SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
global trade watch
Even Those Who Believe Tariffs Are Useful Think Trump's Trade War Makes 'Zero Sense'
One economist warned the tariffs would amount to the "largest tax increase... that has ever been imposed" on working-class families.
Feb 03, 2025
The trade war that U.S. President Donald Trump launched over the weekend by announcing sweeping new tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, and China drew intense criticism from experts and analysts across the ideological spectrum, including those who believe strategically deployed tariffs can help protect domestic jobs and workers.
"Tariffs are a powerful, effective tool to deliver certain goals. But Trump's Canada/China/Mexico tariffs make zero sense. And even undermine tariffs' legit uses," Lori Wallach, director of the Rethink Trade program at the American Economic Liberties Project, wrote on social media late Sunday, expressing agreement with United Auto Workers president Shawn Fain.
Fain said in a
statement that the UAW "supports aggressive tariff action to protect American manufacturing jobs as a good first step to undoing decades of anti-worker trade policy," pointing specifically to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and its successor agreement that Trump negotiated during his first White House term.
The union does not, however, "support using factory workers as pawns in a fight over immigration or drug policy," Fain continued. "The national emergency we face is not about drugs or immigration, but about a working class that has fallen behind for generations while corporate America exploits workers abroad and consumers at home for massive Wall Street paydays."
The officially stated purpose for Trump's 25% tariffs on Canadian and Mexican imports and 10% tariffs on Chinese imports is to confront what the White House described as the "extraordinary threat" posed by the movement of migrants and drugs across the southern and northern U.S. borders.
But Wallach argued Sunday that using tariffs to address immigration and the flow of drugs "is like trying surgery using a saxophone—wrong tool!"
"After decades of an American trade policy run by and for the largest corporations and to the detriment of American workers, independent farmers, and small businesses, we certainly do need a new approach," she added. "But simply imposing 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada and another 10% on China will not rebuild American manufacturing/create U.S. manufacturing jobs or raise wages. Particularly, if such tariffs can be axed, lowered, or upped at the president's whim for reasons unrelated to trade/jobs."
"While tariffs can play a constructive role in protecting U.S. jobs and enforcing labor and environmental standards when part of a strategic industrial policy, Trump's approach is neither strategic nor appropriate."
Trump told reporters late last week that he is "not looking for a concession" in response to the new tariffs, which prompted swift retaliation from Canada, Mexico, and China.
The announced tariffs, which are set to take effect on Tuesday, also shook U.S. and global equity markets as Trump threatened additional duties against imports from European Union nations and admitted Americans could experience "some pain" stemming from the trade war. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said Monday that her country reached an agreement with Trump to delay implementation of the tariffs on Mexican imports for a month, reportedly in exchange for the deployment of 10,000 Mexican soldiers to the country's northern border.
Contrary to Trump's insistence that tariffs are paid by targeted nations, they are in fact paid by U.S. importers, who then either eat the costs or pass them on to consumers through higher prices. Economist Dean Bakernoted that the new tariffs amount to "a tax increase of roughly $200 billion a year ($1,600 per family) that will overwhelmingly be paid by moderate-income and middle-income families."
"It is the largest tax increase on them that has ever been imposed," Baker wrote Sunday. "And retaliation from both countries is likely to impose additional costs."
Melinda St. Louis, Global Trade Watch director at the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said in a statement that "no matter the intractable problem, Trump's go-to playbook is to bully our neighbors through tariffs and to scapegoat immigrants."
"Instead of addressing the actual causes or seeking real solutions to the complex public health crisis surrounding fentanyl, Trump jumps to impose damaging and self-defeating across-the-board tariffs and to spout more hateful rhetoric that dehumanizes our immigrant neighbors," said St. Louis. "While tariffs can play a constructive role in protecting U.S. jobs and enforcing labor and environmental standards when part of a strategic industrial policy, Trump's approach is neither strategic nor appropriate."
"Using tariffs to bully countries to advance an anti-immigrant and anti-humanitarian agenda will do nothing to support U.S. workers and will make our immigrant neighbors less safe," she added.
