May, 23 2022, 03:12pm EDT
![Public Citizen](https://assets.rbl.ms/32012683/origin.png)
International Civil Society Reactions to Announcement of IPEF Member Countries
During President Biden's trip to Japan today, the White House announced the launch of Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) talks with the United States, Australia, Brunei, India, Indonesia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. Others may join later.
WASHINGTON
During President Biden's trip to Japan today, the White House announced the launch of Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) talks with the United States, Australia, Brunei, India, Indonesia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. Others may join later.
Academics and representatives of civil society organizations in those countries, many of whom are veterans of the international movement that derailed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), reacted to this announcement. These reactions reflect a shared demand for any Indo-Pacific discussions to advance a genuine alternative to the failed 20th century free trade model, which has undermined governments' ability to regulate Big Tech and other large corporations, and must be conducted in a transparent and participatory manner.
Kate Lappin, Asia Pacific Regional Secretary, Public Services International (PSI)
Contact: kate.lappin@world-psi.org
[PSI's Asia and Pacific region covers 122 unions in 22 countries, (including IPEF countries announced today) and related territories with a membership of two million workers. The regional office is based in Singapore.]
"The proposed Indo-Pacific Economic Framework threatens to provide another space for multinational corporations to undermine democracy and establish global rules that put profits before people. Instead of creating new trade rules, countries should be focusing on removing trade rules that have proven to be barriers to global public health, access to vaccines, medicines and treatment and blocking fair and equitable recovery."
Dr. Patricia Ranald, Convener, Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network
Contact: campaign@aftinet.org.au
"IPEF cannot meet its claimed goals of improving workers' rights and environmental standards without a far more transparent process with genuine involvement of unions, environment groups and other civil society groups. It will certainly not meet such goals if it is modeled on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which entrenched medicine monopolies, gave special rights to corporations to sue governments through Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) and deregulated digital trade in ways which make it harder to tackle the market dominance of Big Tech companies."
Sun Kim, M.S., Ph.D., Director, Research Center on Health Policy, Research Center on Global Solidarity, People's Health Institute (PHI), South Korea
"With the lowest margin ever, the newly elected South Korean president is hastily pushing to join this unprecedented negotiation platform. Nobody knows the content of it nor the intention of the new government. A South Korean farmers' group has already expressed their concerns in the government's process of joining the CPTPP agreement, but they again face this situation. Any international negotiation, especially the ones that would heavily impact the people's health and living, should engage the people that will be affected, and their voices must be heard and included. The concern of South Korean civil society is not the functionality of the Samsung semiconductor plant, but the North Korean people's lives under the current Covid outbreak, with a severe lack of resources due to the embargo driven by the U.S. government."
Shoko Uchida, Co-director of Pacific Asia Resource Center (PARC), Japan
Contact: kokusai@parc-jp.org
"We, the civil society of Japan, express great concern about the IPEF as a new economic framework. While tariff reductions are apparently not included, the digital economy and strengthening supply chains are said to be among the issues to be discussed. In the midst of the COVID 19 pandemic and as the food and energy crisis is about to become a reality, we are reminded of the problems with existing "free trade" rules, like those included in the TPP. To achieve a world where "no one is left behind," we need different model for trade that contributes to workers' rights, farmers' sovereignty, the environment, human rights, and local economies."
Dr. Jane Kelsey, retired law professor, trade justice campaigner, Aotearoa, New Zealand
"Given the US's long history of writing global trade rules on behalf of its mega-corporations, we view the IPEF with deep skepticism. If President Biden, USTR Tai and Commerce Secretary Raimondo can produce a real alternative that puts people and the planet front and centre, and can convince our governments to genuinely support that new paradigm, we will work to make it succeed. But if IPEF is just another way to promote the old corporate agenda, and a proxy for the US's geopolitical goals, we will campaign against it like we did with the TPPA."
Annie Enriquez Geron, General Secretary of Public Services Labour Independent Confederation (PSLINK), Philippines
annieenriquezgeron1958@gmail.com
"Workers in ASEAN know that trade rules, written by corporations and wealthy countries, are a way to drive down wages and enable privatization of our public services, resources and now even of our data."
