TPP: Trans-Pacific Partnership or Privatization?

DIE HARD III

Herman Tiu Laurel

6/17/2013

Daily Tribune

It started in 2005 as a nondescript free trade agreement among Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore to liberalize the economies of the Asia-Pacific region. How these four small economies had the ambition to even dare chart the economic course of the large expanse of the Asia-Pacific is still a mystery to us.
In fact, the question as to who among the four initiated it was not even answered in the annals of the then Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPSEP or P4), the precursor to today's Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), where the number of participants has since expanded, with the United States grabbing the driver's seat beginning in 2009.

From 2010 to 2012, aside from the original four countries, plus the US, Australia, Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru and Vietnam also became actively involved.
Japan, too, expressed interest to participate in the TPP talks of 2012, only to soon spark contentious division in the country as the TPP was expected to force the lifting of protections enjoyed by the country's heavily-subsidized agricultural industry. Japan was not the first to face opposition to joining the TPP talks; Canada's conservative government faced it as well from its protected dairy, egg, and poultry farmers under a system of "supply management" that regulates supply and shields Canadian producers from foreign competitors through tariffs ranging from 150 percent to 300 percent.

But nowhere was the fear and loathing of the TPP more evident than in the people of the TPP driver itself, the people of the USA — many of whom had seen their industries and jobs dwindle under the regime of free trade instituted by the World Trade Organization (WTO) as well as the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta), which outsourced US industries and jobs.

US opposition to the TPP indeed raises critical issues against this newest US-led free trade agreement. Among the most vocal and effective critics are Kevin Zeese, one of the leaders of Occupy Wall Street, and the Web site, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). Foremost among their rabid objections: 1) TPP negotiations are held in secrecy and details are withheld from the US Congress; 2) secret TPP deals, if approved by the US Senate and the President, "will override American laws in many areas"; 3) TPP will be negotiated by giant corporate interests thereby granting them veto over a country's ability to set many laws and regulations, e.g., intellectual property rights, patents and copyrights, financial services, investment and land use, service-sector rules, food and product safety, labor, environmental standards, as well as ban government-led "buy national products" laws.

On the secrecy of the negotiations, this report from Nile Bowie in CRG is significant: "One of the least discussed and least reported issues is the Obama Administration's effort to bring the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement to the forefront, an oppressive plurilateral US-led free trade agreement currently being negotiated with several Pacific Rim countries, including Malaysia. Six hundred US corporate advisors have negotiated and had input into the TPP, and the proposed draft text has not been made available to the public, the press, or policymakers. "The level of secrecy surrounding the agreements is unparalleled — paramilitary teams scatter outside the premise of each round of discussions while helicopters loom overhead — media outlets impose a near-total blackout of reportage on the subject and US Senator Ron Wyden, the Chair of the Congressional Committee with jurisdiction over TPP, was denied access to the negotiation texts."

One of the most perilous secret items being discussed in the TPP talks that has come to the knowledge of the questioning publics in various countries is the "investor–state arbitration" that will permit foreign investors in the territory of a party or country to submit a claim to arbitration under the arbitral rules of either the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes or the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. Tribunals are composed of three arbitrators, one appointed by the investor, one by the state, and the third usually chosen by agreement between the parties or their appointed arbitrators, or selected by the appointing authority. The investor thus becomes equal to the state and to the people of a country while the national judicial systems and courts where citizens of a party or a country rely on will become irrelevant.

In this regard, popular US opposition to the TPP has focused on the participation of over 600 corporate representatives in contrast to the zero participation derived from human rights, environmental, civil rights, or worker rights organizations. Clearly, as the US government's initiative in the TPP disregards the concerns of its people, it is only pro-US insofar as it is pro-US corporations.

Dave Johnson, a Fellow of the Campaign for America's Future, makes the case in his article "Upcoming TPP looks like a corporate takeover" that "The TPP negotiations should not just be negotiated to serve the interests of giant multinational corporations. The process should be opened up to the public and democracy, so people and groups with a huge stake in the outcome … can participate … We also need strong tests and irrevocable language about withdrawing from the agreement if it is harming our economy, environment, smaller businesses, tax base and/or our working people." (More on Wednesday.)

(Tune in to 1098 AM, Tuesday to Friday, 5 to 6 p.m.; watch GNN Destiny Cable Channel 8, Saturday, 8 p.m. and replay Sunday, 8 a.m. on "Mon-Satan, the GMO evil"; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com; and text reactions to 0923-4095739)