Murder Doesn't Matter Under U.S. Trade Deals, AFL-CIO Reveals

[mother earth]

Excerpts taken from:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/22/fast-track-trade_n_7113412.html

Richard Trumka, the president of the AFL-CIO, testified to that claim at a Senate Finance Committee hearing on legislation to grant President Barack Obama so-called fast-track authority to cut at least two new enormous trade agreements with Pacific Rim nations and the European Union. It appears to be the first time anyone has revealed such a stance on the part of a U.S. government that has been touting its efforts to improve wages and working conditions among its trading partners, relying in part on trade agreements.

But Trumka charged that the labor standards included in those trade deals are poorly enforced, and that before he would back the White House’s push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership or the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, he wanted to see tougher labor provisions that could be enforced.

“When you say, ‘Oh these are some standards, they’re better than no standards,’ we were told by by the [United States Trade Representative] general counsel that murdering a trade unionist doesn’t violate these standards, that perpetuating violence against a trade unionist doesn’t violate these agreements,” Trumka said, directing his remarks to Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), who backs the deals.

Trumka pointed specifically to the Colombia trade pact that was signed in 2006, but passed by Congress in 2011. Trumka said that even after the Obama administration crafted an agreement to tighten labor protections four years ago, some 105 labor organizers have been killed, and more than 1,300 have been threatened with death.

“Excuse me. Excuse me if I’m not willing to accept that standard.” Trumka said.

The Senate Finance Committee is taking up the fast-track legislation Wednesday, and the House Ways and Means Committee is expected to do the same Thursday. Fast track, or Trade Promotion Authority, as it is formally known, allows the administration to sign an agreement, then get it passed by Congress with expedited procedures, no filibusters, and no amendments. If lawmakers don't like parts of a deal, their only choice is to vote yes or no.

[Octafish]

1. Holder, Chiquita and Colombia

Fronting for Paramilitaries

by MARIO A. MURILLO
CounterPunch, NOVEMBER 19, 2008

EXCERPT...

In 2003, an Organization of American States report showed that Chiquita’s subsidiary in Colombia, Banadex, had helped divert weapons and ammunition, including thousands of AK-47s, from Nicaraguan government stocks to the AUC. The AUC – very often in collaboration with units of the U.S.-trained Armed Forces – is responsible for hundreds of massacres of primarily peasants throughout the Colombian countryside, including in the banana-growing region of Urabá, where it is believed that at least 4,000 people were killed. Their systematic use of violence resulted in the forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of poor Colombians, a disproportionate amount of those people being black or indigenous.

In 2004, Holder helped negotiate an agreement with the Justice Department for Chiquita that involved the fruit company’s payment of "protection money" to the AUC, in direct violation of U.S. laws prohibiting this kind of transaction. In the agreement brokered by Holder, Chiquita officials pleaded guilty and agreed to pay a fine of $25 million, to be paid over a 5-year period. However, not one Chiquita official involved in the illegal transactions was forced to serve time for a crime that others have paid dearly for, mainly because they did not have the kind of legal backing that Holder’s team provided. Holder continues to represent Chiquita in the civil action, which grew out of this criminal case.

One of the arguments in defense of Chiquita’s criminal acts was that the company was being strong-armed by thugs in Colombia, and that it either had to make the payments, or close up shop in the country, which would have resulted in the loss of tens of millions of dollars in profits. Chiquita officials even disclosed to the Justice Department that they were making the illegal payments to the AUC, to see what could be done.

As the Washington Post reported back in 2007, Federal prosecutors had said in court papers that Justice Department officials made clear in April 2003 that Chiquita was clearly violating the law and that "the payments . . . could not continue."1 The Post reported "lawyers at Justice headquarters and the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington were incensed by what they considered the flagrant continuation of these payoffs, despite the warnings." At the time, Holder said he was concerned that company leaders who disclosed the corporation’s illegal activity to prosecutors were facing the possibility of prosecution.