The tariffs also drew backlash from the right-wing Wall Street Journal editorial board, which slammed the president for launching "the dumbest trade war in history."
"Bad policy has damaging consequences," the editorial board wrote late Sunday, "whether or not Mr. Trump chooses to admit it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US-China Electric Vehicle Dispute Shows Old Trade Rules Imperil Climate Action
"The climate crisis is too urgent for the U.S. or any country to allow outdated trade rules... to distract us from enacting bold climate policies," argued one campaigner.
Mar 26, 2024
As the Chinese government on Tuesday formally challenged what it termed "discriminatory" U.S. electric vehicle subsidies, climate action advocates warned that antiquated trade policies and international bickering must not be allowed to hamper the urgently needed green energy transition.
"Immediate climate action must take priority over compliance with outdated trade rules that were inked long before governments worldwide began taking the climate crisis seriously," said Trade Justice Education Fund executive director Arthur Stamoulis in response to the move by Beijing.
Melinda St. Louis, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, agreed that "the climate crisis is too urgent for the U.S. or any country to allow outdated trade rules—written long before governments were taking climate change seriously—to distract us from enacting bold climate policies."
"Existing trade rules need to be rewritten so that trade pacts can become tools for helping the world advance towards a clean, just, and sustainable economy—but we don't have time to wait."
China—which has heavily subsidized its own electric vehicle industry—on Tuesday filed a complaint against the United States at the World Trade Organization (WTO), taking aim at rules for EV tax credits included in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), a sweeping package signed by President Joe Biden in 2022.
"Under the pretext of 'responding to climate change' and 'environmental protection,' the U.S. has formulated discriminatory policies through its Inflation Reduction Act regarding new energy vehicles, excluding products from China and other WTO members from subsidies," said a Chinese Ministry of Commerce spokesperson, according to a translation by the South China Morning Post.
"Such exclusions distort fair competition, disrupt global industrial and supply chains, and violate WTO principles such as national treatment and most-favored-nation treatment," added the spokesperson. "We urge the U.S. to abide by WTO rules, respect the development trend of the global new energy vehicle industry, and rectify its discriminatory policies."
U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai said that "we are carefully reviewing the consultation request" and called out the People's Republic of China for using "unfair, nonmarket policies and practices to undermine fair competition and pursue the dominance of the PRC's manufacturers both in the PRC and in global markets."
Tai also praised "President Biden's leadership," represented by the passage of the IRA, which she described as "a groundbreaking tool for the United States to seriously address the global climate crisis and invest in U.S. economic competitiveness." She said the U.S. would "continue to pursue major new investments in clean energy technology, from solar and wind to batteries and electric vehicles and beyond."
The Associated Press reported Tuesday that "the real-world impact of the case is uncertain. If the United States loses and appeals the ruling, China's case likely would go nowhere. That is because the WTO's Appellate Body, its supreme court, hasn't functioned since late 2019, when the U.S. blocked the appointment of new judges to the panel."
St. Louis said that "China's threatened trade attack against climate provisions in the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act is another example of why the U.S. and other nations should begin working with one another towards an immediate moratorium on the use of trade challenges against clean energy transition and other climate measures."
"We've been warning since before the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act that antiquated WTO rules would threaten our ability to realize the green transition," she noted. "Prominent labor, environmental, and consumer groups have urged the U.S. government to boldly implement the IRA as intended despite trade pact attacks—and to make a commitment not to use such trade rules to challenge other countries' climate policies."
Stamoulis pointed out that "governments worldwide are wasting considerable amounts of time and political capital attempting to squeeze potential climate measures into compliance with outdated trade and investment rules."
"Ultimately, existing trade rules need to be rewritten so that trade pacts can become tools for helping the world advance towards a clean, just, and sustainable economy—but we don't have time to wait," he continued. "A 'climate peace clause' that brings an immediate end to the ongoing trade attacks against climate measures is a necessary interim step towards helping governments transition to clean energy on the rapid timeline that is required to head off the worse possible impacts of climate change."
"A moratorium on the use of international trade agreements to challenge climate policies would: (1) help governments safeguard existing climate mitigation and transition measures by protecting them from trade challenge; (2) create the space for governments to adopt the bolder climate policies that justice and science demand without fear or threat of new trade challenges; and (3) incentivize and offer countries time to work together and resolve the underlying tensions between current trade law and the imperative for climate action," he explained.
St. Louis also called for implementing a climate peace clause to "temporarily halt cases like this one so countries can prioritize the green transition and revise the WTO rules currently creating unnecessary hurdles."
"We must move forward with IRA implementation and work to enact even bolder policies to transform our economy for a clean energy future, and support other countries that do the same," she asserted.
China's WTO complaint comes on the heels of the hottest year in human history—which concluded with a United Nations climate summit that scientists called a "tragedy for the planet" because the conference's final agreement didn't demand a phaseout of fossil fuels that are driving global heating.
Soaring temperatures have continued this year, with European Union scientists recently announcing that last month was the warmest February on record. Carlo Buentempo, director of the E.U.'s Copernicus Climate Change Service, stressed that "the climate responds to the actual concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere so, unless we manage to stabilize those, we will inevitably face new global temperature records and their consequences."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sensing Keystone XL Rejection, TransCanada Scopes NAFTA Lawsuit
Provisions in trade pact may provide legal basis for suing U.S. over tar sands pipeline
Aug 10, 2015
TransCanada Corporation, the company behind the controversial Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, is furtively planning its next steps--including suing the U.S. government--if U.S. President Barack Obama rejects the permits which would allow construction of the project to move forward, the Canadian Press reported on Monday.
While the company has publicly maintained hope that Obama will permit it to build the pipeline, those close to the project say TransCanada expects rejection and is quietly considering suing the government under the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), using articles in the pact that protect companies from discrimination, unfair or arbitrary treatment, and expropriation.
NAFTA also includes a mechanism known as the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), which allows corporations to sue a country for damages based on projected "lost profits" and "expected future profits." As Common Dreams has previously reported, the potential award has no monetary cap.
Experts have warned that TransCanada could bring a NAFTA challenge over Keystone XL. Natural Resources Defense Council international program director Jake Schmidt told Politico in February that such a case was "definitely a possibility."
Derek Burney, former Canadian ambassador to the U.S. and chief negotiator on the trade deal, as well as its U.S.-Canada predecessor, told Politico at the time, "If the pipeline is actually vetoed on so-called environmental grounds, I think there is a very strong case for a NAFTA challenge."
But would suing the government under NAFTA work? It's unlikely.
The Canadian Press continues:
The U.S. government has a 13-0 record in NAFTA cases. A suit would likely fail, cost the company a few million dollars, and possibly antagonize the U.S. government, said David Gantz, who was been a panelist on NAFTA cases and who teaches trade law at the University of Arizona.
....But another expert said the company might as well try. She said a recent decision against the Canadian government in the Bilcon case involving a Nova Scotia quarry could give TransCanada some hope.
"Why not? And see where it goes," said Debra Steger[.]
Another option on TransCanada's radar is immediately filing another permit application with the U.S. State Department ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
Opponents of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a corporate-friendly agreement between the U.S. and 12 Pacific Rim nations described as "NAFTA on steroids," have cautioned against including an ISDS mechanism in the still-pending deal.
"Given NAFTA's record of damage, it is equal parts disgusting and infuriating that now President Barack Obama has joined the corporate Pinocchios who lied about NAFTA in recycling similar claims to try to sell the [TPP]," Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, said in February.
The project source told the Canadian Press that whenever the announcement comes, TransCanada will "let it cool for a while. And then we'd have this more vigorous discussion."
