Category Archives: TPP Negotiations

TPP: Prescription for Galloping Corporatism

Posted on by

Michele Swenson    Michele Swenson   Author, activist   http://www.huffingtonpost.com

08/28/2013

Arsenic and Old Lace is a movie depicting two older sisters who spike elderberry wine with arsenic and serve it to lonely elderly gentlemen to ease them out of their misery. Declares their nephew, insanity doesn’t run in the family — “It practically gallops.”

Now in the third year of secret negotiations, the Trans-Pacific Partnership has been branded a trade agreement on steroids. The TPP signifies the ultimate corporate power grab — galloping corporatism.

TPP negotiations, hidden from public, media or congressional oversight, have been heavily weighted by 500 corporate versus 100 non-corporate advisors. Even Sen. Ron Wyden, Chair of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Trade, the congressional committee with jurisdiction over the TPP, has been denied access to the text of U.S. proposals submitted during TPP negotiations. After two years of being excluded, in May Sen. Wyden submitted legislation requiring access to the proposal for those with congressional oversight.

One of few granted a view of the text on the condition that he not share its contents, Rep. Alan Grayson called the draft “a gross abrogation of American sovereignty” and “a punch in the face” to the American middle class (what’s left of it). He notes the irony that “the government thinks it’s alright to have a record of every single call that an American makes, but not alright for an American citizen to know what sovereign powers the government is negotiating away.” Characterizing it an assault on democratic government and the public interest on a variety of fronts, Grayson surmised, “It’s all about tying the hands of democratically elected governments and shunting authority over to the non-elected for the benefit of multinational corporations.”

The TPP represents “The largest corporate power grab you’ve never heard of,” concluded Rep. Keith Ellison. Ratification of the trade agreement portends disastrous economic consequences, and the death of “democracy as we know.”

Some anticipated consequences of the TPP, and its sister European Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA), proposal: compromise of environmental and worker protections in virtually every developed nation; banks will become “way too big to fail”; prescription medications will be more expensive; natural gas costs will rise as there will be open season on our lands for fracking in order to export natural gas to the highest bidder; decline of food quality standards will jeopardize health; Monsanto will have free reign for unregulated sale of unidentified GMO foods; and corporations like Nestle will easily corner the market on water as a saleable commodity, rather than a basic right.

Continued Subversion of the Courts by Multinational Corporations

Leaked text reveals that U.S. TPP negotiators are rewriting substantial segments of U.S. law having nothing to do with trade. A two-track legal system would permit foreign firms to sidestep domestic courts and laws to sue TPP governments in foreign tribunals, exposing governments to massive new financial liabilities. Multinational corporations and investors could demand compensation on many different grounds – domestic financial, health, environmental, land use laws and other laws they claim undermine their TPP-defined right to profit.

Critics cite patent and copyright provisions of the agreement that could boost the cost of medicines and restrict Internet freedom, while anti-smoking advocates warn it could create a new forum for tobacco companies to aggressively challenge government efforts to curb smoking.

Further weighting the scales of justice against the people, negotiations reportedly include the condition that foreign tribunals be staffed by “private sector lawyers that rotate between acting as ‘judges’ and as advocates for the investors suing the governments.” Among 12 participating countries, U.S. negotiators alone have sought to expand the functions of the extra-judicial foreign tribunals to enforce foreign investor contracts related to operating government utilities and concessions surrounding natural resources on federal lands.

Continued corporate usurpation of the Courts is represented by recent Supreme Court decisions conceding evermore power to corporations while undermining individual access to judicial redress. Citizens United vs. FEC is just one case conceding individual rights to corporate influence. The Center for Media and Democracy has identified 71 American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) bills narrowing citizen access to the courts, introduced in the first 6 months of 2013. Fourteen of those became law. ALEC model bills cap damages, limit corporate liability, or otherwise make it more difficult for citizens to hold corporations accountable for products or services that result in injury or death.