"If what you want to encourage is voluntary self-disclosure, what message does this send to other companies?" asked Holder, deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration. "Here’s a company that voluntarily self-discloses in a national security context, where the company gets treated pretty harshly, [and] then on top of that, you go after individuals who made a really painful decision."2

So in Holder’s view, we should feel sympathy for these poor corporate executives, whose identities were kept confidential, and who were forced to make "very painful decisions" about opening up to their own criminality. Never mind that this company was complicit in the above-mentioned human tragedy waged by the AUC. The many victims of this paramilitary terror did not even cross the mind of the well-connected defense attorney now being considered for the Attorney General job.

Yet the opposition to Holder’s nomination to the top position at Justice should not stop with this sordid history, one that perhaps can be excused as the obligation of a lawyer to defend his or her client regardless of the alleged crime. The disappointment in Obama’s pick for AG should stem from the President-elect’s strong words during the campaign in defense of human rights, particularly for those of workers in Colombia. On several occasions, including in the last presidential debate held at Hofstra University just three weeks before the election, the Democratic Candidate said he opposed the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement precisely on the grounds of the human rights violations carried out consistently against trade unionists in Colombia, and the ongoing impunity that has followed in most of those crimes.

CONTINUED...

http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/11/19/holder-chiquita-and-colombia/

And people wonder why Bush and Cheney walk free, let alone the warmongers and banksters.

[mother earth]

4. On the upside, we do have transparency now. Never before have all of the lies and illusion become

so shockingly apparent. There is only an up or down vote on TPP.

I'm thinking it may not be business as usual in the next election, you know, two corporate candidates?

[Oilwellian]

11. Bill Clinton and Plan Colombia

(I apologize for misspelling "Colombia" in the video)

[WillyT]

2. Huge K & R !!!

[Hoyt]

3. There are much better standards in TPP. What does Trumka want, Obama to bomb South America?

Murder really is a local issue, not something handled by a trade agreement. Should Obama send in the Seals, investigate the murders, find them, haul them off to Gitmo?

Christ, these folks -- trying to drum up membership with misleading rhetoric -- are starting to sound like the NRA leaders.

[mother earth]

5. I think he's looking for safeguards to be written into the bill, don't you? It stands to reason

there will be no such action, since fast track is an up or down vote.

[Cosmic Kitten]

6. How about sanctions?

Looking in the mirror
for misleading rhetoric
Seals, GITMO

[WillyT]

7. "Murder really is a local issue..." WOW !!!

So I guess if the "locals" kill off union organizers so we Americans can buy products cheaply...

Now I understand your position on TPP.

[Hoyt]

8. So you are going to allow Vietnam to arrest and imprison someone who murders a labor leader here?

[Scuba]

17. Your underwear is showing.

[Hoyt]

20. Hey man, it's not easy responding to foolish posts.

[JonLP24]

18. The question is are we going to allow Vietman to arrest and imprison someone

who murders a labor leader there.

[Hoyt]

19. No need to do anything, the trade agreement does not affect criminal law that covers that.

[JonLP24]

22. Like it does in Columbia

or most anywhere the US does business outside our borders. Your question doesn't deal with the reality of the situation & mine is more closer but simplistic. The trade pact impacts the laws & sovereignty of the nations in question so it would be reasonable to question labor protections & rights and obviously US & Japan aren't targeting the countries they are for labor protections (mostly it is about freezing out China & India & others -- the cold war never ended & began way before the cold war, always been about control of global trade). So in reality it is an assault on the sovereignty on the countries outside of US & Japan but in the end it affects all labor here or there.

Take a look at copyright laws for instance

The leaked US IP chapter includes many detailed requirements that are more restrictive than current international standards, and would require significant changes to other countries’ copyright laws. These include obligations for countries to:

Place Greater Liability on Internet Intermediaries: The TPP would force the adoption of the US DMCA Internet intermediaries copyright safe harbor regime in its entirety. For example, this would require Chile to rewrite its forward-looking 2010 copyright law that currently establishes a judicial notice-and-takedown regime, which provides greater protection to Internet users’ expression and privacy than the DMCA.

Escalate Protections for Digital Locks: It will compel signatory nations to enact laws banning circumvention of digital locks (technological protection measures or TPMs) [PDF] that mirror the DMCA and treat violation of the TPM provisions as a separate offense even when no copyright infringement is involved. This would require countries like New Zealand to completely rewrite its innovative 2008 copyright law, as well as override Australia’s carefully-crafted 2007 TPM regime exclusions for region-coding on movies on DVDs, video games, and players, and for embedded software in devices that restrict access to goods and services for the device—a thoughtful effort by Australian policy makers to avoid the pitfalls experienced with the US digital locks provisions. In the US, business competitors have used the DMCA to try to block printer cartridge refill services, competing garage door openers, and to lock mobile phones to particular network providers.

Create New Threats for Journalists and Whistleblowers: Dangerously vague text on the misuse of trade secrets, which could be used to enact harsh criminal punishments against anyone who reveals or even accesses information through a "computer system" that is allegedly confidential.

Expand Copyright Terms: Create copyright terms well beyond the internationally agreed period in the 1994 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The TPP could extend copyright term protections from life of the author + 50 years, to Life + 70 years for works created by individuals, and either 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation for corporate owned works (such as Mickey Mouse).

Enact a "Three-Step Test" Language That Puts Restrictions on Fair Use: The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) is putting fair use at risk with restrictive language in the TPP's IP chapter. US and Australia have proposed very restrictive text, while other countries such as Chile, New Zealand, and Malaysia, have proposed more flexible, user-friendly terms.

Adopt Criminal Sanctions: Adopt criminal sanctions for copyright infringement that is done without a commercial motivation. Users could be jailed or hit with debilitating fines over file sharing, and may have their property or domains seized even without a formal complaint from the copyright holder.

In short, countries would have to abandon any efforts to learn from the mistakes of the US and its experience with the DMCA over the last 12 years, and adopt many of the most controversial aspects of US copyright law in their entirety. At the same time, the US IP chapter does not export the limitations and exceptions in the US copyright regime like fair use, which have enabled freedom of expression and technological innovation to flourish in the US. It includes only a placeholder for exceptions and limitations. This raises serious concerns about other countries’ sovereignty and the ability of national governments to set laws and policies to meet their domestic priorities.

https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

Someone with a PHD can explain my point better than I can but the fact remains US or any foreign multinationals that are trade allies do not enter agreements to improve global labor rights here or there (crippling bargaining power here - laws of supply & demand) and if anyone believes that well I have ocean front property... (I literally live in Arizona but from here you can see the Tempe Canal)

A couple of examples -- this highlights how far defense contractors go to shield themselves & accountability from US laws. The countries they operate in protect them except for the labor which they import from Asia & Africa's poor

The first one deals with treatment of a US citizen who had to fight tooth & nail and was only afforded arbitration after 5 years & nothing else.

TPP is more of the same

The leaked text reveals the TPP would expand the parallel ISDS legal system by elevating tens of thousands of foreign-owned firms to the same status as sovereign governments, empowering them to privately enforce a public treaty by skirting domestic courts and laws to directly challenge TPP governments in foreign tribunals.

Existing ISDS-enforced agreements of the United States, and of other developed TPP countries, have been almost exclusively with developing countries whose firms have few investments in the developed nations. However, the enactment of the leaked chapter would dramatically expand each TPP government’s ISDS liability. The TPP would newly empower about 9,000 foreign-owned firms in the United States to launch ISDS cases against the U.S. government, while empowering more than 18,000 additional U.S.-owned firms to launch ISDS cases against other signatory governments. (These are firms not already covered by an ISDS-enforced pact between the United States and other TPP negotiating governments.)

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150325/17151130431/corporate-sovereignty-provisions-tpp-agreement-leaked-via-wikileaks-would-massively-undermine-government-sovereignty.shtml

This is what it is like for non-US citizens

UCLA Law Review: Off-shoring the Army

<snip>
This Article will proceed in three Parts. Part I, based on original research
using publicly available government data, charts the rise of the TCN phenomenon
in the post-2001 U.S. military and reviews the human rights problems that
have emerged. Part II demonstrates that the United States has a massive migrant
military labor force without any coherent labor law to regulate it. In particular, it
reviews the structural weaknesses of antitrafficking laws meant to protect TCNs,
such as the Trafficking Victims Prevention Act (TVPA),21 as well as more recent
reform efforts. Part III frames these legal problems in a set of broader normative
questions about violence, sacrifice, and exchange. Specifically, it shows how military
migrant workers lack the forms of compensation—moral or material—that
soldiers and mercenaries enjoy, rendering them simultaneously vulnerable to
abuse and useful to the contemporary U.S. military. In conclusion, this Article
returns to the opening anecdote by linking the predicament of TCN workers to
the plight of the other TCNs who have attracted much attention in recent
years—namely extraterritorial prisoners in the “War on Terror” at Guantánamo
and elsewhere. This juxtaposition draws attention to how overseas bases are not
simply places where law is suspended.22 They are also nodes through which categories
of people rendered vulnerable by law circulate.
20.

This Article will proceed in three Parts. Part I, based on original research
using publicly available government data, charts the rise of the TCN phenomenon
in the post-2001 U.S. military and reviews the human rights problems that
have emerged. Part II demonstrates that the United States has a massive migrant
military labor force without any coherent labor law to regulate it. In particular, it
reviews the structural weaknesses of antitrafficking laws meant to protect TCNs,
such as the Trafficking Victims Prevention Act (TVPA),21 as well as more recent
reform efforts. Part III frames these legal problems in a set of broader normative
questions about violence, sacrifice, and exchange. Specifically, it shows how military
migrant workers lack the forms of compensation—moral or material—that
soldiers and mercenaries enjoy, rendering them simultaneously vulnerable to
abuse and useful to the contemporary U.S. military. In conclusion, this Article
returns to the opening anecdote by linking the predicament of TCN workers to
the plight of the other TCNs who have attracted much attention in recent
years—namely extraterritorial prisoners in the “War on Terror” at Guantánamo
and elsewhere. This juxtaposition draws attention to how overseas bases are not
simply places where law is suspended.22 They are also nodes through which categories
of people rendered vulnerable by law circulate.
20.

<snip>

II. FROM WORKERS TO VICTIMS: MILITARY MIGRANT LABOR
AND U.S. LAW
The post-2001 U.S. military fights ground wars using a labor force that is in
significant part offshored to foreign nationals, including workers imported from
third countries. Yet the United States continues to lack any coherent legal regime
for regulating the treatment of its migrant military workforce. This Part outlines
the predicament of TCN workers under U.S. law: Excluded from most labor
protection provisions, they are treated primarily as potential victims of human
trafficking. The trafficking framework, however, is not an adequate substitute for
labor law and in this case leaves the core employer-employee relationship effectively
beyond the review of U.S. courts.
A. Shutting Foreign Military Workers Out of U.S. Courts
The applicability of U.S. law to military bases overseas has long been a matter
of intense debate, especially in the ongoing disputes over the detention center
at Guantánamo Bay. Military commanders and contractor firms are the primary
entities exercising authority over military workers,67 but they do so in a situation
of significant jurisdictional uncertainty, since neither U.S. nor local laws apply in
their entirety. The debate over the applicability of U.S. law to overseas bases has
in significant part been informed by a near-exclusive focus on constitutional
rights and tort remedies.68 Overseas military bases are spaces saturated with other

<snip>

legal regimes,69 including executive branch regulations and layers of statute and
contract that create limited grants of extraterritorial jurisdiction to courts within
the United States. The result is an uncertain patchwork that effectively accords
different rights to different categories of workers by nationality.
U.S. law applies to military contractors overseas only in limited instances,thanks in significant part to the presumption against extraterritorial applicability.
70

70 Legislative enactments in recent years have extended criminal jurisdiction
over contractors in both military71 and civilian72 courts, regardless of nationality.
But many labor laws still do not apply extraterritorially, including to overseas bases.
These include the Service Contract Act, which establishes minimum wage
for government contractor employees;73 the Occupational Health and Safety
Act;74 the Fair Labor Standards Act;75 and the National Labor Relations Act.76
One category of labor law that does tend to apply extraterritorially is nondiscrimination
law, but only to U.S. citizens working for U.S. firms or companies controlled
by them. This includes Title VII of the Civil Rights Act,77 the Age Dis-
Discrimination in Employment Act,78 and the Americans with Disabilities Act.79

http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/62-1-3.pdf

EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co (case law - extrajudicial applicability)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/499/244/case.html

The TPP is very similar to this. Not only is it an even more massive loss of US jobs for exploiting & abusing Asian labor -- which is out of sight out of mind for Western citizens & governments. It all effects us. Right now the EU is recently dealing a massive exodus of migrant immigrants -- over a thousand capsized & drowned on their way to Europe on the Mediterrain are only offering a mask or a cover over the symptoms instead of addressing the root causes because they are responsible (Nigeria owned by Shell. Halliburton gave them a nearly trillion dollar bribe for an oil contract = Nigerians fleeing poverty into Europe). Karma (cause & effect).

This is why AFL-CIO is concerned about labor protections & rights. If supporters (not saying you as we are just discussing a detail of TPP) want to put money into the pockets of big business at the expense of labor just say so. Don't pretend its good for US labor or labor otherwise. Its only good for those who stand to profit from the deal.

[Hoyt]

23. The TPP's tribunal process is not new. It's been around in some form since 1959. Doesn't affect

national sovereignty..

Even the Sovereign Nation right wingers could probably tell you that.

[JonLP24]

25. Misunderstanding

I'm now sure how to articulate it even clearer (which is why I said someone with a PHD could make the point I'm trying to make) but I thought the Youtube link & a lot of other things showed I know it wasn't new which I was trying to make the case it isn't new & has never been good. Typically concessions are made with the far right governments (such as Saudi Arabia) to protect the US & Western citizens but labor is fair game. The tribunals or arbitration with the TPP are over various business beefs -- the most controversial is the Copyright law sections but I disagree it doesn't affect national sovereignty. There is clear evidence in my other reply of lawsuits because US law is diminished so US sovereignty is affected in of itself. Local laws are violated all-the-time & shielded from accountability all-the-time. Hell, in Iraq the wrote the US wrote the constitution appointed a new government & contractors were convicted of murder under US law rather than tried in Iraq court however if they sub-contract they are shielded from both. Why? For Exxon Mobile contracts at the super-giant oil fields

In the case of the TPP again with the copyright

The TPP has developed in secret an unaccountable supranational court for multinationals to sue states. This system is a challenge to parliamentary and judicial sovereignty.

“Similar tribunals have already been shown to chill the adoption of sane environmental protection, public health and public transport policies,” WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange said in a statement accompanying the release.

Such disputes would be arbitrated similarly to the World Bank's International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), which previously awarded US$1.8 billion (RM6.6 bilion) to Occidental Petroleum from the government Ecuador despite acknowledging that the firm violated the terms of agreement.

Previous leaks of the TPPA showed that a key stumbling block was the refusal of the US to yield on the contentious ISDS clause of the agreement, which critics contend would open signatory states to legal action by private corporations if any law is deemed harmful to a firm’s commercial interests.

<snip>

TRIPS-plus subjects developing nations to the same intellectual property standards as employed in developed nations, including the perpetual extension to patents that would prevent generic competition, despite no legal obligation to do so.

