General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA Corporate Coup of a Different Order: The Growing Resistance to the Trans-Pacific Partnership
Transparency was supposed to be a White House priority from the very start. In his first inaugural address, when the world celebrated an historic and improbable election, Barack Obama made the case for how an open government was necessary to earn the trust of the people.[1] The next day, he issued a memo that asserted his commitment to creating an unprecedented level of openness.[2] And in February, more than four years later, President Obama claimed his to be the most transparent administration in history.[3]
Perhaps the least publicized example of that statements dishonesty is the White Houses efforts to negotiate the biggest trade agreement since the mid 1990s in near-total secrecy.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, has been in negotiations since 2007. In November 2009 the Obama administration made it a centerpiece of the United States Trade Representatives (USTR) work.[4] The 12 countries currently negotiating the deal, which include Australia, Chile, Japan, and Singapore, account for nearly 40% of the global economy and one-third of international trade.[5] Yet to characterize the TPP as a trade deal is imprecise, if not disingenuous. The agreement has less to do with the exchange of goods than with altering regulations covering medicine, agriculture, finance, intellectual property, and labor and environmental standards. For example, under the TPP, if a U.S. law conflicted with the pacts mandates, foreign investors could sue through an independent tribunal to re-coup their so-called expected future profits. The TPP stands as a threat to sovereignty at the federal, state and local level.
Prying at the Text
Despite its claims to the contrary, the Obama administration has been far less transparent on trade-related deals than its predecessors. In 2001, during negotiations over the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), George W. Bushs trade representative made the deals working text public, with some redactions so as to preserve anonymity. The current administration has so far refused demands to release the text. What little is known about the deal is based on the generalized testimony of those who have seen the text and on portions that have been anonymously leaked.
Frustration and outrage have been building. In March of this year, 400 civil society groups, including the Sierra Club and Global Exchange, signed a letter deploring the administrations secrecy and demanding a public debate around the deal.[6] Even members of Congress have been denied access to the text, and those who have seen parts of it have been unable to share it with their assistants because of its classified status. In June, two-thirds of Democratic freshmen in the House of Representatives signed a letter to party leadership about the lack of debate.[7] Shortly thereafter, in response to a wave of citizen comments, the USTR gave Representative Alan Grayson access to the TPPs text. In an email to supporters, he wrote that the TPP hands the sovereignty of our country over to corporate interests.[8]
<snip>
http://www.towardfreedom.com/home/globalism/3382-a-corporate-coup-of-a-different-order-the-growing-resistance-to-the-trans-pacific-partnership
this is a long, immaculately researched piece; one of the best I've read on the TPP- and you know I've read a lot.
GeorgeGist
(25,322 posts)sorry, I'm drawing a blank.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)Oh and K&R
cali
(114,904 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I generally think Free Trade is a good thing, tying economies together. Our economies are going to be tied together anyway - it's a global market - so let's have something that's regulated.
And if you are going to negotiate a settlement between different nations with different political systems and customs - there's a rationale to not doing it in the public eye. Discussions and counter offers would be taken apart in the press which would narrow considerably the range of discussion.
That said, the information we do have about this deal, particularly the bit referenced (where you would be able to sue against future profits for labor or environmental regulations) is just terrible. That's not Free trade - that's us imposing our will on other nations or corporations imposing their will on our local governments and states.
Bryant
cali
(114,904 posts)is that the TPP is not really a trade agreement. Evidently only a few chapters out of 20+ deal with actual trade issues like tariffs.
Your point about there being acceptable reasons for not discussing the details in public would hold much more weight if Congress hadn't been shut out and if there were fewer corporate advisors (they have access to the drafts) and more advocates for labor, the environment and the public welfare.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)labor, the environment and public welfare, but there are good reasons to question that.
Bryant
bullwinkle428
(20,629 posts)was speaking out VERY STRONGLY against the TPP! Sounds like he intends to keep talking about it until it comes to an end one way or another.
cali
(114,904 posts)I don't listen to Schultz, but it's a good thing that he's raising the profile of this issue. I believe that the TPP is about to enter the political debate in a major way. To date, the U.S. media has barely touched it. I think that's going to change within the next few months.
antigop
(12,778 posts)olegramps
(8,200 posts)I urge everyone to email Obama that this lack of transparency is unacceptable. Everyone of these lousy trade agreements have resulted in loss of American jobs. NAFTA alone cost us around 700,000 jobs. The unions have come out against both of these so-called Pacts.
Obama talks about saving the Middle Class and creating jobs while secretly engaging in negotiations that will put us at a distinct disadvantage to countries that pay peon wages, have no safety rules, and where workers work 60-80 hours a week for starvation wages. This is just another rip off by the corporations to out-source jobs. The rush to the bottom will only result in American citizens enjoying the same standard of living that the workers in other countries suffer.
BelgianMadCow
(5,379 posts)"In reality, this trade agreement is not about promoting prosperity for all, but powerful industry lobbies trying to dodge regulation".
Given the EU's traditional strong unions and regulations, I'd guess that the TTIP will be a little less bad, but both are clearly similar in scope and goal.
jsr
(7,712 posts)CK_John
(10,005 posts)cause and always reactive instead of providing leadership.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)the author of this OP http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023737827#post2
And Cali, saw your AtA thread, let me know where to sign for that trade group to get approved.
From the article:
As always, thanks for doing the heavy lifting on this one, Cali.