Trump withdraws US from Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal

(January 22) The Trump administration announced it will withdraw from the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal and is committed to renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

	1 of 3
The announcement is in keeping with promises Trump made during his campaign for presidency. The announcement said that the withdrawal was meant to protect American jobs and that the U.S. would "crack down on those nations that violate trade agreements and harm American workers in the process". The statement said:

"For too long, Americans have been forced to accept trade deals that put the interests of insiders and the Washington elite over the hard-working men and women of this country. As a result, blue-collar towns and cities have watched their factories close and good-paying jobs move overseas, while Americans face a mounting trade deficit and a devastated manufacturing base..This strategy starts by withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and making certain that any new trade deals are in the interests of American workers."The TPP was signed in Auckland, New Zealand on February 4 2016 but only Japan has ratified it. Obama supported the TPP but was unable to get it ratified. Hillary Clinton at first praised it but then during the election campaign also opposed it along with Trump.

NAFTA was signed by the United States, Mexico, and Canada in 1994. The statement said that the U.S. would withdraw from NAFTA if the U.S. were not able to renegotiate it so as to give US workers a fair deal. U.S. stock markets have risen considerably since Trump was elected. No doubt corporations are looking for tax cuts, a stimulus program and less regulation. But not following through on the TPP and renegotiating NAFTA may send negative signals to markets.

China, notably absent from the TPP may begin to extend trade agreements with other countries in response and take a leadership role in expanding trading relationships. The TPP had been part of the Obama administration's "pivot" to Asia and meant to counter the influence of China. Damon Hunt, spokesperson for the Australian PM said that Trump could have a change of heart and the trade deal could proceed. Trump has been critical of Chinese trade policy and threatened to impose tariffs on Chinese imports. The Chinese have warned that China would retaliate if Trump begins a trade war.

Opening up NAFTA will result not only in demands for changes by Trump but no doubt by Canada and Mexico as well. According to the Council of Canadians only one in four Canadians even support NAFTA. The Council notes some of the negative features:For example, income inequality has worsened considerably in Canada, Mexico and the United States in the past 20 years. Manufacturing jobs have disappeared across the region, leading to a greater economic dependence in Canada on raw resource exports (and in Mexico on punishingly low wages).NAFTA is forged in the interests of global corporations many headquartered in the U.S. The last thing they want is opening up an agreement that was designed in their interests. It is too risky.

Sanders fails to have Democratic Platform directly oppose Trans-Pacific Partnership

Bernie Sanders supporters lost a fight to introduce language into the Democratic Platform that would directly oppose the giant Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal.

The TPP is strongly supported by the Obama administration and business groups but opposed by Sanders supporters and many prominent people including the Nobel Prize winner in Economics Joseph Stiglitz and Elizabeth Warren. Hillary Clinton was originally in favor of the deal but now opposes it. Yet her supporters were instrumental in ensuring that language specifically against the TPP did not make it into the platform.

The platform committee came up with a compromise motion that was critical of "trade agreements that do not support good American jobs." The compromise was reached by labor groups supporting Clinton. The compromise motion was passed by a vote of 116 to 64. Clinton campaign director Maya Harris said:"We are proud to stand with our friends in organized labor in passing a strong amendment to the Democratic platform on all trade deals, including the TPP." The labor leaders did not mention that an anti-TPP vote would embarrass Obama, a strong supporter of the TPP but said the compromise language would do plenty to damage Republican efforts to run on trade. Quite the opposite, the compromise language which does not explicitly condemn the TPP, allows Trump to correctly call.the Democrats complete hypocrites who are not even willing to condemn what they say they do not support. Trump can say that the move shows that Clinton and her supporters do not really oppose the TPP but want to appear to do so in order to get votes. For once, Trump appears to be correct.

In a classic example of goofy spin-doctoring American Federation of Teachers President, Randi Weingartien, said: "We take what Trump has used as a sound bite, and we turn it into a standard." In order that Weingarten not be alone in hypocritical spinning, Lee Saunders, president of the American Federation of State, County,. and Municipal employees, which sponsored the compromise language said: "The trade union movement does not take a back seat to anybody regarding its opposition to bad trade deals." Well surely anyone who is in the front seat must understand that if you oppose the TPP as you do you must be willing to assert that you are, otherwise you will be in the back seat compared to someone like Trump or Sanders, Warren, or Stiglitz who come out and directly oppose it. The trade union leaders responsible for this nonsense congratulated themselves on the motion evading any direct repudiation of the TPP in a joint statement: "Our bold statement in support of fair trade standards for working people passed overwhelmingly, by a count of 117 to 64.”

The Sanders' campaign had generated more than 800,000 anti-TPP signatures but it made no difference. The Sanders forces tried to amend the compromise resolution simply by adding "and thats why we oppose the TPP." After all Clinton herself claims to oppose the TPP. Why can't her platform say it? According to the Washington Post, 90 delegates were supportive of Clinton 72 supported Sanders, and 25 were uncommitted. Sanders' supporters thought that enough of the uncommitted would see the merits of opposing the TPP to pass the amendment.

Ben Jealous, former president of the NAACP introduced the brief amendment, arguing that the party would give away an electoral advantage if it were too slippery on trade. It would create an opening for Donald Trump as a Republican who could campaign for the first time on a bad trade deal. Jealous said: "The majority of Democrats, like the majority of Americans, are against the TPP, Hillary is against the TPP. Bernie is against the TPP. Let’s not be bureaucrats — let’s be leaders." Jealous' amendment garnered just 74 votes. The press always goes on about the failings of Trump, will they similarly rail against the Democratic Party and Clinton who can't bring themselves to put a plank in the party platform that says what they claim, opposition to the TPP.

Jim Hightower, Sanders delegate from Texas moved that there not be any TPP vote in Congress. it was defeated with 71 for and 104 against. Immediately, there was active spinning of what had just happened. Maya Harris, senior policy adviser to the Clinton campaign said that Clinton "is not interested in tinkering around with the margins of the TPP and that the TPP fails the test now laid out in the platform." Clinton does not need to tinker around the margins she just has to come out and oppose the TPP.. No wonder people get fed up with a political establishment that ignores the obvious and tries to manipulate public opinion in a completely hypocritical way and with nonsensical spinning of what happens.

The nonsensical spin was evident too on the Sanders' side, a sign of what the Sanders campaign may be all about. Warren Gunnels, Sanders' policy director said:"The good news is that virtually everyone who spoke during the debate on trade made it clear that they opposed this unfettered free trade agreement.Sen. Sanders, Sec. Clinton and the overwhelming majority of Democrats agree: The TPP should not come up for a vote after the election. If Democrats are going to prevail in November we must make clear to the American people that we stand firmly against the TPP. We will continue fighting to protect American jobs and to ensure Congress does not pass this disastrous trade agreement."The bad news is that Clinton refused to have the Democratic Party clearly say that it opposes the TPP and has left a clear opening for Trump to criticize such rank hypocrisy. As Sanders delegate Robert Kraig put it: "We've had no speech here in favor of TPP, but we can't bring ourselves to say we oppose TPP."

Sanders supporters are expected to bring the issue up for a vote again at the Democratic Convention to be held in Philadelphia July 25th to 28th.

Opposition growing to giant Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Deal

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a trade agreement among 12 Pacific Rim countries. It was signed in February this year in Auckland New Zealand. It took seven years of negotiations to arrive at the agreement.

 

There are 30 chapters to the agreement mainly concerned with public policy. The stated goals of the TPP are to:

.. "promote economic growth; support the creation and retention of jobs; enhance innovation, productivity and competitiveness; raise living standards; reduce poverty in our countries; and promote transparency, good governance, and enhanced labor and environmental protections."

While this all sounds very positive, there have been many critics of the TPP in Canada, the U.S. and elsewhere. Joseph Stiglitz, a distinguished economist who won a Nobel Prize, said the TPP could well be the worst trade agreement ever negotiated and should be renegotiated: "I think what Canada should do is use its influence to begin a renegotiation of TPP to make it an agreement that advances the interests of Canadian citizens and not just the large corporations." In particular, Stiglitz took issue with the investment-protection provisions, which would limit how governments could regulate businesses. The provisions give multinationals the right to sue the Canadian government or other governments who signed the agreement. As Stiglitzremarks:"It used to be the basic principle was polluter pay. If you damaged the environment, then you have to pay. Now if you pass a regulation that restricts ability to pollute or does something about climate change, you could be sued and could pay billions of dollars."

The Council of Canadians has long been critical of the TPP:

The Council of Canadians opposes this deal because it includes an investor-state dispute settlement provision that allows transnational corporations to sue governments over legislation or policies made in the public interest, it extends the patent length (and profits) of pharmaceutical corporations by delaying the introduction of lower cost generic drugs, it slashes the domestic content requirement for automobiles, putting thousands of autoworker jobs at risks, and it undermines family farmers by opening up the Canadian dairy market to imports without creating new export markets for Canadian farmers.A more detailed explanation of the effects on Canadian automakers can be found here.

A recent critique of the TPP by well-known activist Linda McQuaig can be found in the Toronto Star. McQuaig notes the legal rights that the TPP grants corporations, repeating Stiglitz's criticism that the decisions would be decided by closed tribunals. She cites a report by Gus Van Harlen of Osgoode Hall, a law professor.

Harlen examined how corporations have taken advantage of such legal rights under NAFTA the North American Free Trade Agreement. Canada has been sued 39 times and investors have won more than $190 million in compensation from Canadian taxpayers.

Lone Pine Resources has challenged fracking regulations in Canada. Trans-Canada is suing the U.S. for $15 billion for Obama's decision to not approve the Keystone pipeline. As Van Harten notes: And the cases are decided by private sector lawyers acting as arbitrators. Unlike regular judges, these arbitrators, paid exorbitant hourly rates, have a direct financial interest in encouraging foreign investors to bring claims and to stretch them out, and have so far earned “well over $1 billion in fees",

Bernie Sanders, rival candidate to Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party nomination for president of the U.S., has been a strong critic of the TPP and is pushing to have a plank in the Democratic election platform opposing a vote on the TPP. President Obama is a strong proponent of the TPP as Hillary Clinton was until recently. She now opposes it. However, the party seems reluctant to come out in direct opposition to president Obama:While Sanders won many concessions in the draft platform released July 1, including language promoting a $15-an-hour minimum wage, the document doesn't come out against the TPP. A platform opposing the trade deal would put the party in direct opposition of its leader, Obama.

At a meeting in St. Louis on June 24, those present produced a draft of the Democratic party election platform. Representative Keith Ellison introduced language opposing the TPP. His motion was defeated by a vote of 10 to five, with only the five pro-Sanders members voting in favor. This may be a prelude to this weekend when the full 187 platform members meet in Orlando Florida. If Clinton organizes her supporters to prevent opposition to the TPP from being part of the Democratic platform this will be seized upon by Republican nominee Donald Trump, who has made opposition to the deal a key part of his campaign. He will immediately accuse Clinton of not really being in opposition to the TPP. The move will also alienate Sanders' supporters.

The New York Times and others claim that Sanders is expected to endorse Clinton next week. If the Democratic Platform fails to oppose the TPP, Sanders may find it difficult to support her. If he does, his own followers will be angry. Elizabeth Warren is also a strong critic of the TPP.

UPDATE: Clinton supporters made sure motion opposing TPP was voted down. Will Sanders still support her? Trump will have a field day. Clinton obviously does not really oppose the TPP, it is a move to get some votes.

TPP will lessen competition and reduce democracy as well

The announcement that an agreement was reached by the 12 nations negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership(TPP) has resulted in considerable discussion and debate on the pact.

+ Add Image

The text of the agreement has never been made public and it is not clear when the text will be released. The details released are probably released by parties whose interests are involved. Many critics of the TPP complain about the secrecy and lack of transparency in the process. There is much discussion of the impact of the deal on agriculture sectors such as dairy farmers who have a supply-managed system. While the agreement does open the system somewhat to allow more imported products into Canada, the basic supply management system remains. The negative impact of the changes will be muted through compensation paid to the industry courtesy of the Canadian taxpayer. The auto parts industry will also be hurt with many jobs lost. Again Harper promises billions of taxpayer money to mute the negative impact.

There is less discussion of other significant aspects of the agreement. The TPP, as with other trade agreements such as NAFTA, is less about free trade and more about placing the power of global corporations beyond the reach of democratic governments. Ironically, our government quite consciously bargains away our right to pass laws and regulations as we see fit. If we pass laws or regulations which are considered inconsistent with the TPP, a foreign corporation can sue Canada.

A leaked text of part of the TPP includes an investor-state dispute settlement(ISDS) very much like the already existing mechanism in Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Wikipedia describes an ISDS as follows: Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) is an instrument of public international law, that grants an investor the right to use dispute settlement proceedings against a foreign government. Provisions for ISDS are contained in a number of bilateral investment treaties, in certain international trade treaties, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (Chapter 11)...If an investor from one country (the "Home State") invests in another country (the "Host State"), both of which have agreed to ISDS, and the Host State violates the rights granted to the investor under public international law, then that investor may bring the matter before an arbitral tribunal.As mentioned, NAFTA contains such a provision.

There have been many cases in which Canada has been sued by foreign corporations. In August 2008 Dow Chemicals submitted a claim for losses caused by a Quebec ban on the sale and certain uses of pesticides containing 2-4 D. In this case, the two sides reached a settlement accepted by the tribunal. States cannot sue corporations under the ISDS nor can they receive any compensation should a corporation lose except for their legal costs in some cases.

Canada has already lost seven cases under the ISDS process and paid out damages of $190 million and who knows how much in legal fees. One case filed against Canada challenges a Quebec ban on oil and gas fracking in the province. An analysis of cases under the NAFTA provisions can be found here:This study documents the 77 known NAFTA investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) claims up to January 1 2015. These include 35 against Canada, 20 against the U.S., and 22 against Mexico. Canada has paid out NAFTA damages totaling over $CAD172 million, while Mexico has paid damages of $US204 million. The U.S. has yet to lose a NAFTA chapter 11 case. All three governments have incurred tens of millions of dollars in legal costs to defend themselves against investor claims.

In Europe, the issue of ISDS mechanisms has been hotly debated The EU parliament has passed a resolution that will require replacing an ISDS system in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnersip(TTIP) ".. by a new public and transparent system of investment protection, in which private interests cannot undermine public policy and which is subject to public law." Brazil refuses to sign any treaty with ISDS clauses. South Africa intends to withdraw from any treaties that have ISDS clauses. In Canada the politicians of the major parties appear to think the issue is not worth bringing into public debate. What is significant are issues that impact specific interests such as the dairy industry or auto industry, where the parties might win or lose votes if they take the wrong position. That the democratic system itself is endangered and more power given to global corporations does not seem important.

If provisions in the TPP allow more penetration of global corporations into new markets such as the Canadian dairy and auto industry then competition will be fostered but in general the exact opposite is the case. In any free trade deal there are always clauses extending copyright and patent lengths, giving corporations monopoly rights over their products. We can expect the costs of drugs to our health care system to increase dramatically as a result of the TPP. It will become more difficult for producers of less expensive generic drugs to be able to replace drugs protected by patents. Protection of copyright terms in the TPP will prevent free or less expensive copied version of items:In the area of copyright, the TPP would require far longer terms of protection than what Canadians agreed to in a parliamentary copyright law review that only wrapped up recently. To smooth the way for the TPP, the federal government has already agreed, in the latest omnibus budget bill, to extend copyright terms for audio recordings from 50 to 70 years. The TPP could also require protection for controversial “digital locks,” which allow copyright holders to encrypt software in computerized devices and criminalize its circumvention.We do not know exactly what will be in the final text. With provisions such as these in the leaked text, it is not surprising that the final text will probably not be released until after the election.

Limited criticism of TPP during Federal Election campaign

The three major parties, Liberals, Conservatives, and NDP basically support the huge Trans Pacific Partnership(TPP) trade deal even though auto parts companies and dairy producers have expressed concerns about it along with many other critics.