Joseph Purugganan - Coordinator, Trade Justice Pilipinas
Dr. Rene Ofreneo - President, Freedom from Debt Coalition
"As if the high prices of medicines, vaccine apartheid, and the blocking of the COVID TRIPS waiver at the WTO were not enough, corporations, working through the governments of rich countries, want us in the developing world to now agree to the IPEF, where they are trying to strengthen the monopoly of big pharma over medicines through even longer and stronger intellectual property protection, while at the same time exposing our beleaguered and debt-strapped nations to investor-to-state dispute settlement and demanding digital economy provisions that would undermine our digital sovereignty. IPEF's digital economy provisions are likely to lock in the de facto tax-exempt status of big platforms, which at the global level already benefit from tax planning. This means more foregone revenues for the government and competitive disadvantage for local firms who pay all sorts of national and local taxes."
Mohideen Abdul Kader, President of Consumers' Association of Penang, Malaysia
"The IPEF would be detrimental for Malaysia. US multinational companies are openly pushing for provisions that would prevent the Malaysian government from preferentially purchasing from local companies, and for stronger intellectual property protection that would make medicines more expensive. The digital economy provisions would undermine Malaysia's privacy, consumer protection, health, environmental, financial, tax and other crucial regulations, while investor-to-state dispute settlement provisions would restrict Malaysia's ability to regulate and expose it to paying billions of dollars in penalties to foreign investors. These are among the problematic provisions that are unacceptable for Malaysia."
Arthur Stamoulis, Executive Director, Citizens Trade Campaign, United States
Contact: media@citizenstrade.org
"The first step in developing a new, 'worker-centered' trade model is partnering with nations committed to upholding core labor and human rights standards. The ongoing rights abuses in the Philippines and some other IPEF members would undermine Biden administration's goal of establishing a new model for international trade that prioritizes working people over corporate interests."
Melinda St. Louis, Director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, United States
Contact: mstlouis@citizen.org
"Now that IPEF has officially launched, it's time to learn the details. How will President Biden guarantee a transparent and participatory process? Will strong labor and environmental standards be at IPEF's core? Or will countries commit to extreme Big Tech-friendly digital trade terms at the expense of workers' rights and consumer privacy? Public Citizen is eager to see and help design the "worker-centric" trade policy needed to promote equality, sustainability, and prosperity in the global economy."
V.Narasimhan, General Secretary, All India National Life Insurance Employees Federation
"Indian workers and farmers have successfully fought against trade agreements that threaten our jobs, livelihoods and public services. We stopped India from joining the RCEP and we will do the same if the IPEF or any other trade agreement includes rules that benefit foreign investors and not the people of India."
Parminder Jeet Singh Forum on Trade and Development, India
"Indian civil society organisations (CSOs) are very concerned about the potential implications of Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF). Regional and global economic partnership projects should aim at assisting national economies develop national autonomy and resilience, and develop international trade on their own terms, rather than become means to coerce less powerful countries to mortgage their economic independence to global economic powers and multinational companies. This is also a key lesson from the COVID-19 epidemic.
We are especially concerned that IPEF will also be employed to curtail much needed efforts for digital industrialisation and sovereignty of countries, and herald a new era of digital colonialism.
Indian CSOs are also extremely worried that companies are demanding stronger intellectual property protection on medicines, investor-to-state dispute settlement and other provisions from the very problematic Trans-Pacific Partnership and any IPEF should not contain any of these provisions."
Evi Krisnawati, President of FSP FARKES R
(Pharmaceutical and Health Workers Union - Indonesia)
Contact: kevi1812@yahoo.com
"The pandemic has allowed multinational corporations to gain obscene profits, protected by trade rules they designed. The last thing our government should be doing is negotiating new trade rules that could give even more power to Big Tech and others to profit and to control data that might be needed for public health and public good."