A 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision rejected claims of human rights abuse by a corporation on foreign soil based on the Alien Tort Statute. The decision reinforces near-immunity for private contractors operating in secrecy, without accountability for well-documented war crimes. Thus, four former Iraqi Abu Ghraib prisoners who were tortured are being sued by their torturers. The four had filed a lawsuit against private military contractor CACI International for torture experienced at Abu Ghraib Prison: “electric shocks; repeated brutal beatings; sleep deprivation; sensory deprivation; forced nudity; stress positions; sexual assault; mock executions; humiliation; hooding; isolated detention; and prolonged hanging from the limbs.” Not only was their lawsuit dismissed by a federal judge who cited the recent Supreme Court decision, the four plaintiffs are now being sued by CACI International which seeks to recoup $15,000 in legal costs from the four Iraqi prisoners. The plaintiffs’ lawyers are appealing the decision on the grounds that a U.S. corporation operating in a U.S. military prison should be subject to U.S. law.

Obama Administration Reversal on Trade Policy

President Obama has moved 180 degrees from his 2008 campaign pledge “to oppose Bush-style free trade agreements that lead to thousands of lost American jobs” and his vow not to support “NAFTA-type agreements.” Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch analysis reports that the final 2008 DNC platform draft outlining the Obama Agenda depicted trade agreements as major tools to leverage labor and environmental standards, human rights, poverty alleviation, climate control, national security, as well as other progressive issues.

Instead of fixing foreign trade investment rules to protect the public interest, Public Citizen’s analysis reveals that Obama administration TPP negotiators would expand on the extreme investor privileges outlined in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and subsequent NAFTA-style deals, which some have opposed for undermining public health, the environment, democratic policymaking, and for favoring foreign over domestic firms.
U.S. taxpayers are already on the hook for past trade agreements: Public Citizen notes that there are currently over $13 billion in pending corporate “investor-state” trade pact attacks on domestic environmental, public health and transportation policy. “….mere threats of such cases have resulted in countries dropping important public interest initiatives, exposing their populations to harm that could have been avoided…Over $719 million has been paid out under U.S. Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) alone – 70 percent which are from challenges to natural resource and environmental policies, not traditional expropriations.”

State Plans for Public Banks Jeopardized by TPP

Currently 20 states are considering some form of state public banking legislation, plans that could well be jeopardized by the TPP. The United States Representative’s chief TPP negotiator, Barbara Weisel, contends that entities like the Bank of North Dakota unfairly compete with private banks. North Dakota, the only state with a Public Bank, has been able to invest in infrastructure and employment, thus weathering economic crisis better than most. Weisel insists that “preferential provision of goods and services” by a government would be unfairly conferred on “State Owned Enterprises”(SOEs), thus disadvantaging private banks. Weisel frankly protests that “State Owned Enterprises….can be used to undermine what we’re otherwise trying to gain from this free trade agreement.”

One observer writes, “…depending on the [TPP] report’s language, foreign bankers could claim that the Bank of North Dakota (BND) stops them from lending to commercial banks throughout the state.” He cites Rudy Avizius’ New World Order Blueprint Leaked: “If implemented, this agreement will hard code corporate dominance over sovereign governments into international law that will supersede any federal, state, or local laws of any member country.”

Fast Track Authority Bypasses Constitutional Congressional Oversight

Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress exclusive authority to determine the terms of international trade agreements. Public Citizen notes that Obama administration TPP negotiators are pushing Fast Track trade promotion authority for the executive branch, which could then determine contents of the trade agreement and sign it without Congressional review or vote.

In June Wisconsin Congressman Mark Pocan initiated a letter signed by 35 other House freshmen, addressed to Ranking Ways and Means Member Sander Levin and copied to Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, expressing serious concern about Congress relinquishing trade authority. “The administration has yet to release draft texts after more than three years of negotiations, and the few TPP FTA texts that have leaked reveal serious problems,” the letter reads. “Thus, we are especially concerned about any action that would transfer Congress’s exclusive Constitutional trade authority to the president.”

Rudy Avizius names the TPP the ultimate corporate takeover of the public Commons and the overthrow of democracy. He writes, the results of the proposed TPP “would be total corporate global governance with an accompanying police state. In this new system the role of elected governments would be to serve as subservient agents for the transnational corporations, while the armies, police, and courts would serve the interests of these transnational corporations.”

Further information: Expose the TPP
Flush the TPP

Federal NDP trade critic calls for more transparency in TPP negotiations

Posted on by

2013 08 28    http://www.ndp.ca

VANCOUVER – NDP Trade critic Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) is calling on the Harper Government to give Canadian MPs the same information that US Members of Congress have about the ongoing Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations. 

