If You Thought NAFTA Was Bad, You Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/hot-news-views/if-you-thought-nafta-was-bad-you-aint-seen-nothing-yet

Although no one in the media seems to be talking about it, a meeting is taking place in Virginia that could cement the same economic interests that lead us to the 2007 crisis. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)being negotiated by 13 countries would lead to increased gas exports and increased imported foods, while undermining our domestic laws and increasing the financialization of nature.

The secretive talks are in their 14th round, having begun under George W. Bush in 2008, and have so far managed to avoid real scrutiny. Little of the document being negotiated has been made publicly available, but what we do know is frightening. The TPP would go well beyond NAFTA tearing down protections in the areas of financial services, telecommunications and intellectual property. It would create free trade for dairy, sugar and textiles. American manufacturers and farmers would suffer, while Wall Street banks reap huge profits and move more operations offshore.

The TPP is being sold as just another “free trade” agreement. But don’t be fooled, it’s so much more. Only two of the twenty-six chapters of the agreement are directly trade related.

In reality the TPP would be a permanent power grab by greedy corporations and their financers that would make it impossible for future generations to choose what laws and rules they want to live under. The TPP would permanently enshrine the very economic system that has lead to greater imbalances in income and wealth and increasing economic crises – all enforced by new international tribunals akin to the WTO. It’s outrageous.

[Ilsa]

1. How does this process work?

Who negotiates? Then it must be ratified? How would it be enforced, especially the parts that weaken our EPA laws, etc?

[Citizen Worker]

7. The way trade agreements work in resolving disputes: a complainant corporation files a complaint

with the dispute resolution body of the trade regime. Like the WTO the TPP will probably be located in Switzerland. The dispute resolution body then investigates and complaint and issues a finding. If the finding were to identify the US as an offender of the trade regime a fine will be issued by the body and the US would have to pay.
The purpose of these so called trade agreements is not the elimination of tariffs but rather the elimination of non-tariff trade barriers. Think about what that means for a few minutes and you'll easily come up with a long list. For instance, clean air and clean water regulations would probably be considered non-tariff trade barriers as would the levying of corporate taxes to pay for parks, schools, minimum wage laws, OSHA, EPA, etc. Union contracts would fall under the non-tariff trade barrier definition. If we want clean air and clean water the costs and burden will fall upon the public to foot the bill, corporations will held harmless. What these agreements are really about is the elimination of the external costs of production.
These trade agreements are the reason why we've had this all out attack on regulations for the last three decades. We are being manipulated into agreement that regulations are bad for business thus paving the way for the passage of these agreements without public protest.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

8. There is cause for concern, but your characterization goes beyond the facts. nt.

[bvar22]

17. Could you be more specific?

Blanket allegations without support are worthless,
and at one time weren't tolerated at DU.

I found the post you are attacking to be On Point considering what we have learned about NAFTA.

"Chapter Eleven of the North American Free Trade Agreement (the "NAFTA&quot contains provisions -+
designed to protect cross-border investors and facilitate the settlement of investment disputes. For example, each NAFTA Party must accord investors from the other NAFTA Parties national (i.e. non-discriminatory) treatment and may not expropriate investments of those investors except in accordance with international law. Chapter Eleven permits an investor of one NAFTA Party to seek money damages for measures of one of the other NAFTA Parties that allegedly violate those and other provisions of Chapter Eleven. Investors may initiate an arbitration against the NAFTA Party under the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law ("UNCITRAL Rules&quot or the Arbitration (Additional Facility) Rules of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes ("ICSID Additional Facility Rules&quot ."

http://www.state.gov/s/l/c3439.htm

There is NO provision for citizens of a country to file charges against an offending corporation for violation of Human Rights or Environmental Protections.