Rachmi Hertanti, Trade Campaign Activist, Indonesia
"The IPEF is once again a treaty model that will only serve the corporate interests rather than the people itself. The high standard provisions regulated under IPEF does not serve for the protection of the people's rights, but as a competition model to impede the competitiveness of developing countries in ASEAN. And it will facilitate the high protection of the US corporate rights from the unfair trade practices from other competing countries, like China for instance. It's still unclear how the US will set up a clear standard for the real human rights and environmental protection."
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
'Unprecedented' and 'Very Dangerous,' Hurricane Beryl Explodes Into Category 4 Storm
"The climate crisis is here. This is an emergency. Politicians need to start acting like it."
Jun 30, 2024
Meteorologists, climate campaigners, and extreme weather experts expressed shock and horror Sunday as Hurricane Beryl exploded into an "extremely dangerous" Category 4 storm as it headed into the warm waters of the southern Caribbean with a level of intensification characterized as unprecedented.
The National Hurricane Center on Sunday morning called it a "very dangerous situation" due to "potentially catastrophic hurricane-force winds, a life-threatening storm surge, and damaging waves" for the numerous mainland and island nations in Beryl's path.
According to the NHC, the Windward Islands of St. Vincent, the Grenadines, and Granada will be the first at highest risk from the storm as well as St. Lucia and Barbados. People on those islands and elsewhere in the region were told that all preparations for the storm "should be rushed to completion" without delay.
Weather Undergroundreports that subsequent locations that may face Beryl's wrath later this week could be Jamaica, the Cayman Islands, Belize and Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula, though noted "there's uncertainty in that exact track" of the hurricane as detailed in the following graphic:
Possible storm tracks for Hurricane Beryl. (Source: Weather Underground / wunderground.com)
Citing records going back to 1851, the Washington Postreported Sunday that there "is no precedent for a storm to intensify this quickly, nor reach this strength, in this part of the ocean during the month of June."
Eric Blake, a hurricane expert, said that Beryl on Sunday was "rewriting the history books in all the wrong ways," as he urged people in its path to "be very safe and take this hurricane seriously" as "very few will have experienced a hurricane this strong" on those islands.
"This is unreal," said Nahel Belgherze, a journalist focused on extreme weather. "Hurricane Beryl continues to defy all known logic, now becoming the first June Category 4 hurricane ever recorded in the Atlantic Basin. I can't even stress enough just how completely absurd that storm is."
"The climate crisis is here," said the Sunrise Movement in a social media post showing the extreme power and historic nature of Hurricane Beryl. "This is an emergency. Politicians need to start acting like it."
The group took the opportunity to re-share its petition calling on President Joe Biden to "declare a climate emergency" as a way to unlock federal funds and escalate the government's response to the crisis of fossil fuels that are the main driving of surging global temperatures.
In May, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) predicted that the 2024 hurricane season—which officially runs from June 1 to the end of November—would be "extraordinary" and "above-normal," largely due to rising ocean temperatures attributable to human-caused global warming couple with La Niña conditions.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Long Knives Out': Calls Grow for Biden to Step Aside After Debate Disaster
A new post-debate poll out Sunday shows that 72% of registered U.S. voters think Biden does not have 'mental and cognitive health' to be president.
Jun 30, 2024
What would be the reaction of voters?
In the approximately 60 hours since Thursday night's stunningly bad debate performance by President Joe Biden, the number of individuals and institutions calling for the incumbent to step aside so that another Democratic Party candidate can be chosen to prevent Donald Trump from ever again stepping into the White House has only grown.
From the elite media offices of The New Yorker and the New York Times to a cacophony of political observers from across the ideological spectrum that makes up the Democratic coalition, a unified message has been clear: the President of the United States has shown he is unfit to challenge Trump and the stakes are simply too high to risk defeat.
"This isn't a progressive or centrist or conservative thing," said Aaron Regunberg, a lawyer and progressive organizer, said in a social media post Sunday morning. "There's no ideological valence to it. We simply cannot afford to lose this election to Trump, which means President Biden must step down as nominee and pass the torch to a new generation of leaders."
"No Democrat—literally no Democrat—is saying 'Oh, I'm with Trump now.' We're saying we have better Democratic options to beat Trump, and beating Trump is absolutely essential."
And a new CBS/YouGov poll out Sunday shows that 72% of registered voters believe Biden does not have the "mental and cognitive health to serve as president," compared to 49% who said the same about Trump. That 72% figure for Biden represents a 12-point jump among voters compared to when the same question was asked on June 9.
The New York Times Editorial Board—an otherwise staunch ally of the liberal establishment that has backed Biden—made a splash Saturday by arguing prominently on its pages, under the unmistakable headline "To Serve His Country, President Biden Should Leave the Race," that the president would be doing the nation a service by bowing out. According to the board:
As it stands, the president is engaged in a reckless gamble. There are Democratic leaders better equipped to present clear, compelling and energetic alternatives to a second Trump presidency. There is no reason for the party to risk the stability and security of the country by forcing voters to choose between Mr. Trump’s deficiencies and those of Mr. Biden. It’s too big a bet to simply hope Americans will overlook or discount Mr. Biden’s age and infirmity that they see with their own eyes.
If the race comes down to a choice between Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden, the sitting president would be this board’s unequivocal pick. That is how much of a danger Mr. Trump poses. But given that very danger, the stakes for the country and the uneven abilities of Mr. Biden, the United States needs a stronger opponent to the presumptive Republican nominee. To make a call for a new Democratic nominee this late in a campaign is a decision not taken lightly, but it reflects the scale and seriousness of Mr. Trump’s challenge to the values and institutions of this country and the inadequacy of Mr. Biden to confront him.
Yanis Varoufakis, former finance minister for Greece and co-founder of Progressive International, said you know "the long knives are truly out" when the Times has slew of weekend opinion essays targeting the Democratic president.
Meanwhile, The New Yorker magazine's editor David Remnick, another oracle of the liberal media, carved a similar path as he described a political "tide roaring at Biden's feet" and a presidential figure who looks "increasingly unsteady" to the voting public.
"It is not just the political class or the commentariat who were unnerved by the debate," wrote Remnick in his Saturday column. "Most people with eyes to see were unnerved. At this point, for the Biden's to insist on defying biology, to think that a decent performance at one rally or speech can offset the indelible images of Thursday night, is folly."
With the president and First Lady Jill Biden at Camp David for the remainder of the weekend—and reports swirling of a " frenzied" damage-control effort by his staff and internal family consultations underway to "discuss the future of his re-election campaign" while gathered at the retreat complex—progressive political observers said that powerful members of the Democratic Party establishment—including elected leaders, donors, and top DNC officials—can only come to one conclusion after Thursday's debate.
"Quite apart from the existential threat of Trump becoming the next president and ending American democracy, there is pure self-interest," arguedThe American Prospect's Robert Kuttner on Friday. "The futures of every other Democrat up for re-election are on the line." He continued:
With Biden heading the ticket, Democrats will likely lose the House, Senate, state legislatures and governorships, and down-ballot races all the way to school board, as well as the presidency. Chuck Schumer cares more about losing his post as majority leader than he cares about the awkwardness of having to tell his president he needs to go. And to quote Shakespeare, "If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly."
Ironies abound. This early debate was the Biden camp's idea. It's evidence of the cluelessness of Biden's inner circle about the president's weakness as a candidate that they thought Biden would triumph. They gloated that they prevailed on the terms—no audience, no on-mic cross talk—and still their man got clobbered.
Biden should have won overwhelmingly—on the issues, on Trump’s lying, and on his own coherence compared to Trump’s. Biden’s policies have been superb and consistent. Trump’s policies, both as president and as future president, are a contradictory medley of disasters.
But from the moment he shuffled onto the set, Biden obviously wasn’t up to it.
In the assessment of other progressives—many of whom have argued for well over a year that Biden was a weak candidate and should be challenged for the nomination—Democratic elites have now caught up to what should have been self-evident.
In a Sunday op-ed at Common Dreams, Sam Rosenthal of the leftist advocacy group RootsAction, which mobilized a "Step Aside Joe" campaign last year in hopes of convincing the president to not seek re-election, argues that the "tide could turn" on Biden in the days ahead if "a few brave elected officials in prominent positions were to speak out" against the president.
"It is not an exaggeration to say that replacing Joe Biden at the top of the ticket is critical to saving our very imperfect democracy," writes Rosenthal. "This is an opportunity for activists and voters to make their voices heard, but an effort needs to take hold quickly, and with urgency, if we want to avoid the coming catastrophe."
In a Sunday newsletter, political journalist Chris Cillizza published in full an email he received from a veteran Democratic political operative who agreed to have his note published so long as he was not named. The email, in part, read:
I just don't understand what in the hell is going on.
As a career Democratic operative who never lived in DC, I can't underscore how different things are outside the bubble. People I talk with who aren't political hacks and just happen to be Democrats or ‘never Trump’ types are mortified and scared after the debate.
My phone hasn't stopped.
These aren't people who are active on Twitter or dedicate their social media feeds to politics, they are just normal folk. They don't understand why the Democratic Party is doing this.
They are horrified and perplexed and absolutely recognize they are being gaslighted...
Albeit anecdotal, Cillizza said the email represents, "a telling sign that all is not well in the Democratic party. And that there are a LOT of worried people out there."
Despite serious questions about who should or would be chosen as the replacement Democrat (including the process by which that decision is made), the widespread anxiety about allowing Trump to march back into the White House due to the Democrats' failure to field a strong and reliable candidate could not be shaken by the Biden's campaign concerted efforts to circle the wagons over the weekend and their appeals for voters (not to mention large donors) to stay calm."We need to have as much discipline as emotion," one unnamed senior Democratic official toldNBC News on Saturday. "It's not politically smart for Biden to step down."
Meanwhile—offering a mirrored counterpoint and not to be overshadowed by the NYT's call for Biden to relinquish the Democratic nomination—the Philadelphia Inquirer on Saturday published an editorial of its own, titled "To serve his country, Donald Trump should leave the race," which acknowledged that even as Biden faltered seriously on Thursday night, those arguing the sitting president should be the one to bow out have it backward.
"Yes, Biden had a horrible night," reads the editorial. "He’s 81 and not as sharp as he used to be. But Biden on his worst day remains lightyears better than Trump on his best."
But progressive pushback to such sentiments ranged from unconvinced to outraged.
"I find the 'Joe had a bad debate but he's still much better than Trump' line so offensive," said Regunberg. "No Democrat—literally no Democrat—is saying 'Oh, I'm with Trump now.' We're saying we have better Democratic options to beat Trump, and beating Trump is absolutely essential."
"If Biden refuses to step aside it will not be an act of high principal or strong character," said journalist and Slate columnist Zachary Carter. "He did not just have a bad night. He is not fit for the job and staying in the race would be the worst kind of vanity and betrayal."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We Are a Resurrection': Poor People's Campaign Rallies for Low-Wage Voters in DC
"There will be no democracy worth saving if it doesn't lift the lives of poor and low-wage people all over this world," one speaker said.
Jun 30, 2024
Thousands of poor and low-wage workers and their supporters from religious, labor, and social justice organizations rallied in Washington, D.C. on Saturday and pledged to "break the silence about poverty" and mobilize 15 million poor and low-income voters ahead of the November 2024 election.
The Mass Poor People's and Low Wage Workers' Assembly and Moral March on Washington, D.C. and to the Polls was hosted by the Poor People's Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival, which hopes to pressure politicians to embrace a 17-point agenda that prioritizes the well-being of the poor and working class over funding for war and militarism.
"We came here today to represent America's largest potential swing vote: poor and low-wage people who make this country work," Bishop William J. Barber II, co-chair of the Poor People's Campaign and president and senior lecturer of Repairers of the Breach, wrote on social media after the event.
Speaking at the rally, which took place at Third and Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest and began at 10:00 am ET, Barber emphasized the potential power of the poor as a voting block. He said that poor people represent 30% of the electorate and 40% in swing states.
"Every state where the margin of victory was within 3%, poor and low-wage voters make up over 43% of the electorate," Barber said.
He added that in crucial battleground states Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia, the result of the 2020 election was determined by 178,000 votes, yet more than six million poor people in those states did not vote at all.
"Those most impacted by injustice, organizing together, mobilizing together, and voting together can force the changes that we know we need that will be good for everybody."
"The No. 1 reason they did not vote is they said nobody talked to them," Barber said. "Well, there comes a time when people don't talk to you, you've got to make them talk to you."
That is exactly what the Poor People's Campaign is trying to do. In addition to reaching out to 15 million low-income infrequent voters, Barber said the campaign planned to deliver a statement to the major news networks on Saturday.
"We don't care what kind of debate you have if you don't have a debate that asks candidates where they stand on living wages and labor and healthcare, that's the failure," Barber said.
Barber added that the movement would also deliver a statement to the Democratic and Republican National Conventions saying, "If you want these votes, then you have to talk to us, not about what you've done, but what you're going to do in the days to come, because our votes must rise."
Barber and other speakers argued for putting the concerns of the poor and low-income at the center of national politics.
"There will be no democracy worth saving if it doesn't lift the lives of poor and low-wage people all over this world," Barber said. "This is not a moment, this is a movement that must rise until we lift this nation from the bottom so that everybody rises."
Rev. Dr. Liz Theoharis, co-chair of the Poor People's Campaign and director of the Kairos Center for Religions, Rights, and Social Justice, said: "Those most impacted by injustice, organizing together, mobilizing together, and voting together can force the changes that we know we need that will be good for everybody."
She argued that putting the poor at the center of the struggle for democracy "is what can save this nation."
"We say poverty no more. We demand justice for the poor," she concluded. "Because everybody has got a right to live."
On social media, Barber encouraged others to sign on to the movement's pledge.
"It's time to make our voices heard," Barber wrote. "We call on people of moral conscience to join us by pledging to be a part of this mobilization effort. Together, we can wake the sleeping giant of poor and low-wage voters. We are a resurrection, not an insurrection!"
The movement's 17-point agenda includes calls for abolishing poverty as the fourth leading cause of death in the U.S.; ensuring economic justice policies such as a living wage, labor rights, affordable housing, and universal healthcare; enshrining women's and immigrants' rights; protecting the environment and climate; ending gun violence and domestic extremism; and negotiating a cease-fire in Gaza and limiting the war economy.
In addition, Barber and other speakers responded to political developments over the past week, including concerns about U.S. President Joe Biden's performance in a debate against former President Donald Trump Thursday night.
Barber criticized the media for focusing on issues like Biden's stutter or Trump's sexual indiscretions rather than the bread-and-butter issues that matter to voters.
"In my tradition, Moses stuttered, but he brought down Pharaoh," Barber said at the rally. "Jeremiah had depression, but he stood up for justice. Jesus was acquainted with sorrow. Harriet Tubman had epilepsy. Folks are getting caught up on how a candidate walks—well, let me tell you, I have trouble walking, but I know how to walk toward justice."
Barber continued: "We say to the media, this election is not about foolish things. It is about whether we will have democracy. And it is not about one candidate; it is about the people mobilizing and organizing, and you will not drive us to despair."
Participants also spoke out against the Supreme Court's decision on Friday in City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnsonthat cities can enforce bans on sleeping outside in public even if they are not able to provide shelter space for unhoused individuals.
"A Supreme Court that says you can send somebody to jail for not having a home, you can send them to jail for sleeping, but then they turn around and say those with money can have unprecedented power in our election, that is too low down for a nation," Barber said.
Theoharis agreed.
"It is wrong for the highest court in the land to criminalize homelessness, to rule that you cannot breathe in public on a bench, in your car, or in a park if you do not have a home," Theoharis said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular