Tuesday, February 10, 2015

TPP is Corrupt Sovereign Suicide

As TPP Sails Forth, It Drags the West Into Uncharted Waters, Posted on February 10, 2015 Written by thedailybell.com

‘Free trade’ isn’t what Trans-Pacific Part­ner­ship would deliver … Think the Trans-Pacific Part­ner­ship is a free trade agree­ment? Think again. In prin­ci­ple, almost everyone’s in favor of free trade. It pro­motes inter­na­tional har­mony, raises wages, helps economies grow. It’s an arti­cle of his­tor­i­cal faith that the enact­ment of harsh pro­tec­tive U.S. tar­iffs in 1930 con­tributed to the Great Depres­sion. And who wants that? – LA Times

Dom­i­nant Social Theme: Some sort of free trade pact is necessary.

Free-Market Analy­sis: There are two free trade pacts being nego­ti­ated cur­rently, one in the “Pacific” and the other in the “Atlantic.” The Pacific one seems to get most of the atten­tion and there is good news for those who want the treaty can­celled or rad­i­cally reconfigured.

The good news is that the US Con­gress is increas­ingly at odds with the way the Trans-Pacific Part­ner­ship is being han­dled. The fast track author­ity being demanded by Barack Obama is run­ning into increased resis­tance because the treaty itself is a fairly rad­i­cal – author­i­tar­ian – document.

What has brought the issue to the front again is twofold: One, com­ments from nego­tia­tors indi­cate the treaty may be final­ized in a few weeks. Two, recent trade data seemed showed [sic] a widen­ing trade gap.

Benzinga.com recently reported on the trade sta­tis­tics, com­ment­ing, “The Com­merce Depart­ment report … [showed] that the U.S. trade deficit widened to $505.05 bil­lion in 2014—the nation’s largest gap since 2008.”

US demand for for­eign goods and ser­vices is going up accord­ing to this report, in part because of the strong US dol­lar – strong rel­a­tive to other cur­ren­cies any­way. Those against the treaty believe that lan­guage should be strength­ened that for­bids cer­tain kinds of for­eign cur­rency manipulation.

But con­cerns may run deeper than lan­guage. Accord­ing to the LA Times arti­cle, “The pact — which has been under nego­ti­a­tion vir­tu­ally since the turn of the cen­tury — is in trou­ble on Capi­tol Hill, where its ene­mies include con­ser­v­a­tives and liberals.”

The Times arti­cle tells us that TPP has “become a sym­bol of every­thing that’s wrong with free trade agree­ments today.” Here’s more:

But “free trade” has lit­tle to do with the trade deal that Pres­i­dent Obama hopes will be a high-water mark for his administration’s for­eign pol­icy: the Trans-Pacific Part­ner­ship talks, which now involve the U.S. and 11 Pacific Rim coun­tries — Aus­tralia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mex­ico, New Zealand, Peru, Sin­ga­pore and Vietnam.

The pact is being nego­ti­ated in secret, although U.S. trade nego­tia­tors have given big indus­tries nice long looks behind the cur­tain. The White House is demand­ing “fast-track” approval from Con­gress, which lim­its the say law­mak­ers will have and requires them to rat­ify in haste. And pub­lic inter­est advo­cates say it could under­mine rules and reg­u­la­tions gov­ern­ing the envi­ron­ment, health, intel­lec­tual prop­erty and finan­cial mar­kets (to name only a few topics).

The arti­cle offers three major doubts regard­ing TPP:

• Over­reach. It’s a big mer­can­tilist mess, basi­cally. Some phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pa­nies are directly shielded from com­pe­ti­tion by treaty lan­guage, while it also deals specif­i­cally with “food safety, prod­uct safety and access to drugs.” Issues, in other words, that are only tan­gen­tially related to “free trade.”

Even worse, cor­po­ra­tions can seek rul­ings from inter­na­tional “arbi­tra­tion courts” regard­ing sov­er­eign laws and reg­u­la­tions. This is already tak­ing place in areas regard­ing work­place regs and envi­ron­men­tal issues. Sov­er­eignty is eroded by such treaties, which take the power of law away from the nation-state and pro­vide it instead to a new class of global judges.

• Secrecy. Like too many other modern-day nego­ti­a­tions, the TPP is being con­ducted in secret. U.S. Trade Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Michael Fro­man has tried to main­tain tight con­trol over the lan­guage and who sees it. But there are coun­ter­cur­rents. In 2012, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) intro­duced a bill requir­ing “that all law­mak­ers with over­sight on trade pol­icy be given access to key documents.”

• “Fast-tracking.” The White House wants the treaty signed under fast-tracking pro­vi­sions that man­date law­mak­ers vote up or down on the treaty – as is – within 90 days. No fil­i­busters allowed.

The arti­cle con­cludes that “oppo­si­tion is grow­ing from con­ser­v­a­tive Repub­li­cans and pro­gres­sive Democ­rats alike.” It calls the com­bi­na­tion of secrecy and fast-tracking “over­reach” and claims this sort of com­bi­na­tion is increas­ingly seen as dangerous.

That sen­ti­ment is prob­a­bly wide­spread. About a year ago, Canadians.org pub­lished an arti­cle enti­tled, “Demand the Harper gov­ern­ment pub­lish the Trans-Pacific Part­ner­ship.”

Across Canada and around the world, peo­ple are speak­ing out about the Trans-Pacific Part­ner­ship trade agree­ment (TPP). They are ral­ly­ing against the secrecy of the 12-country nego­ti­a­tions and the cor­po­rate agenda behind the deal.

On Feb­ru­ary 12, leg­is­la­tors in seven of the 12 TPP coun­tries issued the fol­low­ing joint state­ment about the negotiations:

We, the under­signed leg­is­la­tors from coun­tries involved in the nego­ti­a­tion of the Trans-Pacific Part­ner­ship Agree­ment, call on the Par­ties to the nego­ti­a­tion to pub­lish the draft text of the Agree­ment before any final agree­ment is signed with suf­fi­cient time to enable effec­tive leg­isla­tive scrutiny and pub­lic debate

We can see from this that oppo­si­tion to the treaty is both con­sis­tent and expand­ing. It is impor­tant to note that in the 20th cen­tury there would have been lit­tle or no way to oppose a treaty like this. One could write a let­ter or lobby in per­son but orga­niz­ing a sig­nif­i­cant pop­u­lar oppo­si­tion was almost impossible.

But the Inter­net has changed more than a few leg­isla­tive inter­ac­tions. The oppo­si­tion of so many peo­ple in Canada, the US and else­where seems to be hav­ing an impact. And even if the treaty does go through, it will have gen­er­ated sig­nif­i­cant oppo­si­tion. This is, in fact, what makes the cur­rent era both dan­ger­ous and promising.

The promise is that the Inter­net Ref­or­ma­tion is mak­ing all sorts of glob­al­ist pro­mo­tions increas­ingly irrel­e­vant. The dan­ger is that these pro­mo­tions are insisted on any­way and that as a result gov­ern­ment loses more and more legit­i­macy. Polls bear this out.

Con­clu­sion: The end result is social chaos. As we often – clearly and strong sug­gest – pro­tect your­self and your fam­ily as best you can. The West (the world) is mov­ing into uncharted waters.

Related Posts

No comments: