Jump to content

Support our Sponsors >> Thai Friendly | Pattaya News | Pattaya Unplugged | Buy a drink for Soi 6 Girls | Thailand 24/7 Forum | TPN Property | La La Land bar | NEW PA website | Subscribe to The Pattaya News |Pattaya Investigations | Rage Fight Academy | Buy/Sell Businesses | Isaan Lawyers | Siam Business Brokers | Belts Of Mongering - Mongering Authority | Add your Text or Event here

IGNORED

.. US Law 'Slave-produced' Seafood - Thais Targeted


brutox

Recommended Posts

.. low legal hurdles to file suits with US government to seize imported goods reasonably suspected of being produced under slavery .. NGO's sharpening their legal pens .. supply chains over the globe could be disrupted in a major way .. good.

 

 

 

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/asia/876896/new-us-law-bans-lave-produced-seafood

 

New US law bans 'slave-produced' seafood

26 Feb 2016

 

WASHINGTON - US officials are preparing to enforce an 86-year-old ban on importing goods made by children or slaves under new provisions of a law signed by President Barack Obama and aimed directly at Thailand.

 

"This law slams shut an unconscionable and archaic loophole that forced America to accept products made by children or slave labour," said Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon democrat who worked on the legislation.

 

The Tariff Act of 1930, which gave Customs and Border Protection the authority to seize shipments where forced labour was suspected and block further imports, was last used in 2000, and has been used only 39 times altogether. That was largely because of two words: "consumptive demand" - if there was not sufficient supply to meet domestic demand, imports were allowed regardless of how they were produced.

 

The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act signed by Obama on Wednesday eliminated that language, allowing stiffer enforcement. US Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Gil Kerlikowske and agency leaders are planning a briefing Friday to explain how they'll be implementing the new law.

 

"If the US government works to really keep out goods made with forced labour, this change will have a profound ripple effect on supply chains worldwide," said David Abramowitz, who advocated for the change as vice president for Humanity United.

 

To start an investigation, Customs needs to receive a petition from anyone - a business, an agency, even a non-citizen - showing "reasonably but not conclusively" that imports were made at least in part with forced labour.

 

A Labor Department list of more than 350 goods produced by child labour or forced labour provides a detailed breakdown that human rights groups plan to use as they petition the government to take action. These include peanuts from Turkey, gold from Ghana, carpets from India and fish and shrimp from Thailand.

 

An expose by The Associated Press last year found Thai companies ship seafood to the US that was caught and processed by trapped and enslaved workers. As a result of the reports, more than 2,000 trapped fishermen have been rescued, more than a dozen alleged traffickers arrested and millions of dollars' worth of seafood and vessels seized.

 

Last April AP also identified and highlighted the legal loophole that allowed continued imports of slave-caught seafood; a month later Obama promised to repeal the consumptive demand exception and ensured "swift, strong and effective enforcement."

 

Subsequent reporting by AP, The New York Times and other media has continued to highlight both the inhumane working conditions in the Thai seafood sector, and the legal loophole that allowed continued imports.

 

Meanwhile, the Thai government and the fishing industry have take legal and labour steps to correct most of the problems.

 

Gavin Gibbons, a spokesman for National Fisheries Institute, which represents about 75% of the US seafood industry, said Thursday their members want to see the ban enforced.

 

"We support the closing of this anachronistic loophole and look forward to fair and judicious implementation," he said.

 

Hunter S. Thompson Insert.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have noticed a large reduction in the variety of and quality of the seafood in the local wet markets (thai domestic)

and what is available has incurred significant price hikes . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Free Trade Explained In An Excellent Comic
 
By Michael Goodwin, Illustrated by Dan E. Burr / economixcomix.com
 

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) are the latest in a long line of international free trade agreements. But why are they bad for the majority of people and the planet and what are the justifications given by politicians, economists and big corporations for pushing them? This fanstastic comic explains. Read more from Michael Goodwin and support his work at the Economix website. 

Free-Trade-pg1-12.jpg

Free-Trade-pg2-revised.jpg

Free-Trade-pg3.jpg

Free-Trade-pg4-1.jpg

Free-Trade-pg5.jpg

Free-Trade-pg6.jpg

Free-Trade-pg7.jpg

Free-Trade-pg8.jpg

Free-Trade-pg9-1.jpg

Free-Trade-pg10.jpg

Free-Trade-pg11.jpg

Free-Trade-pg12-1.jpg

Free-Trade-pg131.jpg

Free-Trade-pg14a.jpg

Free-Trade-pg15-copy-11.jpg

Free-Trade-pg161.jpg

Free-Trade-pg171.jpg

Free-Trade-pg181.jpg

Free-Trade-pg191.jpg

Free-Trade-pg201.jpg

Free-Trade-pg211.jpg

Free-Trade-pg221.jpg

Free-Trade-pg231.jpg

Free-Trade-pg241.jpg

Free-Trade-pg252.jpg

Free-Trade-pg261.jpg

Free-Trade-pg272.jpg

he Scariest Trade Deal Nobody's Talking About Just Suffered a Big Leak

The Obama administration’s desire for “fast track” trade authority is not limited to passing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). In fact, that may be the least important of three deals currently under negotiation by the U.S. Trade Representative. The Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) would bind the two biggest economies in the world, the United States and the European Union. And the largest agreement is also the least heralded: the 51-nation Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA).

On Wednesday, WikiLeaks brought this agreement into the spotlight by releasing 17 key TiSA-related documents, including 11 full chapters under negotiation. Though the outline for this agreement has been in place for nearly a year, these documents were supposed to remain classified for five years after being signed, an example of the secrecy surrounding the agreement, which outstrips even the TPP.

