Anti-NAFTA protestors are gassed at a WTO rally in Montréal

A decade ago the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) burst onto the scene in North and Central America. The complex trade pact between Canada, the United States and Mexico has become a perennial issue of quite heated debate during, and between elections, in all three countries, and its initial ratification ignited vocal dialectical deliberation.
But amid the din of voices fighting to be heard in the struggle something was missed. Overlooked by NAFTA opponents and proponents alike, and something virtually ignored in deliberations on the agreement, was one inconspicuous provision: Chapter 11. In essence, Chapter 11 spells out the terms under which multinational corporations can be compensated (with our tax monies) for losses incurred by government expropriation.
If a government wants to build a highway or sports arena and your home happens to be in the way, the government can force you out but they have to compensate you for your loss. Chapter 11 recognizes this precedent and goes much further.
Under Chapter 11, the signatory nations are prevented from “directly or indirectly nationaliz[ing] an investment” or taking measures “tantamount to nationalization or expropriation”, and therein lies the distinction. By expanding government responsibility for compensation beyond direct takings, the architects of Chapter 11 enabled foreign corporations doing business in Mexico, Canada, or the U.S. to seek reimbursement for any government law, rule, or regulation that impinges upon the company’s profits. This represents a significant departure from past practice.
Dan Seligman, director of the Sierra Club’s Trade Programme, argues that Chapter 11 may lead to a “fundamentally different world in the degree of power corporations hold on democratic governments.”
Ontario attorney Todd Weiler has created a web site where you can obtain information about NAFTA investor-state dispute settlement, obtain copies of recent NAFTA Claim documents, and contact an appropriate person in order to learn more about bringing a NAFTA investor-state claim.
For more background, read Justin Gerdes’ article on the Environmental News Network web site, and for an even more detailed understanding of NAFTA, have a look at the full text of the NAFTA agreement.

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice sits across from President Bush, meeting with his Cabinet and advisors, on Sept. 15, 2001, at Camp David, Md.

Bush’s national security advisor dodged the 9/11 commission, but she can’t evade its judgement. In an article written by Martin Sieff for Salon magazine, he reports that the Bush administration’s former counterterrorism chief, Richard A. Clarke, told the commission investigating the 9/11 terrorist attacks that only a week before the attacks he had sent Condoleezza Rice a powerful and prophetic letter warning of the danger that hundreds of Americans could die in a terrorist strike.

“You urge policymakers to imagine a day after hundreds of Americans lay dead at home and abroad after a terrorist attack and ask themselves what else they could have done. You write this, seven days before 9/11?” former Democratic Rep. Tim Roemer asked Clarke in a nationally televised open session of the commission.
Clarke tersely confirmed he had sent the letter with a single word, “Yes.”

The New York Times reports in tomorrow’s paper that “under mounting pressure from Democrats about its response to the investigation into the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the White House offered Thursday to have Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, answer more questions from the Sept. 11 panel,” while Times’ columnist Bob Herbert takes the Bush White House to task for their failure to respond appropriately to 9/11, stating that “the U.S. never pursued Al Qaeda with the focus, tenacity and resources it would expend — and continues to expend — on Iraq.”