Keep ReadingShow Less
King Obama, His Royal Court, and the TPP
Jun 25, 2015
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) - a global corporate noose around U.S. local, state, and national sovereignty - narrowly passed a major procedural hurdle in the Congress by gaining "fast track" status. This term "fast track" is a euphemism for your members of Congress - senators and representatives - handcuffing themselves, so as to prevent any amendments or adequate debate before the final vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership - another euphemism that is used to avoid the word "treaty," which would require ratification by two-thirds of the Senate. This anti-democratic process is being pushed by "King Obama" and his royal court.
Make no mistake. If this was only a trade treaty - reducing tariffs, quotas, and the like - it would not be so controversial. Yet, the corporate-indentured politicians keep calling this gigantic treaty with thirty chapters, of which only five relate to traditional trade issues, a trade agreement instead of a treaty. The other twenty-four chapters, if passed as they are, will have serious impacts on your livelihoods as workers and consumers, as well as your air, water, food, and medicines
The reason I call President Obama "King Obama" in this case is that he, and his massive corporate lobbies (royal court), have sought to circumvent the checks and balances system that is the very bedrock of our government. They have severely weakened the independence of the primary branch of our government - the Congress--and fought off any court challenges with medieval defenses, such as no American citizen has any standing to sue for harm done by such treaties or the subject is a political, not judicial, matter.
Only corporations, astonishingly enough, are entitled to sue the U.S. government for any alleged harm to their profits from health, safety or other regulations in secret tribunals that operate as offshore kangaroo courts, not in open courts.
President Obama has weakened two branches of our government in favor of the third, which is currently his executive branch that has secret negotiations with 11 other nations, some of which are brutal regimes.
Allowing foreign investors (aka corporations) to bypass our courts and sue the U.S. government (aka the taxpayers) for money damages before secret outside tribunals is considered unconstitutional by many, including Alan Morrison, a constitutional law specialist and litigator now at George Washington University Law School.
In the mid-nineties, I opposed the creation of NAFTA and the World Trade Organization. President Obama and some members of Congress say that the TPP will be different from NAFTA and the WTO, but I doubt that they have read the entire draft of the TPP. They're relying on summary memos by the U.S. Trade Office and corporate lawyers, for example, drug companies that sugarcoat the complex monopolistic extension of the pharmaceutical patents and how this will result in higher prices for your medicines.
I challenge President Obama to state publically that he has read the entire TPP. Even a benign monarch would do this for his/her trusting subjects.
Inside these hundreds of pages of cross-references and repeals of conflicting existing laws is the central subversion, subordinating our protective laws for labor, consumers, and the environment (impersonally called "non-tariff trader barriers") to the supremacy of international global commercial traffic.
One very recent example - by no means the worst possible - just occurred. After Congress passed a popular "country-of-origin" labeling requirement on meat packages sold in supermarkets, Brazil and Mexico, both exporters of meat to the U.S.A, challenged this U.S. law in a secret (yes, literally secret in all respects) tribunal in Geneva under the World Trade Organization Treaty. Brazil and Mexico won this legal challenge.
"Many Americans will be shocked that the WTO can order our government to deny U.S. consumers the basic information about where their food comes from and that if the information policy is not gutted, we could face millions in sanctions every year," said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. "Today's ruling spotlights how these so-called 'trade' deals are packed with non-trade provisions that threaten our most basic rights, such as even knowing the source and safety of what's on our dinner plate." A May 2013 survey by the Consumer Federation of America found that 90% of adult Americans favored this "country-of-origin" requirement.
Fearing billions of dollars in penalties, the U.S. Congress is racing to repeal its own law. See how the noose works: foreign countries trying to pull down our higher standards can take conflicts to secret tribunals with three trade judges, who also have corporate clients and can say to the U.S., "Get rid of your protections or pay billions of dollars in tribute."
The same noose can choke efforts by the U.S. to upgrade our health, safety, and economic rights. Had air bags been proposed by the U.S. Department of Transportation under today's global trade uber alles regimes, the proposal would have had to go to a harmonization committee of the WTO's signatory countries that would sandpaper or reject this life-saving technology. Or if the U.S. went it alone, it would expose itself to repeal or pay by car-exporting nations.
