Alfred de Zayas siger Obamas handelsaftaler er noget skidt
Hans undersøgelsesresultater angående de foreslåede Atlantiske traktater fordømte dem ved at sige: "Handelsaftaler forberedt og forhandlet i hemmelighed, som ekskluderer vigtige interesseorganisation, som fagbevægelse, sundhedssektor og miljøeksperter og nu parlementer, har nul demokratisk legitimitet." Dette beskriver alle USA's præsident Barack Obama foreslåede handelsaftaler: TPP, TTIP, og TISA og det omfatter CETA, som er den foreslåede aftale mellem EU og Canada.
Han bemærkede yderligere fordømmende at, "Afskæring af offentligheden fra at deltage i denne vigtige debat er udemokratisk og er udtryk for en dyb mangel for respekt for befolkningernes stemme."
FN's pressemeddelelse udsendt den 24. juni fra Sekretariatet for FN's højkommissær for menneskerettigheder (OHCHR), bemærker specielt:
En tidligere konsultation udført af den Europæiske Komission i 2014 resulterede i at 97 % af de der svarede fra hele Europa udtrykte modstand mod at inkludere en asymmetrisk investeringsbeskyttelse i Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) med USA. Det samme ville gælde for CETA, men ingen konsultationer blev nogen sinde afholdt," bemærkede han.
Kommentar: Delvist oversat af Sott.net fra U.N.'s legal expert: Obama's proposed trade deals 'Illegal' and 'have zero democratic legitimacy' Citatet ovenfor er fra: EU / Trade agreements: UN rights expert warns against bypassing national parliaments
TTIP oversættes til dansk som Frihandelsaftalen mellem EU og USA
TTIP 'doesn't respect EU interests': French PM Valls says 'non' to transatlantic treaty
Fra denne artikel er der dette citat:
"No free trade agreement should be concluded if it does not respect EU interests. Europe should be firm. France will be vigilant about this," Valls said addressing members of the governing Socialist Party on Sunday, AFP reported.Se også Stop TIPP, på Facebook, eller Folkebevægelsen mod EU
"I can tell you frankly, there cannot be a transatlantic treaty agreement. This agreement is not on track," Valls added.
Selvfølgelig er FN's lovekspert ikke den eneste der har bemærket det. Allerede i ved FNs 70 års jubilæum i 2015 havde Ruslands Præsident Valdimir Putin, denne kommentar :
"Vi ved alle, at ved slutningen på den kolde krig var verden overladt med et center af dominans, og de, der fandt sig selv på toppen af pyramiden, blev fristet til at tænke sig selv som magtfulde og exceptionelle. De vidste bedre, hvad der er nødvendigt at gøre, og således har de ikke brug for at inddrage FN, som i stedet for at gummistemple de beslutninger de har brug for, står i vejen for dem." [Egen oversættelse]
"Asymmetrical investment protection" refers to the power that these proposed treaties grant to international corporations to sue (for alleged loss of their profits) nations that increase regulations to protect the safety of the public from toxic products, and from environmental harms, and that protect workers' rights and other human rights that can also, in some circumstances, reduce corporate profits. "Asymmetrical" refers to the absence in the proposed treaty of any symmetrical power granted to a government to sue an international corporation that violates its laws to protect the public.
De Zayas goes further than merely charging that these treaties are "asymmetrical": he adds that, "In case of conflict between trade agreements and human rights treaties, it is the latter that prevail. States must not enter into agreements that delay, circumvent, hinder or make impossible the fulfillment of human rights treaty obligations."
In a statement to the Council of Europe, on April 19th, de Zayas had said: "Two ontologies seem to have been lost in the ideologically-driven corporate narrative. Firstly, the ontology of the State, its raison d'être to legislate in the public interest, including preventative measures to avert potential harm to the population. Secondly, the ontology of business, which is to take calculated risks for profit." He meant there that these proposed treaties, which would enable the latter to override the former — enable international investors to override national sovereignty of democratic nations, and which would impose their own system of 'arbitration' that isn't required to adhere to any nation's laws and constitution— violate international law.
The U.N. OHCHR's June 24th press release concludes by saying:
"Trade agreements should be ratified only after human rights, health and environmental impact assessments have been conducted, which has not been the case with regard to CETA and TTIP," Mr. de Zayas said.
"Ratification of CETA and TTIP would start a 'race to the bottom' in human rights terms, and would seriously compromise the regulatory space of states. This is contrary to the Purposes and Principles of the UN Charter, and would constitute a serious obstacle to achieving a democratic and equitable international order," the UN Independent Expert concluded.
The statements by the U.N.'s Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order are damning against these proposed treaties. As the U.N.'s appointed independent legal counsel regarding these treaties, he is saying that, regardless of whether they will become law in any particular country, they are in clear violation of international law.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesseis the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
Kommentar: Overriding national sovereignty and violating international law has become the rule of U.S.'s dealings with the world. But now we're hearing it from a world-recognized legal expert. Not that that matters much to the Western press who'll bury the story or to the White House which has been given its marching orders to ram these deals down the throats of weaker nations. But we, here, know it for ourselves at least.