 

+ Add Image

Only the Green Party's Elizabeth May has directly opposed the TTP and is critical of other trade deals as well. A video summarizing some of the problems with the TPP from the Green Party website is appended. The situation with respect to the three major parties is summed up by Thomas Walkom in an article published back in August: Aside from some comments on the need to protect farmers and the need for more transparency during the negotiations, the Liberal party supports the TPP. Likewise, the NDP have also come out in favour of the TPP, only criticizing the Conservative negotiators and likewise emphasising the need to defend farmers. Substantive criticism of the TPP has largely been confined to groups such as the Council of Canadians and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Given the magnitude of the deal, this is insufficient.

Thomas Mulcair seems determined to show he is in favour of "free trade" and orthodox in his economic views. He says the NDP is "enthusiastically in favour" of the TPP but also expresses concern for protecting areas in the Canadian economy where there is supply management as in dairy farming. This is particularly significant in Quebec. Mulcair said:"Supply management is something that has allowed Canadian farming families to hold on to their farms, despite the ups and downs … and lots of those farmers are worried. We've met them in southern Ontario, we met them here in Quebec, and we're going to stand up strongly and defend every step of the way our supply management system."The auto sector is also concerned about what effect the TPP would have on it. Both the Liberals and the NDP have complained about the lack of transparency in the negotiations as well. However, they have come out overall in favour of the agreement without even talking about the huge problems in the agreement as a whole. The parties seem to worry most about specific interests that have some political clout such as dairy farmers, or the auto sector.

As Walkom points out, the TPP could have huge implications for the cost of prescription drugs, making them much more expensive and even sabotage provincial efforts to build a national pharmacare system. U.S. negotiators are reportedly demanding that pharmaceutical giants be given even greater protection for new drugs. The suggested rules would make it very expensive to produce generic versions of these drugs which otherwise would be much cheaper. Australia, which has a national pharmacare program, is very much opposed to these changes. We do not know what Canada's position is.

Advocates of the TPP note the huge trading area that Canada would have access to with 12 countries involved including the U.S., Australia, Mexico, Japan, and Malaysia among others. Some critics claim leaked rules show that domestic laws and regulations would need to conform to TPP rules. There is to be an investor-state settlement mechanism that could be used to "attack domestic public interest laws." These types of mechanisms exist in other international trade agreements. In 2013 Nobel-prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz claimed that based on leaked drafts, the TPP agreement posed "grave risks" and "serves the interest of the wealthiest." It does so through serving the interests of huge global corporations, providing them with extended rights and limiting the power of democracies to pass laws that might conflict with their interests.Noam Chomsky said in 2014 that the TPP is "designed to carry forward the neoliberal project to maximise profit and domination, and to set the working people in the world in competition with one another so as to lower wages to increase insecurity." Further concerns about the TPP can be found at the Council of Canadians, and this Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives article.

Lobbyists' funds help pass "fast track" trade legislation in US Congress

The Obama administration, after a prolonged battle, was able to pass "fast-track" authority for the Transpacific-Partnership trade deal by a vote of 62 to 37 in the U.S. Senate.

+ Add Image

This will allow the Obama administration to complete the deal with Congress only being able to vote for or against the bill with no amendments or filibuster. The battle will now shift to the House of Representatives where Obama will face strong opposition from the ranks of his own party and from some on the Republican right. The bill has much more support among Republicans than Democrats. The vote in the Senate to approve the bill was no doubt in part the result of large payments to Senators. The Guardian newspaper reports:Using data from the Federal Election Commission, this chart shows all donations that corporate members of the US Business Coalition for TPP made to US Senate campaigns between January and March 2015, when fast-tracking the TPP was being debated in the Senate:Out of the total $1,148,971 given, an average of $17,676.48 was donated to each of the 65 “yea” votes. The average Republican member received $19,673.28 from corporate TPP supporters.

The average Democrat received $9,689.23 from those same donors.The complete data can be found here.

Among Democrats, Senator Warren has been one of the leading and harshest critics of the TPP. Nancy Pelosi the Democratic minority leader in the House said that John Boehner the House Speaker would need 200 Republican votes to win the 217 votes he needs. Obama is having a battle to win over new converts within his own party. Pelosi has yet to declare her own position.