TiSA has been negotiated since 2013, between the United States, the European Union, and 22 other nations, including Canada, Mexico, Australia, Israel, South Korea, Japan, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, and others scattered across South America and Asia. Overall, 12 of the G20 nations are represented, and negotiations have carefully incorporated practically every advanced economy except for the “BRICS” coalition of emerging markets (which stands for Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa).

The deal would liberalize global trade of services, an expansive definition that encompasses air and maritime transport, package delivery, e-commerce, telecommunications, accountancy, engineering, consulting, health care, private education, financial services and more, covering close to 80 percent of the U.S. economy. Though member parties insist that the agreement would simply stop discrimination against foreign service providers, the text shows that TiSA would restrict how governments can manage their public laws through an effective regulatory cap. It could also dismantle and privatize state-owned enterprises, and turn those services over to the private sector. You begin to sound like the guy hanging out in front of the local food co-op passing around leaflets about One World Government when you talk about TiSA, but it really would clear the way for further corporate domination over sovereign countries and their citizens.

Reading the texts (here’s an example, the annex on air transport services) makes you realize the challenge for members of Congress or interested parties to comprehend a trade agreement while in negotiation. The “bracketed” text includes each country’s offer, merged into one document, with notations on whether the country proposed, is considering, or opposes each specific provision. You need to either be a trade lawyer or a very alert reader to know what’s going on. But between the text and a series of analyses released by WikiLeaks, you get a sense for what the countries negotiating TiSA want.

First, they want to limit regulation on service sectors, whether at the national, provincial or local level. The agreement has “standstill” clauses to freeze regulations in place and prevent future rulemaking for professional licensing and qualifications or technical standards. And a companion “ratchet” clause would make any broken trade barrier irreversible.

It may make sense to some to open service sectors up to competition. But under the agreement, governments may not be able to regulate staff to patient ratios in hospitals, or ban fracking, or tighten safety controls on airlines, or refuse accreditation to schools and universities. Foreign corporations must receive the same "national treatment" as domestic ones, and could argue that such regulations violate their ability to provide the service. Allowable regulations could not be “more burdensome than necessary to ensure the quality of the service,” according to TiSA’s domestic regulation annex. No restrictions could be placed on foreign investment—corporations could control entire sectors. 

This would force open dozens of services, including ones where state-owned enterprises, like the national telephone company in Uruguay or the national postal service of Italy, now operate. Previously, public services would be either broken up or forced into competition with foreign service providers. While the United States and European Union assured in a joint statement that such privatization need not be permanent, they also “noted the important complementary role of the private sector in these areas” to “improve the availability and diversity of services,” which doesn’t exactly connote a hands-off policy on the public commons. 

Corporations would get to comment on any new regulatory attempts, and enforce this regulatory straitjacket through a dispute mechanism similar to the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) process in other trade agreements, where they could win money equal to “expected future profits” lost through violations of the regulatory cap.

For an example of how this would work, let’s look at financial services. It too has a “standstill” clause, which given the unpredictability of future crises could leave governments helpless to stop a new and dangerous financial innovation. In fact, Switzerland has proposed that all TiSA countries must allow “any new financial service” to enter their market. So-called “prudential regulations” to protect investors or depositors are theoretically allowed, but they must not act contrary to TiSA RULES, rendering them somewhat irrelevant.

Most controversially, all financial services suppliers could transfer individual client data out of a TiSA country for processing, regardless of national privacy laws. This free flow of data across borders is true for the e-commerce annex as well; it breaks with thousands of years of precedent on locally kept business records, and has privacy advocates alarmed.

There’s no question that these provisions reinforce Senator Elizabeth Warren’s contention that a trade deal could undermine financial regulations like the Dodd-Frank Act. The Swiss proposal on allowances for financial services could invalidate derivatives RULES, for example. And harmonizing regulations between the U.S. and EU would involve some alteration, as the EU RULES are less stringent.

Member countries claim they want to simply open up trade in services between the 51 nations in the agreement. But there’s already an international deal governing these sectors through the World Trade Organization (WTO), called the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). The only reason to re-write the RULES is to replace GATS, which the European Union readily admits (“if enough WTO members join in, TiSA could be turned into a broader WTO agreement”).

That’s perhaps TiSA’s real goal—to pry open markets, deregulate and privatize services worldwide, even among emerging nations with no input into the agreement. U.S. corporations may benefit from such a structure, as the Chamber of Commerce suggests, but the impact on workers and citizens in America and across the globe is far less clear. Social, cultural, and even public health goals would be sidelined in favor of a regime that puts corporate profits first. It effectively nullifies the role of democratic governments to operate in the best interest of their constituents.

Unsurprisingly, this has raised far more concern globally than in the United States. But a completed TiSA would go through the same fast-track process as TPP, getting a guaranteed up-or-down vote in Congress without the possibility of amendment. Fast-track lasts six years, and negotiators for the next president may be even more willing to make the world safe for corporate hegemony. “This is as big a blow to our rights and freedom as the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” said Larry Cohen, president of the Communication Workers of America in a statement, “and in both cases our government’s secrecy is the key enabler.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



  • COVID-19

    Any posts or topics which the moderation team deems to be rumours/speculatiom, conspiracy theory, scaremongering, deliberately misleading or has been posted to deliberately distort information will be removed - as will BMs repeatedly doing so. Existing rules also apply.

  • Advertise on Pattaya Addicts
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.