FTAA's and NAFTA's corporate rights come at expense of citizens, taxpayers

Incredibly, corporate polluters like Methanex can sue cities their victims under NAFTA rules

By: Linda McQuaig

  The Quebec Summit is actually about redesigning the international economy in a way that transfers significant new powers to corporations.
  Of course, corporations have always enjoyed considerable power. But it's traditionally been recognized that there should be limits on corporate power, and that, in a democracy, power should ultimately rest with the people.
  But that democratic notion has been discarded by those designing the new trade deals. Instead, corporations have been granted wide-ranging new rights that give them the power to challenge the authority of democratically-elected governments - even in key areas where the well-being of citizens is at stake.
 

Chemical company Methanex launched a billion-dollar lawsuit against the US for losses from California's ban on its additive

  Consider the case of Methanex. It's a Vancouver-based company that produces a gasoline additive considered a health hazard by the state of California. The city of Santa Monica had to shut down most of its municipal wells after some of the Methanex additive leeched into the local water supply. After that, California imposed a ban on the additive.
  Now one would think that Methanex, at the very least, would apologize to the people of Santa Monica for contaminating their water. And in the old days that's probably what would have happened. But now, under NAFTA, Methanex has a whole new set of legal rights that puts it in the driver's seat.
  So, using a section of NAFTA, Methanex has launched a massive lawsuit, suing the United States for almost a billion dollars for financial losses resulting from California's ban on its additive. Now does that make any sense? A Methanex chemical contaminates a city's drinking water - and Methanex is the one suing for damages? Such a lawsuit would be considered a joke if it were launched in a Canadian or American court.
  But that's where the magic of NAFTA comes in. The corporation gets to take its case to a private tribunal, operating in secret under the auspices of NAFTA, and which has the power to make binding decisions. This amounts to what lawyer Steven Shrybman has called a "revolutionary development in international law."
  What NAFTA does is single out corporate profit-making as a right so important that it has its own international legal protections and a private tribunal system to enforce them. No other set of rights - environmental rights, social rights, labour rights, even human rights - has been accorded the same protection in international law.
  Consider what happens when someone's human rights are violated. He or she must first exhaust all possible legal remedies within the country where the violation has occurred. Only then can the person apply to a committee of the United Nations. But that UN committee has no real power. Even if it supports the claim of the applicant, it can only conclude that the country has done wrong and make suggestions for remedies or changes. A slap on the wrist, in other words.
  Compare this to what happens when a corporation thinks ITS rights have been violated - no matter how ridiculous the claim. Not only is it permitted to sue under NAFTA, but a NAFTA tribunal has the power to force a government to pay the corporation a huge amount of money. And the 34 nations meeting in Quebec City are expected to endorse this system - a system which provides stronger international rights for corporations to be from from constraints on their profit-making, than for humans to be free from beatings, execution and torture.

Linda McQuaig is an author and journalist. This column, reposted with permission, appeared originally on CBC Radio.

See other columns by Linda McQuaig

Posted: April 09, 2001

[ Front Page ]