For ten reasons why the TPP is a bad idea for our country and the world see my recent Common Dreams column.
If this all sounds so outrageous as to strain credulity, go beneath the tip of this iceberg and visit: Global Trade Warch and Flush the TPP. Then, get ready for the battle over the TPP itself in the late autumn. The following are three examples of how to build resistance to an international problem in your local communities.
First, send the legislators who supported the fast track handcuffs a CITIZENS' SUMMONS to appear at a town meeting where you, not they, present the agenda. If the lawmakers think 500 or more determined people will show up, it is very likely they will relent and meet with you. The unions and other groups working to stop the TPP around the country can get their people to attend these town meetings. August is the congressional recess month. The senators and representative will have no excuse to avoid a town meeting with their constituents. For a list of those legislators who need to be focused on, visit "Stop Fast Track".
Second, hustle together some modest money from groups and individuals, rent an empty storefront, plaster the windows with large signs, and start a rumble of civic resistance in all directions. Politicians sometimes shrug off the warnings of losing contributions from unions. What politicians do fear is their inability to control groups of resurgent voters indeterminately expanding from inside their district or state.
Since opposition to TPP reflects a Left-Right alliance in Congress and back home, store fronts spell real worry for politicians. They should worry because they chose not to do their homework for their home country.
Third, hold rallies designed to attract, collectively, hundreds or thousands of people around the country. These rallies could have an array of high-profile speakers and entertainers, as well as workers who have been harmed by past so-called trade agreements. Rallies can bring in new people and start the process of galvanizing them about the many problems with the TPP.
Remember, 75 percent of Americans think that the TPP should be rejected or delayed according to a bipartisan poll from the Wall Street Journal. People know what these "pull-down," misnamed trade agreements have done in their own communities. Start organizing today to win tomorrow!
Keep ReadingShow Less
Progressives Unimpressed as Clinton Hedges on Fast Track
After partnering with pro-TPP/TPA firm for campaign season, Clinton takes both sides on corporate-friendly agreements
Jun 19, 2015
For a moment on Thursday, Hillary Clinton seemed poised to make a definitive statement against Trade Promotion Authority, or Fast Track, the controversial legislation that would grant President Barack Obama the power to force pro-corporate agreements through Congress without allowing input or amendments from lawmakers.
But she didn't.
Speaking to Nevada political reporter Jon Ralston in a televised interview Thursday night, the 2016 presidential candidate said she "probably" would not vote for Fast Track "at this point," and that "I certainly would not vote for it unless I were absolutely confident we would get Trade Adjustment Assistance [TAA]."
TAA is designed to provide support for workers who lose their jobs as a result of the offshoring created by deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the secretive international corporate investment proposal currently making its way through Congress. Lori Wallach, director of the Global Trade Watch program at the progressive advocacy group Public Citizen, has previously explained (pdf) that TPP and similar "NAFTA-style" agreements "will kill more American jobs in the first place, especially given our high unemployment rates."
On Thursday, just hours before Clinton made her comments to Ralston, the House of Representatives passed Fast Track--sending the legislation back to the Senate, where its fate remains unclear as many Democrats had previously insisted it includes TAA.
Some media outlets saw Clinton's comments as her strongest stance yet on the issue of trade, which has dogged her presidential campaign as opponents point out her deep personal ties to Wall Street lobbyists and foreign oligarchies.
But progressives were unimpressed. Stephanie Taylor, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, told Politico on Thursday that all presidential candidates "should urge the Senate to vote no on fast track. Voters need to see that Democratic Party leaders, including Hillary Clinton, are willing to strongly fight corporate interests that seek to hurt workers and everyday families."
And as The Intercept's Lee Fang reported on Thursday, Clinton's campaign "is partnering with a pro-TPP/TPA law and lobby firm to raise cash."
Campaign for America's Future blogger Dave Johnson explained earlier this month that Clinton's continued evasion of questions on Fast Track is "a political calculation, trying to stay on the fence between the donor/corporate/elite class and the 'base' of working people and progressives trying to do something about the terrible inequality that is killing the middle class and our democracy."
