Shortcut Navigation:


Why Aren’t We Having a Public Debate on Investment Policies in the TTIP?

In early March, the AFL-CIO joined 42 other organizations representing labor, business, public health, environmental concerns, consumers, family farms and good governance as well as three legal scholars in sending a letter calling on the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to match the European Commission’s commitment to holding a public consultation on investment issues, particularly with respect to the pending U.S.-European Union trade negotiations (known as the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP).

While the AFL-CIO has received no formal response, the USTR did post a blog explaining that it already has held extensive consultations regarding the TTIP, and with respect to investment issues in particular.

Unfortunately, the blog post failed to address the issues raised in the letter. It pointed in particular to the review process for the U.S. Model BIT. A “BIT” is a type of treaty that covers solely investment issues (rather than the full panoply of trade and economic governance issues) and the “Model BIT” serves as a guide to what the United States would like to see in every BIT and the investment chapters of pending trade agreements. The Model BIT consultation process—which consisted of a federal register notice that garnered 36 comments, a single public meeting and a report from an advisory committee—was held in 2009, several years before the TTIP negotiations were even announced. The Model BIT consultation process, like current trade negotiations, involved many stakeholders representing a wide array of views, but the final Model BIT reflected almost exclusively business input. A consultation process that concluded more than four years ago is hardly sufficient to address bilateral U.S.-European investment that already stands at $4.1 trillion, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The blog then describes its ongoing stakeholder input and consultation process for the TTIP. These consultations, while ongoing, are an inadequate substitute for an open, democratic and participatory process—the type of process used for other economic policy making in the United States (e.g., tax legislation, health legislation and financial services regulation).

Finally, the post fails to address the concrete concerns raised in the AFL-CIO letter about investment policy and the investor-state dispute-settlement process in particular:

These are just a few of the numerous questions about investment policies that citizens and advocacy groups raised during the TTIP public comment period—but which the USTR so far has failed to answer.

The AFL-CIO renews its call for a public consultation process on investment issues raised by the TTIP. The EU already has begun its process. When will the USTR follow suit?

Learn more about ISDS and how extraordinary investor rights in NAFTA hurt workers.

Take action to demand a fair TPP (that doesn’t allow ISDS to undermine our labor, environmental, food safety and other laws).

The email address provided does not appear to be valid. Please check the address entered and try again.
Thank you for signing up to receive our blog alerts. You will receive your first email shortly.

Related Stories

Take Action

Protect the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has done crucial work to safeguard Americans against the deceptive and abusive practices of big banks, student loan servicers, credit card companies and predatory lenders. Tell Congress to protect this important agency.

Sign the petition. »

Connect With Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Flickr

Get Email from AFL-CIO

Msg & data rates may apply. Text STOP to 235246 to stop receiving messages. Text HELP to 235246 for more information.


Join Us Online