SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Obama's Keystone Decision Shows Why We Should Reject TPP
Nov 18, 2015
Earlier this month, President Obama announced that his administration had decided against the Keystone XL pipeline that the TransCanada Corp. proposed to build between Canada and the United States. He did so explicitly citing environmental concerns, notably the need for the U.S. to be "a global leader when it comes to taking serious action to fight climate change." Obama's decision, and the reasoning behind it, are to be celebrated.
What should not be celebrated is that just a day earlier, the U.S. government released the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade and investment agreement among 12 countries that will now go to Congress for consideration.
These seemingly unconnected events are in fact connected. Indeed, the Keystone experience should give Congress even more pause about passing the TPP.
Why? Well, Obama's Keystone decision is something that could be found to be counter to what is allowed under the "investor state dispute settlement" (ISDS) chapter of the TPP.
Again, what Obama did regarding Keystone was correct. But, if the TPP passes, it will further limit the ability of a member government -- be it the U.S. or Peru or Canada or Australia or Mexico or another -- to block such corporate projects if they threaten social, environmental or economic criteria or regulations.
Indeed, TransCanada could bring an investor-state suit against the U.S. government under an existing trade agreement. TransCanada's charge could be that the U.S. government, through the State Department under former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, reviewed the Keystone pipeline and found the environmental impact not to be of concern. Thus, TransCanada could argue, it had every reason to believe that the pipeline would be approved.
And, TransCanada could argue, the U.S. government changed the criteria for review belatedly and, in so doing, committed an investor-state no-no that lawyers call "indirect taking" -- not expropriating TransCanada's property (what lawyers call "direct taking"), but expropriating future profits unfairly since the criteria changed from when TransCanada submitted its proposal. As TransCanada President Russ Girling phrased it, "misplaced symbolism was chosen over merit and reason."
Corporate supporters of the TPP would undoubtedly hope that you not focus on understanding what might sound like legal gobbledygook. But it's a decidedly troubling part of the TPP draft. Even though Obama has promised that the TPP is a kinder and gentler trade and investment agreement, it is not. Every time a new trade agreement is passed and the number of corporations that can bring investor-state disputes expands, we as people and our governments lose some freedom to make key decisions to ensure an environmentally, socially and economically sustainable future -- not just for ourselves, but for our children's and grandchildren's futures.*
As we see in the rejection of the Keystone pipeline, this is one of the most important roles of governments. Governments need the "policy space" to listen to their constituents' concerns and to make the right decisions about such projects as the Keystone pipeline. That is a central part of what is at stake with the upcoming TPP vote in Congress, and that is one of the reasons why Congress (and legislatures in the other 11 countries) should firmly and decisively say "no" to the TPP.
So, if you are applauding President Obama's "no" on Keystone, you should vote no -- or tell your congressperson to vote "no" -- on the TPP.
*For an egregious, but not unusual case of how investor-state dispute resolution is arbitrated at the World Bank Group's International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), see my article in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, "Corporate Bias in the World Bank Group's International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes: A Case Study of a Global Mining Corporation Suing El Salvador."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 The Guardian
Robin Broad
Robin Broad is a professor at American University in Washington, DC, and co-author of The Water Defenders: How Ordinary People Saved a Country from Corporate Greed (Beacon Press, 2021).
Earlier this month, President Obama announced that his administration had decided against the Keystone XL pipeline that the TransCanada Corp. proposed to build between Canada and the United States. He did so explicitly citing environmental concerns, notably the need for the U.S. to be "a global leader when it comes to taking serious action to fight climate change." Obama's decision, and the reasoning behind it, are to be celebrated.
What should not be celebrated is that just a day earlier, the U.S. government released the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade and investment agreement among 12 countries that will now go to Congress for consideration.
These seemingly unconnected events are in fact connected. Indeed, the Keystone experience should give Congress even more pause about passing the TPP.
Why? Well, Obama's Keystone decision is something that could be found to be counter to what is allowed under the "investor state dispute settlement" (ISDS) chapter of the TPP.
Again, what Obama did regarding Keystone was correct. But, if the TPP passes, it will further limit the ability of a member government -- be it the U.S. or Peru or Canada or Australia or Mexico or another -- to block such corporate projects if they threaten social, environmental or economic criteria or regulations.
Indeed, TransCanada could bring an investor-state suit against the U.S. government under an existing trade agreement. TransCanada's charge could be that the U.S. government, through the State Department under former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, reviewed the Keystone pipeline and found the environmental impact not to be of concern. Thus, TransCanada could argue, it had every reason to believe that the pipeline would be approved.
