February, 29 2020, 11:00pm EDT
![Global Justice Now](https://assets.rbl.ms/32012620/origin.jpg)
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Jean Blaylock, Policy and campaign manager:
jean.blaylock@globaljustice.org.uk
What's Wrong With the US-UK Trade Deal
On Monday, the UK is expected to release its negotiating objectives for a trade deal with the United States, at the same time as it begins formal negotiations with the European Union over future trade arrangements.
A US-UK trade deal could have far reaching implications for global justice - this briefing outlines the big issues to watch out for, including what we already know has been discussed, the secrecy of the negotiations, and the timeline for the talks.
LONDON
On Monday, the UK is expected to release its negotiating objectives for a trade deal with the United States, at the same time as it begins formal negotiations with the European Union over future trade arrangements.
A US-UK trade deal could have far reaching implications for global justice - this briefing outlines the big issues to watch out for, including what we already know has been discussed, the secrecy of the negotiations, and the timeline for the talks.
1) What are the big issues?
Food, environmental and other standards
The US wants the UK to move to the US approach to standards. This is the fundamental play-off between a deal with the US and a deal with the EU - it's not possible to align closely with both. Leaks from the talks so far reveal that US officials said that commitment to a level playing field with the EU would make a US deal a "non-starter".
In general, the UK's current approach is that products must be proved safe before they can go on the market, whereas in the US the burden is the other way around - products can be on the market unless and until they are proven unsafe. The UK has traditionally also taken more account of factors such as animal welfare.
Particular issues for the UK public include:
- Chlorine chicken: this iconic issue is primarily an animal welfare issue. Currently we take a 'farm to fork' approach that seeks to improve hygiene and conditions at every stage, whereas the US tolerates dirty, crowded conditions until the end and then blitzes the carcases with chlorine or acid washes. Spraying the bleaches can cause health problems for workers. And on top of this, recent evidence from the University of Southampton suggests that chlorine may not remove bacteria but just mask it.
- Cosmetics: Over 1,300 toxic ingredients have been banned from use in cosmetics in the UK, with restrictions of another 500 ingredients. By comparison, only 11 are banned in the US - for instance formaldehyde, which causes cancer, is allowed there. Animal testing of cosmetics is legal in the US, but banned in Britain.
- Baby food: the UK has specific regulations for baby food, over and above normal food standards. These ban pesticide residues, arsenic traces and artificial food colour e-numbers, and set limits for added sugar. The US has none of these.
- Hormone beef and ractopamine pork: hormones and steroids such as ractopamine are used to promote growth in pigs and cattle in the US, despite the risks both for the animals and for human consumption. These are banned in the UK
Climate
A US-UK trade deal will have implications for fossil fuel emissions and could prevent necessary climate action. The recent Heathrow decision reinforces the need for all public policy to be coherent with climate goals. Yet leaks last year showed that the US has refused to even discuss climate change in talks with the UK.
Trade deals tend to promote trade in fossil fuels and carbon intensive sectors such as industrial agriculture and transport, while at the same time insisting that rules cannot consider the climate impact of different products and sectors. Recent US trade deals and mini-deals with China, Canada and Mexico, and the EU have even specifically required increased trade in fossil fuels at a time when we should be leaving them in the ground.
To tackle the climate crisis we need strong binding regulation that can shift us out of decades of inertia and business as usual. Yet trade rules are written to prioritise voluntary self-regulation - exactly the approach that has resulted in continued inaction.
This is not the only way that trade deals can block climate action. If meaningful regulation on climate issues is passed, corporations can turn to 'corporate courts' to seek damages (see below). This has already started to happen elsewhere. The Netherlands recently took the decision to phase out coal power over the next decade in the light of climate change. In response a German energy company, Uniper, which owns a power station in the Netherlands, has started threatening to sue in a corporate court. In Canada, when the province of Quebec introduced a fracking moratorium, energy company Lone Pine sued in a case that is still ongoing.
Corporate courts
There is a high risk that a trade deal with the US will include 'corporate courts', officially known as investor-state dispute settlement or ISDS. These allow transnational corporations to sue governments outside of the national courts. The amounts involved can be in the billions, and even the threat of a case can be enough to cause governments to change policies and plans.
The range of cases is huge:
- Cargill sued Mexico when it first introduced tax on sugary drinks;
- Ethyl sued Canada over a ban on the chemical MMT in petrol, which is suspected of causing nerve damage;
- Vattenfall is suing Germany for deciding to phase out nuclear power following the Fukushima nuclear disaster;
- Philip Morris sued both Australia and Uruguay over anti-smoking measures;
- Infinito Gold is suing Costa Rica over the introduction of a ban on open-cast mining for metals.
Last year's trade leaks revealed that US and UK officials have had extensive discussions about the inclusion of corporate courts in a trade deal.
Medicine prices
Leaks from the talks with the US have shown that there are proposals for the extension of monopolies for big pharmaceutical corporations, which could massively increase the cost of medicines for the NHS. There is also mention of another US concern: at present the NHS's bulk purchasing power allows it to negotiate prices, while the regulator, NICE, assesses whether medicines are effective enough to justify their price. Trump considers this to be 'freeloading' and has asked trade negotiators to fix it.
