Bruce Bisset: Glaring omission of emissions

Bruce Bisset.

The clearest evidence that the TPPA is a large corporate wolf that intends eating our sheep without remorse and regardless of consequence is that the agreement signed yesterday contains no reference to the biggest problem facing the world this century: climate change.

Bear in mind this vaunted "fair trade" pact is about far more than just trade - and there is nothing "just" about it. It seeks to regulate everything from the way we practise agriculture to the rights of indigenous people, and references all kinds of county-specific idiosyncrasies in doing so, including our own Treaty of Waitangi.

But nothing about our changing climate. Which is odd because if there is one "outside" factor that will impact more than any other on the way the world does business, it is our warming globe and its increasingly extreme weather.

The draft of the agreement acknowledged this, with a clause wherein the parties agreed climate change was "a global concern that requires collective action and recognise the importance of implementation of their respective commitments under the UNFCCC" - a clear link to the global agreement being brokered by the United Nations. However the final text rewrite dropped the words "climate change" and any link to any relevant agreement, to merely say the parties "acknowledge that transition to a low emissions economy requires collective action". Which is meaningless.

What does that say to you? To me it says the corporations who are pulling the strings on this whole takeover package do not want to be in any way restricted just because the world is going to hell in an oil barrel thanks to humanity's out-of-control emissions.

See, removing that reference means that if a country decides to do something to address climate change (such as banning coal mining), the corporations could sue if that policy impacts their potential profits. They only have to say they intended to run such a business in order to have a case.

And since the country has no fallback position in the TPPA to defend itself on, it's effectively a given the secret corporate-appointed tribunal hearing the case will rule against it. And the country will have to pay.

I'm not making this up.

On this issue alone, Maori have every reason to be concerned about the likely restrictions on their rights to any form of governance over natural resources. But it is not just Maori; we all will be affected, and we all - including Government - will be powerless to prevent our laws being trampled by corporate greed.

It's all - or the half of the TPPA I've read so far - like this. Much of the text appears to be tightly written but superficially fair - until you wonder who it is that decides if a certain standard "conforms" or not, or whether a law is based on "legitimate objectives", and who defines what is legitimate or decides whether those objectives have been fulfilled.

Right. Ultimately, the secret corporate tribunals. Not we the people, and not the Government we elect.

If you think this is pure scaremongering, research the dozens of cases, involving hundreds of billions of dollars in suit, in process around the world thanks to agreements like this one. Except this one, because of its breadth of scope, is worse.

At time of writing there was doubt whether anyone could be found to powhiri the visiting trade ministers, or whether the protests would be peaceful. I certainly wouldn't welcome them, but I expect there was little violence, since most people don't seem to realise exactly what we're losing.

Goodbye sovereignty, hello Blackwater.

- Bruce Bisset is a freelance writer and poet.