The NDP has learned that all members of the US Congress are being given access to the draft text of the TPP. 

“The TPP is a sweeping agreement covering issues that affect many areas of Canada’s economy and society – including several areas of policy that have never been subject to trade agreements before,” said Davies. “By keeping Parliament completely in the dark on negotiations the Conservatives also leave Canadians in the dark and, for an agreement of this magnitude that is abnormal and unacceptable. 

“If the US can allow its legislators to see the TPP text, there is no reason that Canada can’t,” Davies said. 

Davies further expressed concern that American legislators are being given an undue advantage over Canadian MP’s, saying “it is both unfair and unwise for Canadian parliamentarians to operate from such an imbalanced knowledge base in discussions with our US colleagues.” 

Access to Information requests have also revealed that there is a small group of insider industry associations that have special access to Canada’s negotiating position, but the Harper Government has prevented others from having access to the text, including Parliamentarians. 

“Canadians have a right to know how trade policies are being negotiated, and Parliamentarians have a duty to defend the public’s interests,” said Davies.  “Allowing private actors to have information that Parliamentarians don’t have is inappropriate,” said Davies. 

Recently, trade experts from across the political spectrum have criticized the Harper Government for being far too secretive in its approach to trade negotiations. 

“Canada’s trade performance has suffered badly since the Conservatives took power,” said Davies. “The prosperity of all Canadians depends on healthy, balanced international trade. To get there, we need trade negotiations that are more inclusive and transparent. 

“Mr. Harper’s obsession with secrecy is unhelpful, undemocratic and, as the US practice demonstrates, unnecessary.”

Opinion: TPP to destroy local companies—The Brunei Times

Posted on by

19th Round of TPP Negotiations Being Held in Brunei Threatens Local Companies, Onslaught Of Multinationals

Wednesday, August 28, 2013    http://www.bt.com.bn

Dear Editor,

I WRITE in response to the letter from MoFAT responding to TPP queries published in The Brunei Times dated August 27, 2013.

Firstly, I was pleasantly surprised to see MoFAT even responding. After so many TPP articles and letters written in The Brunei Times without response, I thought MoFAT simply did not care about the concerns of the people.

Secondly, I was however, really disappointed with the lack of clarity in the reply, which did not address many concerns that have been voiced by the public, and seems to add weight to the rumour that participating countries have to sign a confidentiality agreement, which means they cannot tell their people anything about the TPP negotiations.

Thirdly, reading MoFAT’s response, I couldn’t help but notice this paragraph: “With regard to concerns on foreign service providers entering the Brunei market, the reality remains that Brunei Darussalam currently lacks expertise in many critical areas, and this agreement will enhance the quality of services provided within the country.

At the same time, this will encourage local service providers to become more competitive and deliver higher quality services to consumers, as well as facilitate their entry into the markets of TPP countries.”

Personally, this paragraph seems to translate into something along the lines of: “Brunei businesses are simply not good enough in many areas, and introducing foreign competition will make them work harder, and hopefully they will be able to break into other markets in future.”

The general consensus is really positive I must say, and if Brunei businesses really survive the foreign onslaught, I am sure they will certainly be good enough to expand into other markets.

The thing is, what if they don’t survive? An editorial from The Brunei Times talked about the potential entrance of Walmart into Brunei. What if our supermarkets like Hua Ho and Supasave do not survive the Walmart onslaught and close down?

The fact is, as MoFAT has already admitted, our local businesses are not good enough, and if we simply allow foreign companies to come into Brunei without barriers, the local industries will suffer, and we will slowly move towards an economy reliant on foreign businesses.

Yes, I am advocating protectionism here, a term that has been given so much negative light all throughout the time free trade agreements have been promoted.

To expect local businesses to simply “live up to the challenge” is expecting too much.

As we all know our businesses cannot survive the onslaught of multinationals.

So my question to MoFAT is, don’t you think it will be exposing Bruneian businesses to unfair competition?

A businessman,
Gadong

19th Round of TPP Negotiations: Reduced engagement for "stakeholder engagement" day

Posted on by

http://keionline.org     Krista Cox

On Tuesday, 27 August, the 19th round of TPP negotiations held its “stakeholder engagement” day.

Chief’s briefing changed to “dialogue”

Usually, these days involve presentations by stakeholders to negotiators followed shortly by an hour long briefing by chief negotiators. While there have been variations on the type presentations stakeholders are allowed to give (including experimentation with hosting tables instead of presentations, or allowing simultaneously tables with presentations), at every full TPP negotiating round that I have been to over the last two-and-a-half years has included a one hour briefing by the chief negotiators to the stakeholders. During briefings, we get a report back from the chief negotiator (typically the chief of the host country) on which chapters have been discussed, where progress has been made, and other information. After this report back, stakeholders are then afforded a question and answer session, able to ask any question they wish to any country, and often these questions are directed toward more than one negotiator. While these briefings often reveal little to no information — chief negotiators are practiced at responding with non-answers — they are still an important way in which stakeholders can raise concerns before the entire panel of chief negotiators. Additionally, while the chief negotiators often do not reveal much about the negotiations substantively, they usually clarify many of the procedural issues, such as information about next rounds and the process going forward.

This round, there was no briefing from the chief negotiators. I find this quite appalling, particularly in light of the rumors that this will be the last official round of negotiations and all work moving forward will simply be meetings of individual chapters and that we may not see chief negotiators at intersessionals (assuming, of course, we are even made aware of these intersessionals; meetings of other chapters that took place over the course of the last month have been secretive and civil society could not locate the venue of, for example, investment intersessionals).

Instead of the usual briefing, the chiefs hosted a “dialogue.” What was this dialogue? Nothing more than what we normally get in the receptions that are often held (though no such reception was held this round). It was a large room with coffee and snacks being served and the only way to talk to the chiefs was to go up to them and ask them questions. With numerous stakeholders all competing for time from twelve chiefs over the course of an hour does not make for great dialogue. Having been to many past rounds, I can identify the majority of chiefs and have met many of them at previous rounds. However, how are new stakeholders supposed to identify who in the room of probably a hundred people — mixed between negotiators and stakeholders — are the chiefs? In my opinion, it’s not a great process and even if you know who all the chiefs are, if you want to know the position of a country on a particular issue, you have to hunt down every chief individually and repeat your concerns and follow it up with your question.

Stakeholder Presentations
As I noted last week, the stakeholder presentations were shortened this round to 7 minutes. At most rounds I have been to previously, 15 minutes were allotted to each presenter. In 7 minutes it is difficult to say anything of substance or present much analysis. For the intellectual property room, there were thirteen presenters and the schedule follows below:

  • Hisham bin Hussein, Malaysian AIDS Council & Malaysian AIDS Foundation
  • Ira Wolf, PhRMA
  • Jody Cox, Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association
  • Krista Cox, Knowledge Ecology International
  • Rayar Sowrimuthu, Malaysian Organization of Pharmaceutical Industries
  • Terry Creighton, Teva Canada
  • Patricia Hepworth, Australian Digital Alliance
  • Paul Neureiter, Amgen
  • Burcu Kilic, Public Citizen
  • M. Fabiana Jorge, Generic Pharmaceutical Association
  • Hayden Green, Consumer NZ
  • Leena Menghaney, Doctors Without Borders/Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF)
  • John E. Mattheson, Intel Technology Asia

Impressions on intellectual property
There is a lot of speculation regarding what will happen going forward and whether the intellectual property chapter can finish by the end of the year. There is a lot of pressure on the negotiators to get as much done as possible before the leaders’ meeting in October and to conclude by the year’s end. All IP negotiators indicate that this will be a difficult task, but some negotiators are more optimistic about the ability to conclude their negotiations this year than others.

It appears that the United States’ infamous “period of reflection” regarding its pharmaceutical proposals — a period that has lasted for the past year and a half — has finally concluded. As to what the result of this reflection period is remains to be seen and as of this writing, the United States has yet to table a new proposal or announce that it will not revise the proposal it tabled in the 8th round of negotiations which took place in Chicago, IL in September 2011. Also unclear is whether the United States will table its proposal on biologics during this round and if it does, whether it will table a 12-year exclusivity period as it is widely rumored they will.

The trade ministers gave instructions to the negotiators after the ministerial meeting concluded. My understanding is that these were joint instructions to all countries and that for certain chapters, such as intellectual property, more specific points were made. These instructions have not yet been made public.

There are also wide expectations that there will be an IP intersessional toward the end of September, but there is no confirmed venue or dates at the moment.