The two sides have effectively concluded all the preliminary negotiations they need in this area and say, in the leaked papers, that they are ready to begin agreeing text on this for the final deal.
NHS
A sweeping opening up of services is a big focus of the talks. The US is insisting on an approach called 'negative list' where everything is on the table unless it is specifically excluded. Trade deals usually have a standard exemption for public services, but the existing level of privatisation and internal market within the NHS means that it doesn't fall within the definition. It and many other public services would have to be specifically excluded - and we know that in the previous negotiations between the EU and the US over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the UK chose not to do so when other European countries did.
Power of internet platforms
Governments are just beginning to address the challenges posed by the internet and the power of online platforms such as Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple - issues such as fake news, political advertising, hate speech and online bullying. Yet leaks show that in the talks so far the US has been pushing to protect big tech platforms from regulation in trade rules.
Ensuring that big tech companies pay the tax they owe is also increasingly urgent, and the UK now plans to introduce a digital services tax. The US has publicly threatened to impose trade sanctions if it does.
The US is also pushing for an unrestricted 'free flow of data' between the two countries, which would undermine existing data protection and privacy standards in the UK. It could also prevent data flows between the EU and the UK.
2) Secrecy
Much of what we know about the US-UK trade talks is from leaks, because negotiations are being conducted in great secrecy, without democratic oversight.
The UK parliament does not get to approve the objectives, does not get to properly scrutinise progress, nor is it guaranteed a vote on the final deal. The devolved administrations and legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are similarly shut out, even though the negotiations will touch on areas of devolved responsibility, such as agriculture and health.
A US-UK trade deal will impact on many issues which are usually assumed to be part of domestic policy making, and there is a strong public interest in knowing what is on the table in the negotiations.
3) What is the timeline?
The first formal round of negotiations with the US is expected to be held in the near future. The pressure is then on for the next four months, to see if a deal can be agreed by the summer, before the US goes into election mode. As six informal rounds of trade talks have already been held since 2017, the negotiations are not starting from scratch, so it is feasible that some kind of deal could be reached in this period.
The US should need Congress's approval for the deal. This would mean that the deal would need to be put together by 26 June in order for Congress to be given the required 90 days notice to vote on it before breaking up for the elections. Alternatively it could be left a bit later and be voted on in the lame duck session after the elections.
It is also possible that a mini-deal could be done that the Trump administration would argue does not need Congressional approval.
Global Justice Now is a democratic social justice organisation working as part of a global movement to challenge the powerful and create a more just and equal world. We mobilise people in the UK for change, and act in solidarity with those fighting injustice, particularly in the global south.
020 7820 4900LATEST NEWS
UK Urged to Cut Off Arms Sales to Israel After Restoring UNRWA Funds
"While the U.K. is giving aid with one hand, it continues to send weapons used in the ongoing killing of civilians with the other," said one advocate.
Jul 19, 2024
Days after independent United Nations experts said the blocking of humanitarian aid to Gaza over the past nine months has led to famine throughout the enclave, rights groups on Friday applauded the British government's announcement that it will restore funding to the U.N.'s relief agency in Palestine—but said the Labour Party will remain complicit in the suffering of Gazans as long as it continues arming Israel.
Tim Bierley, a campaigner at Global Justice Now, said the decision to restore U.K. funding to the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) six months after it was suspended was "welcome and long overdue," following mounting reports of dozens of Palestinian children and adults dying of starvation in the intervening months.
The U.K. was one of several wealthy countries that suspended funding for UNRWA, which operates mainly on international donations, after Israel in January claimed without evidence that 12 out of 13,000 UNRWA staff members in Gaza had been involved in the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel on October 7, 2023.
The loss of hundreds of millions of dollars from the U.S., Germany, the U.K., and other countries severely reduced UNRWA's ability to provide food aid, healthcare, sanitation services, and employment to Palestinians, nearly all of whom have been forcibly displaced by Israel's bombardment.
Following sustained advocacy by rights groups and Labour Party lawmakers who support Palestinian rights, Foreign Secretary David Lammy on Friday announced that the new Labour government, which took control after this month's elections, has committed to providing £21 million ($27 million) to UNRWA following former Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's decision to suspend funding.
Lammy noted in his speech to Parliament that restoring UNRWA funding is "absolutely central" to ensuring humanitarian aid reaches Palestinians in Gaza.
"No other agency can deliver aid at the scale needed," he said.
The government's decision leaves the U.S.—UNRWA's largest funder—as the only country that has not restored its financial support for the agency. In March, the U.S. passed a military spending package that prohibits UNRWA funding through at least March 2025.
Bierley was among those who noted that while the U.K. is committing to provide more humanitarian relief to Palestinians in Gaza, the Labour government is still providing Israel with military aid.
"While the U.K. is giving aid with one hand, it continues to send weapons used in the ongoing killing of civilians with the other. Labour has had more than enough time to review the evidence: The U.K. must ban all arms sales to Israel with immediate effect," said Bierley.
Journalist Owen Jones added that considering all countries except the U.S. have already restored funding—with many citing the U.N.'s finding that Israel's accusations were unsubstantiated—the Labour government's decision is "the bare minimum."
"Now end arms sales and stop trying to wreck the [International Criminal Court] arrest warrants," said Jones, referring to the U.K.'s bid to intervene in the ICC's case against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over alleged war crimes in Gaza.
Member of Parliament Andy McDonald of the Labour Party called on Prime Minister Keir Starmer's government to "clarify that it supports the processes that will prosecute war crimes and that the U.K. accepts the ICC jurisdiction over Israel, and has no truck with the nonsense legal argument of Israel being exempt from international law."
The humanitarian group Medical Aid for Palestinians said the Labour Party's decision will restore "an irreplaceable lifeline" to a population of 2.3 million Gaza residents who "face an existential threat from Israel's military bombardment and siege."
"We hope that David Lammy and the U.K. government will now commit to increasing multi-year support to the agency," said the group, "to bolster its vital humanitarian work across the region and ensure the inalienable rights of Palestinian refugees are upheld."
Keep ReadingShow Less
ICJ Says Israel's Occupation of Palestinian Territory Is Illegal and Must End
The United Nations' highest court issued an advisory opinion arguing that Israel's large-scale expansion of settlements amounts to annexation, a crime under international law.
Jul 19, 2024
The International Court of Justice said Friday that Israel's decadeslong occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is unlawful and must end "as rapidly as possible."
The court's nonbinding advisory opinion was read aloud by ICJ President Nawaf Salam, a Lebanese judge and academic. Salam said the court determined based on "extensive evidence" that Israel is guilty of confiscating "large areas" of Palestinian land for use by Israeli settlers, exploiting natural resources, and undermining the local population's right to self-determination under international law.
The court pointed to "Israel's systematic failure to prevent or punish" settler violence and "demolition of Palestinian property" in the West Bank as part of its case that the Israeli government's actions in the occupied territories are indicative of an attempt to permanently annex land and forcibly transfer Palestinians from their homes.
"Israel is not entitled to sovereignty in any part of the occupied Palestinian territory on account of its occupation, nor can security concerns override the prohibition on acquisition of territory by force," said Salam.
The ICJ vote against Israel's occupation was 11-4. The court also voted to call on Israel to evacuate all settlers from the West Bank.
In a 12-3 vote, the ICJ said that all nations "are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the state of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by the continued presence of the state of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory."
The United States was among the countries that warned the ICJ against advising that Israel must swiftly end its occupation.
The ICJ handed down its opinion as the court is also considering a genocide case brought against Israel over its ongoing assault on the Gaza Strip—a devastating war that the court did not weigh as part of its new advisory opinion.
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, applauded the ICJ's call for the dismantling of Israeli settlements and reparations for Palestinians harmed by Israel's occupation.
"The ICJ ruling in essence confirmed what the majority of people (except the West) already knew and have recognized: that Israel's occupation is illegal, that it is still occupying Gaza, it is annexing the West Bank, and Israel is an apartheid state," Parsi wrote on social media. "If there is any respect for international law, Western media must now include this in all its Israel coverage. Most don't even describe settlements as illegal!"
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Largest IT Outage in History' Sparks Global Chaos
"This is basically what we were all worried about with Y2K, except it's actually happened this time."
Jul 19, 2024
This is a developing story… Please check back for possible updates...
A global technology outage attributed to a software update by the U.S.-based cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike sparked chaos around the world Friday as flights were grounded and healthcare, banking, and ground transportation systems experienced major disruptions.
George Kurtz, the president and CEO of CrowdStrike, said in a statement Friday morning that the company is "actively working with customers impacted by a defect found in a single content update for Windows hosts"—a glitch that affected Microsoft users around the world.
"This is not a security incident or cyberattack," Kurtz added. "The issue has been identified, isolated, and a fix has been deployed. We refer customers to the support portal for the latest updates and will continue to provide complete and continuous updates on our website. We further recommend organizations ensure they're communicating with CrowdStrike representatives through official channels. Our team is fully mobilized to ensure the security and stability of CrowdStrike customers."
The Financial Timesexplained that Crowdstrike is "one of the world's largest providers of 'endpoint' security software, used by companies to monitor for security problems across a huge range of devices, from desktop PCs to checkout payment terminals."
Troy Hunt, a security consultant, wrote on social media that "this will be the largest IT outage in history."
"This is basically what we were all worried about with Y2K, except it's actually happened this time," Hunt added.
The impacts of the outage cascaded rapidly. Wirednoted that "in the early hours of Friday, companies in Australia running Microsoft's Windows operating system started reporting devices showing Blue Screens of Death (BSODs)."
"Shortly after," the outlet continued, "reports of disruptions started flooding in from around the world, including from the U.K., India, Germany, the Netherlands, and the U.S.: TV station Sky News went offline, and U.S. airlines United, Delta, and American Airlines issued a 'global ground stop' on all flights."
As The New York Timesobserved, the National Health Service in the United Kingdom "was crippled throughout the morning on Friday, as a number of hospitals and doctors offices lost access to their computer systems."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular