It's time to get the word out on the Trans Pacific Partnership
(TPP), a free trade agreement that is being negotiated by representative of 12
Pacific Rim countries including the United States. But describing it this way doesn't quite do justice to the
anti-democratic nature of this type of trade agreement. The so-called
representatives are not elected they are appointed, their meetings are secret
and in addition to the government official involved representatives from more
than 600 corporations are there to help write the rules of the new economy . Without
public conversation about the potential trade agreement and its negotiations
they become even more secretive.
Like a variety of trade agreements before it, again for this one the negotiators are pushing for
Congress to grant fast track authority to the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP).
This would mean that once an agreement was reached it would be brought to
Congress for an up or down vote, no negotiations. When 11 other countries all
agree to enter into a trade agreement the peer pressure on Congress gets
intense.
Trade watchdogs see the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) an
attempt to take up where the World Trade Organization (WTO) failed. Just a
reminder about why and how the World Trade Organization talks came to a stand
still: In 1999 the WTO met in Seattle, and it encountered streets filled with
demonstrations. Seemingly out of nowhere, but really built from long campaigns
of hard work by small grassroots organizations across the country, thousands of
labor, environmental and human rights activist took to the streets of Seattle
to critique the process and the product that was being proposed. Things got
heated up and cops with tear gas and nightsticks made it onto the news this
gave smaller and poorer countries the courage to stand up to Bill Clinton and
the rest of the corporate globalist. Although future talks tried to avoid
American shores, the wind and the will had been taken out of the WTO sails.
After trade talks by the World Trade Organization stalled
the United States government decided to pursue smaller trade agreements, a
number of bilateral agreements were reached. The Trans Pacific Partnership
(TPP) moves beyond bilateral agreements to a broader framework. What only two
years ago was nine country now is 12. More countries are interested in joining.
As a larger agreement, its impact promises to be more ominous than those of the
smaller bilateral free trade accords. We would be right to be suspicious of the
economic claims that advocates for such trade agreements make. The North
American Free Trade Agreement NAFTA was supposed to create jobs, but
evaluations of the economic effects of NAFTA showed that the trend was in the
opposite, job loss in the United States and job loss in Mexico.
Beyond the economic concerns, the broader issue is that the Trans
Pacific Partnership (TPP)poses tremendous threats to our already shakey
democracy. Local laws can become subordinate to demands of international
corporations through trade agreements such as the Trans Pacific Partnership
(TPP). We saw this with NAFTA as Canada and Mexico had the opportunity to
challenge any law that they found to be a barrier to free trade. The classic
example was a case where California had band a particularly toxic fuel additive
that was showing up in the environment, unfortunately the maker of the additive
was a Canadian corporation, by the rules of NAFTA the Corporation was able to
sue California and overturn this law as a barrier to free trade.
In Michigan progressives are well aware that emergency
manager law usurps democratic power and we see the results of this amounting to
the undermining of workers’ rights, and a sellout of public assets. So-called
free trade agreements, are even more antidemocratic emergency manager law
undermines democracy one town at a time, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)
promises to do that for 12 or more countries all at once. So far this agreement
has mostly maintained secrecy and invisibility. It's time to bring it out of
the shadows. We need to see it, critique
it, and prevent it. The fact that it
hasn't gotten more visibility is reflective of a media that is under strict
corporate control. But that means it’s up to us to get the word out. It’s up to
us to hold on to our democracy, to build it stronger.