A few Republican conservatives apparently oppose the bill simply because they do not want to support Obama on anything. Hillary Clinton, has been vague in her responses to the issue. Certainly she has not come out with criticisms as her supporter Elizabeth Warren has done. In the past, Clinton was a cheerleader for the TPP but in order to further her campaign for the presidential nomination she must throw out some crumbs to the Democratic base of union member and environmentalists who are generally opposed to the TPP:The problem for Clinton is that she has historically backed free-trade deals, and as secretary of state called the TPP "the gold standard in trade agreements." Yet her campaign's big push over the last week or two has been to prove her liberal bona fides.

In the House, there are about 20 Democrats in favor of the bill and less than a dozen still undecided. Those supporting the bill say that they need at least 25 Democrats with 30 even better to pass the bill. Thirty to forty Republicans are expected to oppose the bill. The passage of the bill in Senate was aided by a measure called Trade Adjustment Assistance(TAA) that would assist workers who might be displaced as a result of the agreement. Many Republican oppose the provision. The House leadership might possibly divide the question to allow separate votes on the TAA and the bill itself. Some Democrats also oppose the TAA because it would be partly funded by Medicare cuts.

Opponents of the legislation point out that corporations could use TPP provisions to challenge U.S. regulations governing food safety or pesticide us:The TPP would allow foreign corporations to challenge any U.S. food safety regulation on pesticide use or processing that exceeds international standards. In turn, any U.S. food safety rule could be challenged as an illegal trade barrier, which ultimately might force the U.S. to allow unsafe food products to be imported under the threat of trade sanctions.Senator Warren has demanded that Obama end what she calls the secret deals involved in the TPP and allow for public input in the negotiation process.

Opponents of the TPP may have a problem mobilizing the general public against the bill since a recent Pew Research Center poll showed that 58 percent of Americans, including a majority of Democrats, thought that free trade agreements had been good for the U.S. The issue of global trade ranked 23rd among priorities of Americans for the Congress and president.

Obama lashes out at critics of TPP trade deal

There is bipartisan support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership(TPP) free trade involving 12 countries in the Asia-Pacific region but many US liberals, environmentalists, and unions are against the deal.

 

+ Add Image

In a recent speech, Obama went as far as to compare his left critics' arguments to conspiracy theories about the "death panels" raised by some on the right about Obamacare. He claimed that his critics did not know what they were talking about. Obama is hoping to get "fast track" authority which would prevent Congress from amending the treaty with only the ability to pass or vote down the final result. Critics argue that the TPP would benefit corporations and also foreign countries at the expense of US workers. Certainly, capital would be the main beneficiary of the deal. As with earlier deals that are part of globalization they result in capital moving to areas where conditions are most favorable to it. This deal is also meant to give US multinationals an advantage over China since China is not part of the deal.

The TTP has been in the process of negotiation for a decade now. In spite of Obama's claim that the text of the deal has been available for some time, critics have long complained about the secrecy surrounding negotiations. It has been leakage of the documents including leaks through Wikileaks that critics have discovered details of what is being negotiated. Obama may be referring to general summaries that have been released:General outlines and summaries of the agreement have been provided by those conducting negotiations, but the full text of the agreement has been kept secret. However, some portions of the full agreement have been leaked to the public.

In spite of the opposition of many in the Democratic base of environmentalists, unions, and liberals, Obama presented a narrative about helping the working class: “When people say that this trade deal is bad for working families, they don’t know what they’re talking about. So I take that personally. My entire presidency has been about helping working families. Some of these folks are friends of mine. I love them to death. But in the same way that when I was arguing for health care reform I asked people to look at the facts – somebody comes up with a slogan like ‘death panel,’ doesn’t mean it’s true. Look at the facts. The same thing is true on this. Look at the facts. Don’t just throw a bunch of stuff out there and see if it sticks,”Obama even said there was nothing secret about the deal in spite of the fact that much of what is known about it comes from illegally leaked documents.

Becky Bond, of CREDO Action, claimed with others that Obama's remarks were beneath the presidency noting . “It’s ironic that he claims critics of the TPP ‘don’t know what they’re talking about’ when it’s his administration that is refusing to release the text of his secret trade agreement to the public or even to members of Congress,” Roger Hickey of the Campaign for America's Future said: “The president is frustrated. He’s losing the argument and he’s crosswise with his supporters and it’s unfortunate that he’s basically calling people names.It’s not smart politics to insult the people who have been your supporters, and especially with something like death panels. Most of the people who are fighting Obama’s trade policy are the people who were fighting back against the right-wingers who called his health plan ‘death panels."

