ADHD nation?

DIE HARD III

Herman Tiu Laurel

6/24/2013

Daily Tribune

The country has just gone through one of the worst roller-coasters of its stock market, along with a half-day's rain that produced one of the worst flash floods along the main avenues of its premier metropolis that had commuters and drivers pulling their hair. But, in a snap — as if nothing happened — almost the entire nation turned to television and spent several days rapt in the US basketball match-up between the Miami Heat and the San Antonio Spurs. Is the Filipino nation just that easily distracted or is this symptomatic of a wider, national ADHD — Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder?

Such scatter-brained response is not mere occasional occurrence; it's a weekly, daily, even hourly, jumpiness in focus and activity — one moment hysterical over one crisis or another and the next laughing or crying with the latest sports, celebrity, or disaster spectacle — which must be one reason why this nation is going nowhere at all in solving its problems.

It was late last week that I first noticed this mania for the Heat vs Spurs. My sons were grabbing the remote from me, switching to the games, while I struggled to follow the latest developments in Syria and the Bernanke "tapering" of QE (quantitative easing) that has caused near Armageddon in the local and regional markets. This last one was really serious for some sectors of the economy as the Philippine Stock Exchange index lost at least P420 billion over the past weeks. Syria, and the US decision to arm the Free Syrian Army and its terrorist allies today, is like Poland in 1939 when Hitler invaded it — the event which many historians trace the beginnings of the Second World War to.

If these developments may be too far from the realities of Filipinos, let's look at issues closer to home, such as the triple whammy announcement of hikes in power, water, and Metro Rail Transit/Light Rail Transit fares. These threatened rate hikes are only the latest in a decade of increases, in the face of shrinking real values of the peso and people's wages and earnings, and one of the root causes of dwindling industries and the commensurately worsening unemployment and underemployment situation. We've been tracking these issues that are crying out for the people's attention, action and solution; but it's impossible to make them focus on these beyond a few days' stretch.

If it were only the tier of society that my sons count themselves in, i.e. the generation Y crowd of the middle to upper-middle class, maybe we don't have so much to worry about; but in the middle of last week when I sat around a table of pre-War and Baby Boomer generation folks, the discussion was also about the same games and who was betting on which team. When I made the point that the NBA (National Basketball Association) is an unnecessary distraction for a poor nation that's getting poorer, the septuagenarian became even more emphatic in analyzing the moves of the Heat's star player LeBron James. I was outnumbered all to one.

Late last week one mainstream newspaper, allegedly the largest in circulation, headlined on its Internet edition the sex scandal allegations surrounding Philippine embassies in the Middle East in the so-called "sex for fly" deal. But right below, it was the "James Yap posts Instagram photo with rumored girlfriend" bit. Is this to be the next frenzied focus of the Filipino people next, along with the probable dalliances of Mr. Yap's controversial ex?

I remembered then, just before I noticed the seemingly ADHD symptoms on the Filipino nation jumping about on the NBA games, the newspapers and mainstream media in general had also been headlining the seesawing games in the series. Now we know what the trigger for the ADHD symptoms of the Filipino national psyche is — the headlines of the mainstream media that broadcast media mindlessly repeat and re-echo from morning until night.

I raised this matter with my two NBA fixated sons and pounded on them that these distractions mainstream media are always triggering are not healthy for the country. My journalist son retorted, "Haven't you thought that the reason the Filipino is so easily distracted is that he wants to forget those problems?"
If that is how we as a people deal with life's difficulties, then we'll never ever get to solve anything. Clearly, that is where the Filipino people are at. Sad but true.

(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., this week on "MRT, power, water rate hikes again"; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com; and text reactions to 0923-4095739)

TPP: The pivot to the Pacific (Part II)

DIE HARD III

Herman Tiu Laurel

6/19/2013

Daily Tribune

While the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) started with economic light- to middleweights in 2005, it expanded in 2009 with one heavyweight, the US of A. Since then, it has added to its fold other light- to heavyweights (Canada, Mexico, Australia, Malaysia and Vietnam) to the exclusion of other major economic heavyweights.

Absent from the TPP process were China, Russia, Brazil and India, the countries that form the core of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) economic alliance representing 25 percent of the world's trade.
Song Guoyou, an Associate Professor of the School of International Relations, Shanghai Fudan University, points out that "the current TPP member countries in negotiation are mainly military allies of the US, which demonstrates the fact that the US 'has followed its traditional pattern of choosing FTA partners—offering priorities to its military allies.'"

The exclusion of China and the major BRICS countries have led to conclusions, such as this published in a London news site, World Outline, entitled "Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): Bad news for Brazil and China?" last April 6: "…the TPP aims to go beyond existing trade agreements, such as … Apec (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) and Asean (Association of Southeast Asian Nations), and create a single market … This single market … is likely to have implications to trade flows in America and Asia as a whole, and alter the 'Asia pivot' … The TPP has been designed to become a key source of sustained growth by guaranteeing new markets for American products, and assist in the US economic recovery … It could also become a tool for containing and undermining Chinese economic power in the Asia-Pacific region.

"By providing these strategic partners with incentives to concentrate on trade relations amongst each other, the TPP is likely to diminish the dependence of certain countries on Chinese goods. It is worth noticing that in times of tensions between China and Japan and between China… the Philippines, Vietnam, etc. … having a tool to diminish Chinese economic power in the region and the diversification of partners could represent a … foreign policy approach… On the Latin American side of the TPP … Brazil has been investing massively toward infrastructure programs designed to integrate the region and to facilitate the transport of goods and services among its neighbors… By providing promising trade alternatives… the TPP could also represent a challenge for Brazil … Having other partners to assist in the regional development could also diminish Brazil's role as the regional paymaster."

Professor Cai Penghong, director of Apec Research Center, Shanghai Academy of Social Science, expressed what may be the bottom line of the Chinese response: "…if I am asked to give a word of advice to President of China about the TPP access, I would not like to suggest China to submit an application at this moment... First, we are still wondering the real American intention. It is natural for (the) Obama administration to pursue a double trade in five years and (address) the job issue but a question still remains about its geopolitical intention. It seems that US is using the TPP as a tool as part of its Asia Pacific strategy to contain China … Second… it is unbelievable that the TPP negotiation activities are secretly conducted and non-members feel hard to assess what will happen. TPP is on the track of Apec regional integration process but APEC members know nothing. Third, it seems (to be) a trend that trade issues have been politicized…"

As reported by Peter Hirschberg, Russia is cool to the TPP. Its Economy Minister, speaking before the Apec Summit in Vladivostok in 2012, even stated that his country didn't think the TPP agreement among about a dozen Asia-Pacific countries would be concluded in the "near future."

Russia is clearly putting priority and emphasis on continuing the strengthening of the Apec. South Korea, despite its military alliance with the US, seems to want to steer clear of the US-dominated TPP for the meantime. Its Trade Minister Bark Taeho said, "We have to sit and analyze what kind of level TPP is aiming for … At a later stage, between an East Asian pact and the Trans-Pacific pact, we want to (play) some role in merging these together…" The East Asia Pact is amongst China, Japan and South Korea.

The TPP is clearly a US move for its corporate pillars to outflank China and the BRICS in trade, and a parallel instrument for the US military's "Asia pivot."
If it's a truism that a multipolar world is better for the community of nations, the reconsolidation of US economic, financial, and trade power, if successful, would be deleterious to its welfare. However, it is highly unlikely that the US and its TPP can succeed as the US and its economic allies, i.e. Europe and Japan, can hardly provide for all the needs of the world today.

Other countries are unlikely to be fully enthusiastic with the TPP, such as South Korea with its huge trade with China and Latin American countries associated with Venezuelan-led ALBA (Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America). For the Asia-Pacific region, Apec will still be the main driver for growth and prosperity.

(Tune in to 1098 AM, Tuesday to Friday, 5 to 6 p.m.; watch GNN Destiny Cable Channel 8, Saturday, 8:00 p.m. and replay Sunday, 8 a.m.; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com; and text reactions to 0923-4095739)

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)