"The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) includes an array of new corporate investment rights and protections that are unprecedented in scope and power. NAFTA allows corporations to sue the national government of a NAFTA country in secret arbitration tribunals if they feel that a regulation or government decision affects their investment in conflict with these new NAFTA rights. If a corporation wins, the taxpayers of the "losing" NAFTA nation must foot the bill. This extraordinary attack on governments' ability to regulate in the public interest is a key element of recent and proposed NAFTA expansions like the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and agreements with Peru, Panama and Colombia.

NAFTA's investment chapter (Chapter 11) contains a variety of new rights and protections for investors and investments in NAFTA countries. If a company believes that a NAFTA government has violated these new investor rights and protections, it can initiate a binding dispute resolution process for monetary damages before a trade tribunal, offering none of the basic due process or openness guarantees afforded in national courts. These so-called "investor-to-state" cases are litigated in the special international arbitration bodies of the World Bank and the United Nations, which are closed to public participation, observation and input. A three-person panel composed of professional arbitrators listens to arguments in the case, with powers to award an unlimited amount of taxpayer dollars to corporations whose NAFTA investor privileges and rights they judge to have been impacted."

http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=1218

NAFTA Chapter 11 "arbitration" is held behind closed doors without representation for the citizens of the "offending" countries.Only representatives of the Global Corporations, representatives of the offending government (more global corporatists), and the Chapter 11 "judges", also members of the Global Corporations selected from a pool of International Corporatists, are present at the secret tribunals.

NAFTA Chapter 11 "arbitration" is above and beyond mere borders and countries,
and has the power to levy taxes (fines) against the citizens of countries that they find are hampering the flow of profits to global corporations.

"Free Trade" is a SCAM designed by RICH Corporate Owners to maximize PROFITS, bust UNIONS, and avoid Human Rights, Environmental Regulations, and local taxes. They used Smooth Talking Politicians to SELL it to a gullible American public.
The SCAM has worked PERFECTLY.


[font size=4]The Graven Image....

...on the altar of the New Church of Free Trade[/font]

Sorry Virginia,
but there is NO Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, or a Giant Invisible Hand.
They made that shit up!




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Ilsa]

16. Thank you! That was

An excellent and clear response. I think I can see how far reaching this burden could get.

Who is at the negotiating table? Our govt officials who have been lobbied and brainwashed? Any elected persons subject to influence of PAC money?

[limpyhobbler]

2. sounds pretty dangerous. Let's get out of it.

Too bad nobody cares what we think. This never really came up for a vote. It was never an election issue. They're just plowing ahead. Some fucking democracy. If this had to face a national referendum it wouldn't stand a chance of passing.

[xchrom]

4. it's funny there have been a couple of pretty large protests against TPP in san diego

but you never hear about it -- or politicians addressing their concerns.

[Kolesar]

3. That commentary really doesn't say very much

Presumably, there is a loss of sovereignty, but the author doesn't describe how.
Dont bother

[JDPriestly]

6. Same way as with NAFTA.

Article VI of our Constitution states:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi

Trade agreements that are ratified by Congress may have the force of treaties. They usually require signatory countries to do away with trade "barriers" of various kinds and trade fairly -- which may, depending on the wording of the treaty, mean that a country cannot protect its trade by, say limiting the exploitation of certain of its resources in order to protect its environment.

To insure compliance by all parties, we usually agree to allow an international court rule on controversies over compliance by the parties to the agreement including that of our own country.

Under Article VI of the Constitution, which I quoted above, these agreements may be considered to have the force of a treaty. Unless they do, in fact, they are rather useless precisely because we agree to follow them, but don't agree fully to their enforcement. Usually we agree to allow international bodies such as courts to enforce them against us.

If the agreement is ratified as a treaty, it is, in terms of the hierarchy of our laws, considered under our Constitution to be, along with our Constitution itself, the highest law of the land. If there is a conflict between a local or state law, say on the environment or the labeling of food or licensing of trucks and drivers, then the agreement and therefore, the rulings of the international court, are enforced and the conflicting local or state laws are null and void.

For slightly different reasons, conflicting federal laws are also disavowed and made pretty much null and void.

