This is a perfect example. If a country that processed fish in this way were to sign TPP — and Indonesia is considering it — their fish processing corporations could sue any TPP-signing government that banned slave-labor seafood. Would the corporations win? That's for the TPP "trade court" (not the national court) to decide. But if the nation being sued were small enough (poor enough), it might not even mount a defense. And if a large nation's government were wealth-captured enough, they might not either.A year-long AP investigation reveals the global fish market feeds off a robust slave fishing trade benefitting everyone involved except the slaves, who are reportedly kept in cages and whipped with toxic fish when they get tired. Sounds pretty bad!So how does the free-labor fish get into your cat food and onto your dinner table? The AP managed to get inside one fishing operation, where the slaves—usually Burmese citizens—are forced to live in cages on a "tiny tropical island" in Indonesia called Benjina. Despite days spent catching food, they are not allowed to eat the fish, for it is apparently deemed too valuable for them.
"A French company sued Egypt because Egypt raised its minimum wage."I discussed this at greater length here, and included a look at the damage done by the recent KORUS (Korea–U.S.) trade agreement. As usual, that one too promised "more jobs, bigger trade surplus," a promise that was, quelle surprise, 180 degrees wrong.
"A Swedish company sued Germany because Germany decided to phase out nuclear power after the Fukushima disaster."
"A Dutch company sued the Czech Republic because the Czech Republic didn't bail out a bank that the Dutch company partially owned."
In remarks to the American Apparel and Footwear Association, the Finance chairman [Sen. Orrin Hatch] said President Obama desperately needs a “legacy” issue. The two trade deals that the Administration is negotiating – the TPP and the TransAtlantic Trade and Investment Partnership – could be that legacy.Ron Wyden's contact information: