrants are Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi.
The Times of Israel's reporting came shortly after Israeli journalist Ben Caspit wrote that Netanyahu is "under unusual stress" over the possibility of arrest warrants and is leading a "nonstop push over the telephone" to forestall ICC action.
Like Israel, the U.S. is not a party to the Rome Statute, which established the ICC in 2002. The legal body is tasked with investigating individuals, not governments.
The U.S., Israel's leading arms supplier, has opposed the ICC's Palestine investigation from the start, with Secretary of State Antony Blinken saying in a 2021 statement that the court "has no jurisdiction over this matter" because "Israel is not a party to the ICC."
But the Biden administration vocally supported the ICC's decision to issue an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin over war crimes committed in Ukraine, even though neither Russia nor Ukraine are parties to the Rome Statute.
Seeing commentary that ICC arrest warrants against Israeli officials would create a dangerous precedent because Israel isn’t a party to the Rome Statute.
Guess who else isn’t a party to the Rome Statute?
Russia.
ICC already crossed that bridge with warrant for Putin.
— Brian Finucane (@BCFinucane) April 28, 2024
The Israeli government has been accused of committing numerous war crimes in Gaza since the October 7 Hamas-led attack, including genocide, ethnic cleansing, and using starvation as a weapon of war. Late last year, the human rights group Democracy for the Arab World Now submitted to the ICC the names of dozens of Israeli military commanders who are believed to have been directly involved in violations of international law.
Reports of potentially imminent ICC action have sparked alarm among conservatives in the United States.
U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) wrote on social media Friday that the court should "should stand down on this immediately."
In an
editorial published that same day, The Wall Street Journal suggested the U.S. and United Kingdom could "risk finding Americans and Britons under the gun" next if they don't warn ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan against issuing arrest warrants for Israeli officials. Human rights organizations and legal experts have said Biden and other U.S. officials could be held liable under international law if they continue supporting Israel's war on Gaza.
"Mr. Khan's candidacy was championed by his native Britain and supported by the U.S.," continues the Journal editorial, "so both countries may have influence if they warn Mr. Khan of what will happen if he proceeds."
The Times of Israelnoted Sunday that according to reports in several Israeli media outlets, the U.S. is "part of a last-ditch diplomatic effort to prevent the International Criminal Court from issuing arrest warrants against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli officials."
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, argued Sunday that "there is absolutely no reason for Biden to be involved in this."
"But once again," Parsi added, "Biden steps in to protect Netanyahu from the consequences of the war crimes he commits, which Biden claims he privately is frustrated about."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Leaked State Department Memo: Israeli Assurances 'Neither Credible Nor Reliable'
"Today's leak should mark a final end to this impunity. President Biden has no choice but to fully enforce the law and halt aid to Israel."
Apr 28, 2024
A newly leaked internal memo shows that officials at four U.S. State Department bureaus don't believe the Israeli government's assurances that it is using American weaponry in Gaza in compliance with international law, rejecting them as "neither credible nor reliable."
The memo, first reported by Reuters on Saturday, is a joint submission from the State Department's bureaus of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor; Population, Refugees, and Migration; Global Criminal Justice; and International Organization Affairs.
The leaked document raises "serious concern over non-compliance" with international law, specifically citing the Israeli military's repeated attacks on civilian infrastructure, refusal to investigate or punish those responsible for atrocities, and killing of "humanitarian workers and journalists at an unprecedented rate," according to Reuters.
The memo also points to Israel's arbitrary rejection of humanitarian aid trucks, which has fueled famine in the Gaza Strip. The bureaus' conclusion matches that of officials at the United States Agency for International Development.
Human rights groups have been documenting Israel's atrocities and systematic obstruction of aid for months, but the Biden administration has continued approving weapons sales for the Netanyahu government despite U.S. laws prohibiting arms transfers to countries violating human rights and blocking American humanitarian assistance.
Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), said Saturday that "the State Department's leaked confirmation that Israel has restricted the transport and delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance leaves no doubt: U.S. law requires the suspension of military aid to Israel."
"For too long, the Biden administration has breached or ignored U.S. laws that require the suspension of aid to an abusive regime like Israel, fueling Israeli belligerence and rewarding its atrocities," said Whitson. "It's time for real consequences."
"Suspending military aid is the bare minimum the U.S. must do to avoid further complicity in these abuses."
In March, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant penned a letter assuring the Biden administration that the Israeli military's use of American weaponry has been in line with international law. A spokesperson for the U.S. State Department subsequently indicated that the Biden administration has not found Israel "to be in violation of international humanitarian law," drawing outrage from analysts and members of Congress who say it is obvious Israel is committing war crimes. in Gaza.
The U.S. State Department is expected to deliver its final assessment of Israel's assurances to Congress in early May.
The written assurances from Israel were required under a White House policy known as National Security Memorandum 20 (NSM-20), which has the ostensible aim of preventing "arms transfers that risk facilitating or otherwise contributing to violations of human rights or international humanitarian law."
NSM-20 states that "in furtherance of supporting Section 620I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2378-1) and applicable international law," the U.S. will "obtain credible and reliable written assurances from a representative of the recipient country as the Secretary of State deems appropriate that, in any area of armed conflict where the recipient country uses such defense articles, consistent with applicable international law, the recipient country will facilitate and not arbitrarily deny, restrict, or otherwise impede, directly or indirectly, the transport or delivery of United States humanitarian assistance and United States Government-supported international efforts to provide humanitarian assistance."
Raed Jarrar, DAWN's advocacy director, said Saturday that "Section 620I has been rendered toothless by State Department inaction and special treatment for Israel."