Thus, the rulings of the international court charged with enforcing the terms of the agreement/treaty supersede our local laws, regulations, ordinances, our state laws, regulations and ordinances.

That is why these international trade agreements, once ratified as treaties, pose a threat to our national sovereignty, our ability to govern ourselves. The NAFTA Agreement for instance requires signatory nations to submit to and comply with the rulings of a NAFTA court.

Why do we enter into these agreements? Lots of reasons. One of them might be because we export a lot of intellectual property -- patented and copyrighted materials like movies, TV shows, computer programs, music, etc. We want our patents and copyrights to be respected. They are source of revenue for the US and for the multinational companies that obtain patents and copyrights in our courts. That is perfectly reasonable. But we pay a price for it. These trade agreements and what they mean for our self-government as well as our economy.

There are lots of other excuses for entering into these treaties. Before every agreement, we are assured that it will increase our exports and create jobs. I have been watching this since I first heard a discussion about free trade in a congressional hearing on C-Span in the Fall of 1985. During that discussion, one member of Congress predicted that if we chose free trade and did away with tariffs, in time, our workers would be reduced to just handing hamburgers back and forth.

Handing hamburgers back and forth. The Congressman was right. Ask the many college grads who are working at burger joints and waiting tables in hotels: if you want a job, you have to be willing to hand out hamburgers for a living.

I think these trade agreements are bad policy. In addition to the damage they cause our job market, they undermine and eventually could destroy our national sovereignty and our right to self-government on important labor and environmental issues (and other issues).

President Obama has admitted that he is negotiating this treaty. I am supporting President Obama and many of his policies, but I do not support entering into these kinds of trade agreements. We already have too many of them. American workers have already paid a huge price for the export of jobs and the import of cheap products.

Meanwhile the Wall Street investors and management of the international companies take in huge profits (offshore in many cases thus avoiding US taxes). Wall Street reaps the rewards. Main Street, America and American workers (as well as our environment) pay the price.

This is another way in which multinational corporations are destroying our economy, our democracy, our country, the health and wellbeing of our people.

So why am I supporting Obama in spite of his negotiating more of these horrible treaties? Because there isn't any realistic alternative. The Republicans are even more beholden to the multinational corporations, even more bent on destroying our environment and our democracy in the name of free trade and market economics.

All we can do is to educate ourselves and others about these agreements and what they mean and fight their ratification in Congress. No matter who the president is, he or she will have a hard time preventing these agreements. It might be impossible to fund a campaign without acquiescing to the pressure to enter into these agreements. And in terms of foreign policy, these agreements are a way to buy at least the illusion of peace.

I invite anyone who likes these agreements to prove me wrong about their effect on our laws and our sovereignty. Note that not all our trade agreements are ratified as treaties. Sometimes they are called something else. But they cannot be enforced fully unless we agree to comply with them, and complying with an agreement can easily be incompatible with exercising our right to self-government.

[Kolesar]

14. Nice, but Mitch Jones didn't explain:tearing down protections in the areas of financial services,...

...telecommunications and intellectual property." He didn't say much except "worse than NAFTA".

Text on the internet is cheap. He should have explained it. He has all the column space he can ask for at Food and Water Watch blog.
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/blogs/

[pampango]

19. National sovereignty is not as important as progressive governance.

The UK had to upgrade its labor laws when it joined the EU in order to be in compliance.

The key question with the TPP, as with any binding international agreement, is in the details. If it is a regressive agreement that removes labor, environmental and other progressive policies then it should be opposed. If like the EU charter is is largely a progressive document holding signatory countries to high standards in those fields that will result in a better life for people even at the expense our precious "national sovereignty" (which has resulted in a less-than-progressive society, to say the least), then it will be a good thing.

"National sovereignty" is a means to an end, not a goal in itself. If progressive international agreements can bind our government to pursuing progressive policies domestically then I am all for it, even if I have to grouse about the influence of Australia or New Zealand on our "national sovereignty".

If we are to work out global problems, e.g. dealing with global warming, with other countries we will need binding international treaties that have an effective enforcement mechanism to punish non-compilers, even at the risk of diminishing our national sovereignty. That's why FDR pushed the multilateral approach to solving global problems rather than a purely "protect our national sovereignty" approach.

[JDPriestly]

20. You seem to concur on the premise that these agreements endanger our national

sovereignty. As I understand it, you argue that is OK. We simply disagree about that.

I think we should impose tariffs to obtain compliance with environmental and labor standards that are just and humane.

Giving up our national sovereignty makes us vulnerable to having to accept low standards in the future. I have actually seen a case in which this occurred -- a country was required to abandon a restriction that the country intended to impose to protect its environment. That country was found by an international court at one point if not finally to be in violation of a trade agreement.

National sovereignty is really important in my opinion.

An international court can, based on a trade agreement, supersede the democratic process. We have to choose to maintain our national sovereignty if we want to continue to have government by the people, if we do not want government by international court.

It's bad enough to have to deal with some of the decisions of our own Supreme Court such as Citizen's United. To cede the decisionmaking authority of our democracy to international courts would be horrible. We have already ceded too much.

[pampango]

21. We disagree. It was republicans that have kept us out of the Kyoto Treaty and the International

Criminal Court. They did so because they were afraid that international bodies would impose pollution control mandates or international standards of justice on the US. They were, in a sense, protecting national sovereignty.

That is my point. There are good international agreements and organizations and bad ones. Countries coming to an agreement to follow certain principles in their dealings with each other is not a bad things. And, if the purpose of such agreement, e.g. climate change or international justice, is a liberal cause that one agrees with, then getting many countries to come on board is a good thing. If conservatives had not kept us out of Kyoto and the ICC, the world might be a better place today.

"I think we should impose tariffs to obtain compliance with environmental and labor standards that are just and humane."

I agree with the principle. I would expand the standards to include democracy and human rights. And I would expand the actors from just the US to all countries and the penalties for non-compliance to include more that just tariffs.

Under a principle of US unilateralism we could slap tariffs on, let's say China, for their environmental and labor abuses. Our way or the highway. (Of course the average American emits 3 times the CO2 of the average Chinese but maybe we can tweak the definition of "environmental standard" that we use.)

Of course, the EU could then choose to slap punitive tariffs on the US because our labor and environmental laws are much weaker than in Europe.

You can be sure the that the first reaction of people and politicians in the US, China and anywhere else that gets hit with punitive tariffs won't be "Oh my. We need to clean up our act. The Americans or the Europeans are not happy with us." Their reaction will more likely be "Who do those Europeans (Americans) think they are, telling us how to run our own country? What abut our national sovereignty?" And they will quickly impose tariffs on the other country for some (perhaps invented) reason.

The Chinese could make the case that each American pollutes 3 times as much as the average Chinese and US is placing tariffs on China because of pollution. The Americans could make the case that Europe is a "socialist hell-hole" (at least if republicans were in office) without their own energy sources so who are they to tell us how much energy we should use.

The alternative of pursuing a multilateral agreement on labor and environmental standards, while messier and slower, would be more effective in the long run and more consistent with a traditional Democratic approach to global problems in line with FDR's support for the UN, the IMF and GATT. A unilateralist, go-it-alone approach reminds me too much of 'cowboy diplomacy' and all that goes with that.

I agree that an international organization could be bad, but it good be a good thing as well. The devil is in the details. Does the organization promote principles and policies that I agree with (climate change control, international justice, labor and environmental rights, etc.) or does it promote those I don't support?

If liberals can win the battle to establish an international body that promotes a liberal agenda then, IMHO, national sovereignty should not stand in the way. Particularly in light of the fact that currently our jealously guarded national sovereignty protects polluters, union-busters, safety net shredders and international criminals who would have no such protection if they lived in Germany or Sweden. A little liberal pressure from the outside would not be something that I resist.

Thanks for your balanced response. National sovereignty is important but, for me, simply a means to an end, not an end in itself, so that it needs to be balanced with other considerations.

[JDPriestly]

22. The answer, in my view, is for those of us who are liberal, who believe in strong

environmental laws, in decent labor regulation, etc. to persuade our neighbors, friends, other citizens to elect people who will enact good laws in these areas.

Getting an international court to wield its bully club against our own country and destroy our self-determination will end up in a lot of anger among those who are not sold on better environmental and labor laws and probably a lot of chaos.

There is no substitution for democratic self-government. In the end, the international courts will not be accepted by nations that have not been persuaded to adopt good environmental or labor laws without the courts. They will just lead to bigger problems.

[pampango]

25. Any effort to improve the global environment has to include other countries. Unless there is an

international arbiter with an enforcement powers, how do you force countries to live up the environmental commitments they make?

We don't let our companies break our environmental laws with impunity. Why should countries be allowed to break global environmental 'laws' with impunity when that country and the rest of the world has agreed to abide by them.? Do we expect countries to punish themselves if they fail to live up to their commitments? Or do we let progress on the environment fall by the wayside in the interest of the national sovereignty of the polluter?

In my view, national sovereignty is important but not more than the health of the planet.

[JDPriestly]

26. Bilateral agreements would be more effective than the international courts.

You need the willing consent and cooperation of the governed to get real compliance with environmental standards. And courts do not guarantee willing consent and cooperation.

[WCGreen]

5. Signing water rights away is one thing on the agenda, I believe....

Also the designer seeds being developed to enhance the survivability of crops grown in extreme climates. Especially seeds that take flight beyond in the initial introduction area and into bordering farms and what happens then.

[Blanks]

9. Has anyone created a petition at the White House?

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions

I would think with all of the outrage someone would at least have done that much.

[mtasselin]

10. NAFTA on Steroids

With the memory loss of the people in the USA by the time they wake up and realize what the hell happened it will be way to late. At election time you here politicians talk about repealing NAFTA but does anyone notice that it never does. Corporations will tell us what wars to wage and what people around the world are bad for business of course their business. If only the news media would start doing their job and be responsible oh never mind I forgot who owns them

[jerseyjack]

11. Obama was going to re-negotiate NAFTA.

How far did that get?

[flobee1]

12. Will just saying "I don't approve" do anything?

it sounds like its already moved beyond that point.

[woo me with science]

15. K&R

Wake the hell up, America.

[kenny blankenship]

18. I'm sure Obama will renegotiate this horrible treaty!

(if it's even half as bad as you say.)

But he can't do everything at once- he has to renegotiate NAFTA first. He doesn't have a magic wand you know! Promises must be broken in the order which they were made, with no jumping in line.

[Gabi Hayes]

23. Critics concerned trade agreement will include SOPA language

cant paste link from iPad....

try googling my title

from pcworld.com

[xchrom]

24. Critics concerned trade agreement will include SOPA language

http://www.pcworld.com/article/262027/critics_concerned_trade_agreement_will_include_sopa_language.html

As the U.S. and eight other nations negotiate a wide-ranging trade agreement, several digital rights groups said they're concerned that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) will bring back controversial copyright-enforcement provisions pushed by some U.S. policymakers in recent years.

Negotiators for countries negotiating the TPP, also including Singapore, New Zealand, Australia and Chile, have not released their proposed agreement, but some digital rights groups are concerned that the U.S. will push for copyright enforcement provisions found in unsuccessful bills the U.S. Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA), and the still-alive Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).

The TPP could hurt the freedom of individuals to access and use the Internet, critics said this week.

"We see that many of the intellectual-property provisions that have been reflected in ACTA, SOPA and PIPA are being pushed forward in this agreement," Maira Sutton, international IP coordinator at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said in a briefing for reporters this week.