Part 2&3 of Sanya's presentation is about the biggest Modern Days Trojan Horse -- Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). There is NO DOUBT that ISDS is the greatest trap by US. They even stated that in their own USTR website. Therefore, it is not a secret US world economic domination agenda. It is clearly, an agenda to take advantages of the members who signed it. If you browse the USTR web, it literally tells you that:
"Because of the safeguards in U.S. agreements and because of the high standards of our legal system, foreign investors rarely pursue arbitration against the United States and have never been successful when they have done so. "
Therefore, the point presented by Sanya is a valid point. The main question is, why other countries, such as New zealand, Australia, Mexico... etc, willing to receive this Trojan Horse? They all know about the history and the consequences (NAFTA is the best example).
The Illusion: More Texts Doesn't Mean Better
There are several examples raised by Sanya, all of them are under different sets of treaties. The Occidental v. Ecuador case rule under US-Ecuador BIT. While the "US always win" cases are under NAFTA.
Looking at the nature of the TPP as a regional FTA, the Chapter 9 is full of exceptions and annexes for each countries, providing different protection for the parties. This created a false sense of security for those who read the agreement. After I read the Chp9, I do feel that it is not a problem signing this agreement. However, this is very naive of me.
TPP Chp9 has a lot of similarity to NAFTA Chp11. Where the chapter seems good and fair, the real implementation and execution is not. Here comes the "US always win" and "Canada always dismissed" situation. The agreement isn't fair at all. Although TPP Chp9 included a lot of exceptions, it appears to be vague. The US investors still have plenty of rooms to make troubles if they like.
Conclusion
For the part 2 and 3, Sanya did brought up the biggest concern on TPP, the ISDS! While the texts did seems great, it only works for countries with strong legal system. Then why 'the hell' Malaysia want to sign this agreement?
The Intellectual Property Chapter
I will blog about IP chapter tomorrow since I do have different views on it.
There are several examples raised by Sanya, all of them are under different sets of treaties. The Occidental v. Ecuador case rule under US-Ecuador BIT. While the "US always win" cases are under NAFTA.
Looking at the nature of the TPP as a regional FTA, the Chapter 9 is full of exceptions and annexes for each countries, providing different protection for the parties. This created a false sense of security for those who read the agreement. After I read the Chp9, I do feel that it is not a problem signing this agreement. However, this is very naive of me.
TPP Chp9 has a lot of similarity to NAFTA Chp11. Where the chapter seems good and fair, the real implementation and execution is not. Here comes the "US always win" and "Canada always dismissed" situation. The agreement isn't fair at all. Although TPP Chp9 included a lot of exceptions, it appears to be vague. The US investors still have plenty of rooms to make troubles if they like.
Conclusion
For the part 2 and 3, Sanya did brought up the biggest concern on TPP, the ISDS! While the texts did seems great, it only works for countries with strong legal system. Then why 'the hell' Malaysia want to sign this agreement?
Without prejudice to a claimant’s right to submit other claims to arbitration pursuant to Article 9.18 (Submission of a Claim to Arbitration), Malaysia does not consent to the submission of a claim that Malaysia has breached a government procurement contract with a covered investment, below the specified contract value, for a period of three years after the date of entry into force of this Agreement for Malaysia. The specified contract values are: (a) for goods, SDR 1,500,000; (b) for services, SDR 2,000,000; and (c) for construction, SDR 63,000,000. ~ (Annex 9-K, Chapter 9, TPP)Dear Malaysian, are you now understand the reason why our current government agree upon such agreement? Our former PM Abdullah had turned down the similar agreement years ago, why now our current PM Najib support such agreement? It seems like "Hey, bro, I want your trojan horse but please send it to me only after 3 years!". Just let your imagination run wild! Tell me what will happen in Malaysia after 3 years?
The Intellectual Property Chapter
I will blog about IP chapter tomorrow since I do have different views on it.