"But this is an either/or line," Johnson wrote. "You can't be on both sides of this dividing line. You are either for Wall Street, the giant corporations and the billionaires--or you are on the side of the rest of us."
Observers have also called attention to Fast Track's indivisible connection to TPP because Clinton has kept silent.
During a campaign stop in Iowa last month, Clinton said she would reserve her opinion on the TPP until negotiations are completed.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Expecting 'Goodies' for Fast Track Vote? New Report Cautions Lawmakers on Broken Promises
"Members of Congress who have exchanged 'yes' votes for such IOUs have more often than not seen the promises broken," says Public Citizen
Jun 10, 2015
Lawmakers banking on "special favors" in exchange for their votes on controversial trade legislation risk "political peril," according to a new report (pdf) from the watchdog group Public Citizen.
In the face of stubborn resistance from Democratic lawmakers, the Obama administration has "moved beyond trying to sell Fast Track on its merits," Public Citizen says, "and is now offering rides on Air Force One, promises of infrastructure legislation, and pledges to help representatives survive the political backlash of a 'yes' vote on Fast Track." What's more, lawmakers are striving to include amendments to allegedly make pending trade legislation more palatable.
But with news outlets reporting that dozens of lawmakers are withholding their support for Fast Track legislation--which would allow President Barack Obama to send the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership deal to Congress for an up-or-down vote--in order to "see what they can get" in terms of political favors and backing, Public Citizen's analysis illuminates how such promises "consistently have been broken, exposing representatives to angry constituents and electoral losses."
"Even in the rare case where a promise to 'fix' a controversial trade deal has been upheld, the acclaimed tweak has failed to offset or outlast the damage wrought on local communities," said Ben Beachy, research director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. "Voters do not tend to remember boasts of finite safeguards or worker assistance funds, while mass layoffs, farm foreclosures and news reports on inequality provide fresh, ongoing reminders of how their member of Congress voted on Fast Track and Fast Tracked deals."
Even now, Bill Moyers and Michael Winship point out, the pro-Fast Track faction is employing "strong-arm tactics" to pass Fast Track: "As the clock ticked past midnight into Wednesday, the House Republican leadership posted the legislation on line, hoping for a vote this Friday--'to spare supportive legislators,' POLITICO reports, 'the possibility of another weekend of attacks by trade foes back in their districts.' Heaven forbid they should have to go home and hear a discouraging word from their constituents--the actual voters, as opposed to their big donors."
They should take heed. One by one, Public Citizen's report offers "examples of the track record of empty promises made to obtain difficult trade votes and resulting truncated political careers, providing a cautionary tale to members of Congress who are now contemplating the administration's pledges of political cover, and offers of various goodies from the president and congressional leaders."
Of the 92 specific promises included in the report, only 17 percent were kept, according to the organization.
For example: In 1993, U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), along with other Florida representatives, voted for NAFTA on the basis of the Clinton administration's promises to protect Florida's tomato growers from destabilizing surges in tomato imports from Mexico. But, Public Citizen points out, the Clinton administration did not honor its pledge--within two years of NAFTA, tomato imports multiplied, Florida's tomato revenues dropped more than 40 percent, and the number of Florida tomato growers fell 60 percent.
"Indeed, a review of the last two decades of presidential promises made to extract trade votes facing passionate public opposition reveals that members of Congress who have exchanged 'yes' votes for such IOUs have more often than not seen the promises broken, leaving them exposed to voters' anger over their vote against the opinion and interests of the majority," reads the report. "In many cases, this exposure has contributed to subsequent electoral losses, costing members of Congress their jobs."
The latest reporting suggests that a vote on Fast Track in the House will come on Friday. According to The Hill:
Despite Obama's efforts, an overwhelming number of Democrats are expected to vote against his call for fast-track. But the White House has won 19 Democratic votes, according to a Whip List kept by The Hill.
A handful of other Democratic votes could also be in play for Obama, fast-track supporters such as Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-Va.) have said.
Republicans are seeking to win as many as 200 votes in their conference for fast-track. Thirty House Republicans are "no" or "leaning no" on the vote, according to The Hill's Whip List.
Keep ReadingShow Less
10 Reasons the TPP Is Not a 'Progressive' Trade Agreement
Jun 09, 2015
"We have an opportunity to set the most progressive trade agreement in our nation's history," it states on BarackObama.com, the website of the president's "Organizing for Action" campaign.
One must seriously question what President Obama and his corporate allies believe to be the definition of "progressive" when it comes to this grandiose statement. History shows the very opposite of progress when it comes to these democratic sovereignty-shredding and job-exporting corporate-driven trade treaties -- unless progress is referring to fulfilling the deepest wishes of runaway global corporations.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) set our country's progress back through large job-draining trade deficits, downward pressure on wages, extending Big Pharma's patent monopolies to raise consumers' medicine prices, floods of unsafe imported food, and undermining or freezing consumer and environmental rules.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is formally described as a trade and foreign investment agreement between 12 nations -- Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam. The White House is now pressuring Congress to Fast Track through the TPP. Fast Track authority, a Congressional procedure to limit time for debate and prohibit amendments to proposed legislation, has already passed in the Senate, although only after an unexpectedly rough ride.
Here are 10 reasons why the TPP is explicitly not a "progressive" trade agreement:
1. Over 2000 progressive groups recently sent a letter to members of Congress opposing fast track. "Fast Track is an abrogation of not only Congress' constitutional authority, but of its responsibility to the American people. We oppose this bill, and urge you to do so as well," the letter reads. See it in full here. On the other hand, supporters of the TPP and its autocratic, secret transnational governance, include Wall Street, Big Pharma, Big Ag, oil/gas and mining firms, and the Chamber of Commerce--in short the plutocracy does not tolerate voices and participation by the people adversely affected.
2. Only six out of the 30 total chapters in the TPP have anything to do with trade. So what makes up the bulk of this agreement, which was shaped by 500 U.S. corporate advisors? Jim Hightower writes: "The other two dozen chapters amount to a devilish 'partnership' for corporate protectionism. They create sweeping new 'rights' and escape hatches to protect multinational corporations from accountability to our governments... and to us."
3. After six years of secret negotiations, Fast Track legislation would allow President Obama to sign and enter into the TPP before Congress approves its terms. It then requires a vote 90 days after submission of this Fast Track legislation on the TPP itself and changes in existing U.S. laws to comply with its terms. No amendments would be allowed and debate would be limited to a total of only 20 hours in each chamber of Congress. By limiting debate and preventing any amendments to the agreement, Fast Track prevents challenges to any issues about how America conducts business with the countries included in the TPP. Some of the countries in the TPP -- Brunei, Malaysia, Mexico and Vietnam, for example -- have terrible human and labor rights records. Those conditions attract big companies looking for serf labor and their accommodating governments.
4. Millions of U.S. manufacturing jobs have been lost due to NAFTA and WTO being railroaded through Congress. The TPP would only expand these offshoring incentives. These types of deals ultimately increase the income inequality gap by displacing well-paid middle-class workers, negating any benefit to lower prices of goods. According to a report for the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), the TPP would result in wage cuts for all but the wealthiest Americans.
5. The American people have yet to see the full text of the TPP -- it has been negotiated in secret and shown to members of Congress under demeaningly strict secrecy. We only know about some of its terms because of leaks. But Wall Street and industry operatives, who seek to benefit enormously from the TPP, do have access to the text. Why so selectively secretive? Supporters of the deal outright told Senator Elizabeth Warren, "[trade talks] have to be secret, because if the American people knew what was actually in them, they would be opposed."
6. The TPP allows corporations to directly sue our country if federal, state or local laws, government actions or court rulings are claimed to violate new rights and privileges the TPP would grant to foreign firms. Firms from TPP nations operating here could attack U.S. regulations over cancer-causing chemicals or environmental concerns before tribunals comprised of corporate lawyers that rotate by day and night between acting as "judges" and representing corporations attacking governments. These decisions then cannot be challenged in U.S. courts -- and U.S. taxpayers will get stuck with the bill. So much for our precious sovereignty!