The White House just keeps to its own line that the TPP is the most progressive trade deal in history and includes strict labor and environmental protects. It does not mention the laws in particular countries which went beyond those strict regulations would face challenges as being illegitimate barriers to trade. The White House spokesperson went on to praise Obama's impeccable progressive credentials. After all, he promised to close Guantanamo and has a marvelous health care plan including an individual mandate first thought up by the Heritage Institute a right-wing think tank. Josh Earnest, the White House spokesperson crowed: “The president has rightly built up significant credibility with progressives all across the country. And he feels confident in making the case to them and to the rest of the American people that the kind of agreement that he seeks is clearly in the best interest of American businesses, American workers and American middle class families,The president isn’t doing this because he enjoys the support of the Chamber of Commerce, he’s doing this because he has earned the support of middle class families across the country. And he’s earned that support by using the power of the presidency to go and fight for them." Notice the emphasis upon middle class families a theme that will no doubt continue throughout the Democratic election campaign.

Hillary Clinton has said little on the issue, but earlier she had high praise for Obama's proposed trade agreements including the TPP. and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Spokesperson for the White House Eric Schultz said that he had seen no distance between Clinton's position and that of the Obama administration. Even if Clinton does decide that the political winds in the Democratic Party demand criticism of the bill, this will be for purely political purposes. As a candidate for the presidency in 2008 Barack Obama criticized NAFTA and insisted he would renegotiate it if elected. At the same time, his aides met with Canadian authorities to assure them that his rhetoric was "more reflective of political maneuvering than policy." Elizabeth Warren responded to Obama's criticism with a letter pointing out how wrong Obama was in description of the deal and his critics. She noted that the details of the deal were classified and called upon him to declassify them noting that the Obama administration was more secretive on this trade deal than the Bush administration had been on his deals. But then who does Warren support for president but Hillary Clinton. No matter what happens within the two parties both supported, lobbied, and to a considerable extent funded by giant corporations, government of the people, for the corporations, by the corporations is likely to continue for the foreseeable future in the US. Elizabeth Warren's interview illustrates some of the facts that guarantee this.

Free Trade agreements grant new rights to corporations

Free Trade agreements are in many respects less about free trade than providing rights for corporations that transcend national laws. The TTIP provides a case in point but NAFTA and CETA have similar purposes.

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership(TTIP) allows corporations to sue governments technology writer, Glyn Moody claims. This could happen when corporations think that there had been an "indirect expropriation" of future profits through government action.  

]A case in point could be the British National Health Service(NHS) if it should be privatized. Supporters of the TTIP point out that as it is now, the Health Service will not be directly affected by the TTIP agreement. One chapter of the TTIP is about the "investor dispute settlement" a feature common to a number of free trade agreements. The section as with many parts of free trade agreements is more about giving corporations rights to override national laws than anything to do with free trade. If a company thinks that it has lost future profits through government action such as taking what is now private into the public sector it can sue the government to recover those expected future profits. 

Already there has been some privatization within the NHS. Should a future government try to reverse the privatization it could be immediately sued by the private companies that would lose future profits through this action. What the section does is basically lock in privatization unless the government is willing to pay billions of euros to settle any resulting lawsuits filed by companies that would lose future profits in the process. From the corporate point of view the provision protects them from any government that might want to reverse privatization. However it also prevents governments from taking any new sectors into the private sector, since any businesses who could claim to lose future profits from taking services into the public sector could use the provisions of TTIP to bring suit against the government.

 The UK trade minister claims that those against TTIP are motivated by dislike of America. However, there is the same concern about the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) an agreement between Canada and Europe. There have also been concerns expressed about similar provisions in the existing North American Free Trade Agreement {NAFTA) between the US, Canada, and Mexico. The opposition to these types of agreement has nothing to do with antipathy towards a particular country but antipathy towards provisions that allow corporations to sue countries when they democratically pass certain laws.

 Even environmental regulations could be challenged as creating barriers to trade. This has already happened with NAFTA: The “investor-state” provision of NAFTA’s Chapter 11 was innovative, allowing companies to bypass governments and court systems and sue for injury due to ‘indirect’ expropriation — harm to the present or expected interests — due to government regulation. As University of Victoria Law professor Chris Tollefson has pointed out, NAFTA vests “in essentially unaccountable tribunals the authority to constitute themselves as courts of appeal with powers to adjudicate key domestic legal issues.” In the recent suit of the Metalclad Corp against a Mexican municipality, “the Tribunal decided … that municipal governments have no right to insist that foreign investors address local environmental and public health concerns, even though this conclusion was strenuously disputed by the Mexican government.” (Choices, IRPP, March, 2003) 

 Both Ontario when Bob Rae was the NDP premier and more recently New Brunswick campaigned for public auto insurance but neither went ahead to carry out their promises even though four provinces already had variations on this type of insurance before NAFTA came into force. Now any attempt to implement such plans could result in lawsuits under NAFTA. The suits might not be successful but just the threat of them has been enough to prevent any move to extend the popular insurance systems to other provinces.  

This article sums up the issue, noting that these free trade agreements give corporations power to claim damages against countries that pass laws that may harm their profits: ".. if you are a multinational corporation covered by NAFTA, or CETA if it gets put into place, then corporations have the right to go over the heads of government and courts, to an all powerful tribunal of trade lawyers and experts, three people who can ignore the decisions of Parliaments, courts, the Supreme Court, and give the company money for being so wronged by valid laws and strong systems of justice." The appended video below shows some of the other possible negative effects of CETA. A second video discusses the similar trade agreement for the Pacific Area the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP).

New negotiations for TPP at Leesburg Virginia Sept 6 to Sept. 15

A recent negotiating round of the Trans-Pacific Partnership took place in Leesburg, Virginia from September 6th through to September 15th.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a free trade agreement being negotiated with a total of eleven different Pacific Rim countries up to now. The negotiations began with just four countries but new countries keep joining in. As of now the following countries are invovlved: Brunei, Chile, Singapore, New Zealand, U.S., Australia, Peru, Vietnam, Malaysia, Mexico, and Canada. The TPP is describe by Wikipedia as follows:

In 2007, negotiations began for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a significantly expanded version of the agreement, encompassing a larger group of countries. These ongoing negotiations have drawn criticism and protest from the public and elected officials, in part due to the secrecy of the negotiations and a number of controversial clauses in draft agreements leaked to the public. 'Of the 26 chapters under negotiation, only a few have to do directly with trade. The other chapters enshrine new rights and privileges for major corporations while weakening the power of nation states to oppose them.'[2]

On Sunday September 9 the United States Trade Representative's office held what it calls a Direct Stakeholder Engagement. The event is to allow various stakeholders to talk with negotiators one-on-one, to raise questions and share views.

There were dozens of groups represented at the 'stakeholder forum' including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce but also the Brotherhood of Teamsters. Almost 150 representatives of different interested groups gathered in a protest on a hillside after the stakeholder forum. They called for proposals being negotiated to be made public and chanted: "Flush the TPP"

Arthur Stamoulis of the Washington-based Citizens Trade Campaign who organized the protest said:“We want negotiators to release the text, to tell people what they’re proposing in our names."

Transparency has long been an issue. Many consumer, labor, environmental groups, and even some U.S. politicians want positions of participants to be made public. The TPP is supposed to be a model for future pacts. Obama hopes to double U.S. exports by 2014. However, many aspects of the negotiations concern issues other than trade especially intellectual property rights.

Sixty different groups made presentations at the forum with varying agendas from Friends of the Earth to the American Automotive Policy Council. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce along with the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America asked that the agreement contain strong protections for copyrights and patents. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said of the negotiations:

“This free-trade agreement is central to America’s economic vision in Asia. By reducing market distortions and leveling the playing field, the TPP will raise the bar for competition in a way that benefits every economy in the region, whether it is an active partner in the TPP or not.”

Global capital will not need a world government to ensure there are global regulations that are in its own interest. These regulations can be achieved by free trade deals that will do an end run around national laws and regulations.