And, TransCanada could argue, the U.S. government changed the criteria for review belatedly and, in so doing, committed an investor-state no-no that lawyers call "indirect taking" -- not expropriating TransCanada's property (what lawyers call "direct taking"), but expropriating future profits unfairly since the criteria changed from when TransCanada submitted its proposal. As TransCanada President Russ Girling phrased it, "misplaced symbolism was chosen over merit and reason."
Corporate supporters of the TPP would undoubtedly hope that you not focus on understanding what might sound like legal gobbledygook. But it's a decidedly troubling part of the TPP draft. Even though Obama has promised that the TPP is a kinder and gentler trade and investment agreement, it is not. Every time a new trade agreement is passed and the number of corporations that can bring investor-state disputes expands, we as people and our governments lose some freedom to make key decisions to ensure an environmentally, socially and economically sustainable future -- not just for ourselves, but for our children's and grandchildren's futures.*
As we see in the rejection of the Keystone pipeline, this is one of the most important roles of governments. Governments need the "policy space" to listen to their constituents' concerns and to make the right decisions about such projects as the Keystone pipeline. That is a central part of what is at stake with the upcoming TPP vote in Congress, and that is one of the reasons why Congress (and legislatures in the other 11 countries) should firmly and decisively say "no" to the TPP.
So, if you are applauding President Obama's "no" on Keystone, you should vote no -- or tell your congressperson to vote "no" -- on the TPP.
*For an egregious, but not unusual case of how investor-state dispute resolution is arbitrated at the World Bank Group's International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), see my article in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, "Corporate Bias in the World Bank Group's International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes: A Case Study of a Global Mining Corporation Suing El Salvador."
Robin Broad
Robin Broad is a professor at American University in Washington, DC, and co-author of The Water Defenders: How Ordinary People Saved a Country from Corporate Greed (Beacon Press, 2021).
Earlier this month, President Obama announced that his administration had decided against the Keystone XL pipeline that the TransCanada Corp. proposed to build between Canada and the United States. He did so explicitly citing environmental concerns, notably the need for the U.S. to be "a global leader when it comes to taking serious action to fight climate change." Obama's decision, and the reasoning behind it, are to be celebrated.
What should not be celebrated is that just a day earlier, the U.S. government released the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade and investment agreement among 12 countries that will now go to Congress for consideration.
These seemingly unconnected events are in fact connected. Indeed, the Keystone experience should give Congress even more pause about passing the TPP.
Why? Well, Obama's Keystone decision is something that could be found to be counter to what is allowed under the "investor state dispute settlement" (ISDS) chapter of the TPP.
Again, what Obama did regarding Keystone was correct. But, if the TPP passes, it will further limit the ability of a member government -- be it the U.S. or Peru or Canada or Australia or Mexico or another -- to block such corporate projects if they threaten social, environmental or economic criteria or regulations.
Indeed, TransCanada could bring an investor-state suit against the U.S. government under an existing trade agreement. TransCanada's charge could be that the U.S. government, through the State Department under former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, reviewed the Keystone pipeline and found the environmental impact not to be of concern. Thus, TransCanada could argue, it had every reason to believe that the pipeline would be approved.
And, TransCanada could argue, the U.S. government changed the criteria for review belatedly and, in so doing, committed an investor-state no-no that lawyers call "indirect taking" -- not expropriating TransCanada's property (what lawyers call "direct taking"), but expropriating future profits unfairly since the criteria changed from when TransCanada submitted its proposal. As TransCanada President Russ Girling phrased it, "misplaced symbolism was chosen over merit and reason."
Corporate supporters of the TPP would undoubtedly hope that you not focus on understanding what might sound like legal gobbledygook. But it's a decidedly troubling part of the TPP draft. Even though Obama has promised that the TPP is a kinder and gentler trade and investment agreement, it is not. Every time a new trade agreement is passed and the number of corporations that can bring investor-state disputes expands, we as people and our governments lose some freedom to make key decisions to ensure an environmentally, socially and economically sustainable future -- not just for ourselves, but for our children's and grandchildren's futures.*
As we see in the rejection of the Keystone pipeline, this is one of the most important roles of governments. Governments need the "policy space" to listen to their constituents' concerns and to make the right decisions about such projects as the Keystone pipeline. That is a central part of what is at stake with the upcoming TPP vote in Congress, and that is one of the reasons why Congress (and legislatures in the other 11 countries) should firmly and decisively say "no" to the TPP.
So, if you are applauding President Obama's "no" on Keystone, you should vote no -- or tell your congressperson to vote "no" -- on the TPP.
*For an egregious, but not unusual case of how investor-state dispute resolution is arbitrated at the World Bank Group's International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), see my article in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, "Corporate Bias in the World Bank Group's International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes: A Case Study of a Global Mining Corporation Suing El Salvador."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.