The European Union's chief representatives will be eager to cuddle up for photographs - perhaps even selfies - with Barack Obama when he pays his first presidential visit to Brussels this week.
Amid all the backslapping, the "friction" of the recent past will be politely overlooked. Why let a beautiful friendship be spoiled by a little snooping on Angela Merkel's phone calls or an American diplomat's use of an expletive to insist the EU keeps its nose out of Ukraine?
As it happens, the superficial harmony engendered by such occasions reflects how both sides are literally singing from the same hymn sheet on one key dossier: the planned trans-Atlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP). This hymn sheet was written for them by an exclusive club of the world's top corporations.
Much of the preparatory work for that agreement - currently under negotiation - has been done by the Trans-Atlantic Business Council. Between them, its member companies have caused or contributed to ecological catastrophes (ExxonMobil), a cancer pandemic (British American Tobacco, Philip Morris) and a financial crisis (Deutsche Bank).
The leaders of these firms are not the kind of people I'd trust to determine the kind of world in which my daughter will grow up. Yet they were given such a task in 1995, when they were effectively hired as economic advisers by the US government and the EU.
The demands reflect a broader agenda. Whereas trade agreements have traditionally involved the reduction of taxes levied on imported goods, the objective for these talks is to destroy or dilute regulations that constrain corporate power.
To advance this objective, big business is seeking that a specialised court system be established so that it can obtain financial compensation for laws that jar with the pursuit of profit. The system would institutionalise inequality. It would be reserved for the global elite; ordinary folk would have no access to it.
Officially known as "investor-to-state dispute settlement", the idea is modelled on provisions in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Since NAFTA entered into force 20 years ago, corporations have availed of it to try and undo the hard-won gains of social and environmental activists.
Lone Pine Resources, a US company, is currently using it in an attempt to overturn Quebec's moratorium on the extraction of shale gas by the hydraulic fracturing (or "fracking") technique.
The only discernible environmental benefit from the trans-Atlantic accord is that it has already encouraged a considerable amount of recycling. The arguments trotted out in favour of it appear to have been cobbled together from NAFTA-era studies.
Read more: Obama in Europe: A friendly visit? - Opinion - Al Jazeera English
Amid all the backslapping, the "friction" of the recent past will be politely overlooked. Why let a beautiful friendship be spoiled by a little snooping on Angela Merkel's phone calls or an American diplomat's use of an expletive to insist the EU keeps its nose out of Ukraine?
As it happens, the superficial harmony engendered by such occasions reflects how both sides are literally singing from the same hymn sheet on one key dossier: the planned trans-Atlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP). This hymn sheet was written for them by an exclusive club of the world's top corporations.
Much of the preparatory work for that agreement - currently under negotiation - has been done by the Trans-Atlantic Business Council. Between them, its member companies have caused or contributed to ecological catastrophes (ExxonMobil), a cancer pandemic (British American Tobacco, Philip Morris) and a financial crisis (Deutsche Bank).
The leaders of these firms are not the kind of people I'd trust to determine the kind of world in which my daughter will grow up. Yet they were given such a task in 1995, when they were effectively hired as economic advisers by the US government and the EU.
The demands reflect a broader agenda. Whereas trade agreements have traditionally involved the reduction of taxes levied on imported goods, the objective for these talks is to destroy or dilute regulations that constrain corporate power.
To advance this objective, big business is seeking that a specialised court system be established so that it can obtain financial compensation for laws that jar with the pursuit of profit. The system would institutionalise inequality. It would be reserved for the global elite; ordinary folk would have no access to it.
Officially known as "investor-to-state dispute settlement", the idea is modelled on provisions in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Since NAFTA entered into force 20 years ago, corporations have availed of it to try and undo the hard-won gains of social and environmental activists.
Lone Pine Resources, a US company, is currently using it in an attempt to overturn Quebec's moratorium on the extraction of shale gas by the hydraulic fracturing (or "fracking") technique.
The only discernible environmental benefit from the trans-Atlantic accord is that it has already encouraged a considerable amount of recycling. The arguments trotted out in favour of it appear to have been cobbled together from NAFTA-era studies.
Read more: Obama in Europe: A friendly visit? - Opinion - Al Jazeera English
No comments:
Post a Comment