"Today's leak should mark a final end to this impunity. President Biden has no choice but to fully enforce the law and halt aid to Israel," said Jarrar. "From bombing residential towers to blocking food and medicine, Israel's war on Gaza has been marked by utter disregard for civilian life and international law. Suspending military aid is the bare minimum the U.S. must do to avoid further complicity in these abuses. But it's an essential first step to show that even Israel is not above the law."
Details of the internal State Department memo emerged just days after Congress gave final approval to a foreign aid package that includes $17 billion in unconditional military assistance for the Israeli government.
In a joint statement on Friday, dozens of civil society groups warned that the newly approved military aid risks deepening U.S. complicity in an assault that has killed more than 34,000 people and put millions at risk of starvation.
"Not only does this supplemental aid package provide Israel with billions in lethal arms, it also provides the country with privileges above and beyond anything it has ever received, in particular for the war reserve stockpile and offshore procurement," the groups said. "The passage of the supplemental bill further risks U.S. complicity in grave international crimes committed by Israel."
"We urge the administration and Congress to uphold U.S. law and policy and international law by withholding the transfer of additional lethal military aid to Israel," they added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Disgust Greets White House Correspondents' Dinner as Israel Kills Journalists in Gaza
"To sit and schmooze with the president while he sends billions of dollars in weapons to Israel to kill their colleagues in Gaza is unethical and immoral."
Apr 27, 2024
On Saturday night, U.S. reporters and government officials—including President Joe Biden—will gather at the Washington Hilton Hotel for the annual White House Correspondents' Dinner, a glitzy, humor-filled affair that has faced mounting boycott calls in recent weeks as Palestinian journalists in Gaza are targeted and killed by the Israeli military in appalling numbers.
Earlier this month, dozens of Palestinian journalists urged their American colleagues to spurn the invite-only event "as an act of solidarity with us—your fellow journalists—as well as with the millions of Palestinians currently being starved in Gaza due to the Biden administration's continued political, financial, and military backing of Israel."
One journalist, Mehdi Hasan of Zeteo, has heeded the call.
"I have attended the White House Correspondents' Dinner for the past two years," Hasan, a former MSNBC host, wrote on social media Saturday, hours before the event. "I decided not to attend today's dinner (which, to be clear, is hosted by D.C. journalists not the White House) in solidarity with under-fire Palestinian journalists in Gaza who have called for a boycott."
According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, at least 97 media workers—92 of them Palestinian—have been killed in Gaza, Israel, and Lebanon since October 7. The Palestinian Journalist Syndicate puts the number higher at 125.
"Israel has killed over 10% of our colleagues," said Shuruq As'ad, director of the Palestine Journalism Hub and supporter of calls to boycott the White House Correspondents' Dinner, which is hosted by the White House Correspondents' Association.
The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), an organization representing more than 600,000 media workers across 146 countries, endorsed the boycott push on Saturday, as did the National Writers Union (NWU).
"More than 100 journalists and media workers have been killed in the past six months of Israel's war on Gaza, backed by the United States government," NWU said in a statement. "As a union of journalists and media workers who strive for truth, we refuse to normalize genocide. Stand with journalists in Gaza and amplify the call for a boycott."
Israel's assault on Gaza, which has been fueled by U.S. weapons and diplomatic support, is the deadliest conflict for journalists in decades. Last year, roughly 75% of the journalists killed globally were killed by Israeli forces.
Al Jazeera's Gaza bureau chief, Wael Dahdouh, has lost five family members to Israeli airstrikes, including his 27-year-old son Hamza, who was also a journalist.
"To dine with him as he allows Palestinians to die of starvation by cutting off funding to critical humanitarian aid is despicable."
Press freedom groups have accused the Biden White House of failing to do enough to stop the Israeli military from targeting members of the media, who continue to risk their lives to show the world the devastation Israel is inflicting in Gaza.
"The Biden administration has been all talk when it comes to journalists killed by the Israel Defense Forces," Seth Stern, director of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said earlier this year. "The Biden administration says it cares deeply about journalists' freedom to cover the war but has failed to demand Israel ensure journalists' safety or hold it accountable when it doesn't."
The New York Timesreported that in addition to the jokes, Biden is "expected to issue a more serious warning at a time when journalists around the world are being jailed or detained more frequently for doing their job."
But it remains to be seen whether the president will mention Gaza journalists specifically.
President Biden will address the White House Correspondents Dinner tonight. It’s expected that’ll he’ll mention threats to journalists around the world. Will he mention Israel’s murder of Shireen Abu Aqlah & the scores of Palestinian journalists murdered in Gaza? Probably not. pic.twitter.com/nA6M2t9nK9
— James J. Zogby (@jjz1600) April 27, 2024
Protests are expected outside the dinner's venue, but as NBC Newsreported, "protests inside the event itself are much less common and perhaps unprecedented, given the tight security."
"People involved in organizing the protests said they knew of no plans to try to infiltrate the exclusive invite-only dinner," the outlet added. (Kelly O'Donnell, NBC's senior White House correspondent, is presiding over this year's dinner.)
Sandra Tamari, executive director of the Adalah Justice Project, which helped organize the letter calling for a boycott of Saturday's dinner, said it's grotesque for reporters who claim to be committed to a free press to pal around with members of an administration that is aiding deadly attacks on journalists in Gaza.
"To sit and schmooze with the president while he sends billions of dollars in weapons to Israel to kill their colleagues in Gaza is unethical and immoral," said Sandra Tamari, executive director of Adalah Justice Project, which helped organize the letter calling for a boycott of Saturday's dinner. "To dine with him as he allows Palestinians to die of starvation by cutting off funding to critical humanitarian aid is despicable."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular