I want to commend BoiseBlue for starting a diary series about free trade agreements. Her diary series wasn't meant to argue for or against but was meant to provide information on free trade agreements and increase discussion. We need more constructive and civil discussion on Daily Kos!
Her diary series helped me because I learned trade agreements are more complicated than I thought. There are so many variables, so it is beneficial to look beyond ideology and consider details such as who is for it and against it, who is negotiating it, and what provisions are in the agreement.
Her diary series caused me to ask myself if maybe it is possible to negotiate a trade agreement that benefits both workers and the environment and not just corporations & investors? If it is possible, why should we believe the TPP is such an agreement? Given the effects of NAFTA, isn't the burden of proof on the corporate class here?
I decided to research that question and write a diary. I think I gave the TPP a fair shake because when I started I didn't want to believe the TPP would accelerate the race to the bottom. Why would I want to believe we may pass a trade agreement that would further lower U.S. wages and make it harder to combat climate change?
Unfortunately, I wound up opposing the TPP more strongly than ever and here's why.
To gain an understanding of whether the TPP is likely to benefit workers and our planet, I looked carefully at which groups support the TPP and which groups oppose it. Yes, for me part of it boiled down to who I believe advocates for our people and our planet and who is out to exploit both.
I couldn't find a single labor, environmental, or human rights group that supports the TPP.
On their website, Citizens Trade lists "a sampling" of organizations that have spoken out against the TPP. That "sampling" totals 59 organizations and includes labor, environmental, human rights, health care, and other activists.
The principal supporters of the TPP include business groups, most Republicans, and, oddly, the White House. That means ALEC. Business Roundtable. Chamber of Commerce.
What does that tell us about whether the TPP will benefit workers and the planet or if it will benefit the top few? Who do you trust more to stand up for workers? The AFL-CIO and The CWA union or ALEC? Who do you trust more to help protect the environment? 350.org, The Sierra Club, and The Rainforest Action Network or the U.S. Business Coalition For TPP?
If the TPP benefited workers and the environment, would all these well known labor and environmental groups oppose it? Would business groups support it? Wouldn't this be reversed?
I'll consider supporting a trade agreement when reputable labor, environmental, and human rights groups say its a good deal and when corporations are fighting it.
Who is negotiating the TPP? Are labor and environmental groups fairly represented or not? According to the AFL-CIO, the answer is No.
I’ve heard “labor” has a seat at the table and gets to see the TPP texts. Is this true? No. Under U.S. law, there are several trade advisers—private citizens appointed by the President—who advise on trade policies. Of these advisers, the vast majority
(85% according to the Washington Post) represent businesses. About 5% of the advisers represent labor. The other 10% represent local and state government officials, academics, think tanks and non-governmental organizations
If only 5% of the trade advisers represent labor, how likely is the TPP to benefit workers?
Also, both the AFL-CIO link and the Washington Post article imply environmental groups have no representation at all. Or are they included in the 10% that partially represents think tanks and academics? In that case, how likely is the TPP to help us address climate change and environmental issues?
I feel like saying come talk to me when labor leaders and environmental leaders are well represented at the negotiating table. Maybe that's not standard protocol, but it should be.
In my reading, I also learned many people think the TPP has more to do with protecting intellectual property rights and helping corporations sue governments than it has to do with trade. Of the 29 chapters in the TPP agreement, only 5 have to do with trade. Dean Baker talks about that here.
As has frequently been noted, the TPP is not really about trade. The tariff barriers and quotas between the TPP countries are already low in most cases. Rather the point of the deal is to put in place a structure of regulations that will be more friendly to the large corporations who are in many cases directly part of the negotiating process.
The provisions in the agreement will overrule measures passed by national, state, and local legislative bodies, in effect stripping democratically elected officials of much of their authority
.
Joseph Stiglitz has echoed that sentiment here.
He explained that the content of the TPP does not emphasize the traditional concepts of trade agreements, such as lowering tariffs and increasing imports or exports. Instead, the TPP seeks to undermine regulations in sectors like food safety, medicine and intellectual property, rendering governments and the citizenry that elects them inept in their ability to meaningfully regulate those sectors. By entangling such provisions with an agreement on international trade, the Obama administration would open up sovereign countries to unprecedented levels of interference by multinational corporations.
As a cautionary example, Stiglitz contended that countries which had been ravaged by globalization, seeing massively expanding inequality like Brazil and India, refused to join the trade agreement.
Both Dean Baker and Joseph Stiglitz are referring to the ISDS or Investor State Dispute Settlement System. This would allow corporations to sue governments in a corporate court if governments passed laws unfriendly to their interests. Public Citizen has more information about ISDS here.
There are people who feel concerns about the ISDS provisions are overblown because historically corporations have not been successful at suing governments in a corporate court. I disagree. I do think the ISDS provisions are something to be concerned about. I don't see anything but downside from it. This Vox article provides examples where corporations were able to get around a country's laws by suing under a trade agreement.
In 2011, Australia passed a cigarette packing law designed to discourage smoking the tobacco companies opposed. What did the tobacco companies do?
Naturally, tobacco companies hated the law. And they found a surprising way to fight back: they persuaded governments in Ukraine and Honduras to file complaints with the World Trade Organization, alleging that the new regulations violated global trade rules. The case is ongoing, and we don't know how the WTO will rule. But this dispute comes up over and over again in debates about the Trans-Pacific Partnership
The European Union had banned the sale of hormone treated beef products. In the 1990's the United States filed suit with the WTO, who ruled in our favor.
What happens as governments give up their ability to pass labor, environmental, and consumer protection laws large corporations and investors don't favor? Doesn't that move us closer to a global corporate state? Yes, some people feel these concerns are overdone. Maybe they are - but what is the upside to the provision? Isn't there only downside?
In closing, I want to say I'm no expert on the TPP or trade, and I don't have all the answers. But I did a lot of reading and these are my thoughts!