<snip>

Dr Mahathir compounded his concerns by expressing doubts about Malaysia’s ability to fend off lawsuits from foreign corporations, citing high-profile legal defeats such as the loss of the Pedra Branca dispute with Singapore.

http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/tppa-makes-malaysia-liable-for-foreign-firms-losses-new-leak-show

I think it clearly does affect national sovereignty but to say "it isn't new" is missing the point because I think the case Warner was trying to make with the lack of labor rights or protection in favor of corporation rights. I'm sure there will be some laws that good on paper but enforcement & accountability (especially with the multiple laws & jurisdictions and "super-natural courts&quot will be a joke but as soon as a CEO is offended you better believe something will happen.

I'm not sure what else I can say if I can't make it clearer, I see it but someone else can better explain it.

[GeorgeGist]

9. As long as the thugs play by your rules ...

who are we to demand better.

[Hoyt]

10. If the government killed labor leaders, that's one thing. But I don't think that is case here.

Last edited Wed Apr 22, 2015, 12:55 PM - Edit history (1)

Not sure what you expect USA to do if some local kills a labor leader. You fine with Mexico invading our country if a some business owner bumps off a union leader?

[Oilwellian]

12. You are obviously not familiar with...

Bill Clinton's Plan Colombia where he brought mercenaries in to "take care" of the labor leaders and peasants who were organizing against environmental and labor issues. Our government has a history of bringing in mercenaries to take care of the peasants who were organizing for better worker and environmental conditions.

[Hoyt]

14. We aren't talking about 20 years ago, and that is not what happened in the articles cited.

Even then, a trade agreement is not needed to pursue folks responsible for something like that.

[antigone382]

13. Who said anything about invasion? This is a trade agreement.

Governments have a duty to ensure a safe and stable environment for workers to peacefully organize and assert their rights. There is no excuse for failure to do so if they are capable of providing safe, stable environments for multinational corporations to operate. We should not do business in places where workers and activists are not seriously protected. Economic pressure should be sufficient to motivate that protection, with no need for us to use force.

[Hoyt]

15. I suspect we don't do much business in those places. If we do, the employees are making really good

wages, including combat pay. In some of those places it's tough to tell who is just an "activist" vs. a terrorists. Some would call the Bundy Ranch Militias activists in this country. I'd call them armed, racist terrorists.

You folks expect one piece of legislation to solve all the world's problems. Worse, you blame Obama for not getting it done.

[antigone382]

16. Are you serious? Do you know anything about global trade?

We get a LOT of products and resources from places where workers are brutalized and oppressed. Most products even. And yeah, it happens all the time in many of the countries which are a party to this trade agreement, which is just the latest manifestation of exploitative, colonial patterns that have benefited the "first world" and robbed the "third world" for centuries. I will not support any trade agreement that does not acknowledge and account for the extreme harm done to the least powerful in the name of intellectually bankrupt neoliberal economic ideology.

Research the history of coal mining in Appalachia. Watch King Leopold's Ghost, or A Small Place, or Maquilopolis, or any of the brilliant documentaries that tell the story of international trade.Exploitation and murder of workers, by businesses, with government collusion is not new, and the fact is our economic system and way of life depend on it. First world privilege is real, it is eating the world and killing millions, and it is not our right to continue turning a blind eye to it.

[JonLP24]

24. LOL

Columbia has been in a continuous armed conflict since the 1950s that traces to when a populist was assassinated. US as usual backs the far right which is the Colombian government in this case (the marketing is assisting them to battle "Narco Terrorists" but somehow drug trafficking increases when they show up). US & Colombian government mercenaries are bumping off the labor leaders, US uses contractors which is even better than the CIA to shield themselves from accountability & responsibility. Using uniformed military or any government ran agency is a direct implication that the US is invading countries & bumping off populists but pay someone else to do it has the "it wasn't us" but the US can certainly accomplish a lot. CIA & contractors capturing suspects all over the world & throwing them into black sites but can't do anything when populists are getting bumped off.

[hifiguy]

21. Nothing to see here.

Just shut up and give the tenth-percenters and their enablers what they want.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

26. I am a big fan of Obama, but it is time for me to remind everyone what one of the greatest

minds of our time or anytime said - and he is absolutely and completely correct