7. The proponents of the TPP claim that it will raise labor and environmental standards. However, the labor and environmental standards included in the TPP are equivalent (or less stringent) to modest ones agreed upon by House Democrats and President Bush in May 2007 in trade agreements with Peru, Panama and Colombia. These provisions have not been effective -- Peru has since undermined these laws, and the Obama Administration has done nothing to enforce them. Nothing in the TPP suggests the unenforceable rhetoric-- cited by President Obama -- will be any different now.
8. TPP will further weaken America's regulatory watchdogs -- we can't use our own government to over-rule TPP tribunal decisions that over-rule our health, safety and economic protections as non-tariff trade barriers. Senator Elizabeth Warren told POLITICO: "This deal would give protections to international corporations that are not available to United States environmental and labor groups. Multinational corporations are increasingly realizing this is an opportunity to gut U.S. regulations they don't like." Keeping the United States from being first in health and safety protections is un-American.
9. Prescription drug costs will increase. The TPP includes terms that would limit access to generic drugs and curtail government power to limit drug prices. See Public Citizen's report, "The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) threatens access to affordable medicines."
10. The TPP could potentially undermine reforms of Wall Street and threaten U.S. financial stability by providing the institutions that caused the 2008-2009 financial crisis a path to circumvent U.S. regulations, such as limiting capital controls and prohibiting any taxes on Wall Street speculation. See the letter sent by Senators Warren, Markey and Baldwin last year to U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman.
For further comprehensive analysis of the TPP, see Global Trade Watch.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Flush the TPP!': Protesters Scale Trade Building in Protest of Secretive Deal
Ongoing protests seek to drag 'destructive' trade deals into the light
Sep 23, 2013
Protesters scaled the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative on Monday and dropped banners calling for greater transparency and an end to "corporatocracy" over the ongoing and secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement currently in the works between the United States and several Pacific nations.
Those negotiations, which have been brokered entirely behind closed doors, are certain to put corporate profits ahead of both human rights and environmental concerns, opponents of the pact have argued.
Today's banner drop comes as part of a series of actions that started with a rally on Friday outside of the trade office and will continue throughout the next several days.
Groups involved in the ongoing protests include FlushTheTPP.org, CODEPINK, Veterans for Peace, Earth First!, Communications Workers of America, Friends of the Earth, Food and Water Watch and Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch.
"Regulating Wall Street is what we need. It's time to flush the TPP," Melinda St. Louis, international campaigns director for Public Citizen, said to the crowd on Friday as she stood in front of a large cardboard-constructed roll of toilet paper labeled the TPP Death Star.
"Protecting workers is what we need," she said.
"Americans cannot afford another back-room deal that offshores manufacturing and service jobs, reduces tax revenues and pushes down wages and benefits in the jobs that remain," Arthur Stamoulis, executive director of Citizens Trade Campaign said Friday. "Unless exposed to the light of day and real public participation, the TPP is poised to enrich corporate interests at the expense of the economy, the environment and public health at home and abroad."
While the U.S. public and the press have been locked out of TPP meetings, corporate "trade advisers" have participated and been given copies of the agreement.
President Barack Obama announced Thursday he will push fast-track legislation, otherwise known as Trade Promotion Authority, which will allow him to push through trade agreements while taking away congressional powers to amend.
"This is the grand-daddy of trade deals, a very destructive project, and it is happening completely under the radar," Chris Townsend, political director for United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE), told Common Dreams on Friday.
Watch below for an interview with Public Citizen's Melinda St. Louis at the protest on Friday.
"Flush the TPP": What's Wrong With the Trans-Pacific Partnershiphttps://ourfuture.org's Isaiah J. Poole interviews Public Citizen's Melinda St. Louis about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal ...
_______________________
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy