The United Nations is hosting world leaders on September 22 and 23 for a “Summit of the Future.” Unfortunately, the draft action plan for the summit, while full of lofty language and some good intentions, does not challenge the neoliberal model or corporate control of the global economy.

On the contrary, it proposes, for example, to “facilitate access of developing countries to the WTO and promote trade and investment liberalization.”

It’s astounding that this plan, which is supposed to serve as the basis for an inter-governmental agreement, is so stuck in the past. For decades now, social movements and elected officials in many countries have become increasingly opposed to trade and investment rules that grant enormous privileges and power to transnational corporations.

The increase in demand for minerals for euphemistically named “green” energy transitions means that governments will be at greater risk of facing multi-million dollar lawsuits, as these processes are generating social reactions worldwide.

In many ways, these old rules directly contradict the U.N. summit’s overall goal of creating “a world that is safe, sustainable, peaceful, inclusive, just, equal, orderly, and resilient.”

They also make a mockery of the summit’s stated commitment to the U.N. Charter principle of “full respect for the sovereign equality of all Member States” and the principle of “equal rights and self-determination of peoples.”

Just take a look at how the natural resource extractive industries have used the existing investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system to undercut national sovereignty and sustainability and to foment conflict. The mining sector, in particular, has used this system, enforced through almost 3,000 treaties, to sue governments in supranational tribunals, bypassing national legal systems.

The vast majority of ISDS claims are directed against countries in the so-called “Global South,” and most suits are targeted at Latin American countries. ISDS allow corporations to suppress the opposition of local and Indigenous communities fighting for their territorial and environmental rights. When governments respond in favor of communities resisting mining projects, companies often use these lawsuits to blackmail governments into backing down and granting permits for environmentally destructive projects or pay “compensation” for the loss of expected corporate profits.

Investment treaties even include “full protection and security” clauses that give companies the right to demand that governments repress communities that oppose their mining projects. In Guatemala, for instance, the Nevada-based mining company KCA........

© Common Dreams