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)

Aliens over our rural banks II

DIE HARD III

Herman Tiu Laurel

6/12/2013

Daily Tribune

In our last column we reported the very quiet passage of RepublicAct (RA) 10574, which opens Philippine rural banks to 60 percent foreign ownership, signed into law by BS Aquino last May 24. A former head of a rural bank association in the country whom I interviewed sounded the alarm that foreign interests with ominous intentions will now gain not only a foothold but control of the grassroots credit network of rural banks, allowing them to push programs that may be totally harmful to the Philippine economy and Filipino people, such as those of US food giant Monsanto, which can fast track the insertion of genetically modified organism seeds and ancillary products such as pesticides and fertilizers into our food chain. This law will ultimately prove immensely deleterious to the nation, especially for future generations.

Moreover, Philippine rural banks suddenly found themselves undercapitalized when the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) introduced new rules under Basel III imposing higher capital requirements for all banking institutions the world over. The BIS has been severely criticized in the past for failing to monitor or anticipate the crises that arose from abuses committed by global banking and financial institutions of their financial powers and businesses, such as the Wall Street collapse in 2008 which caused the financial armageddon still bedeviling the US and European economies. The BIS has detractors aplenty, including US law scholar, economics researcher, and public banking advocate Ellen Brown, who wrote the article, "The Tower of Basel," which likens the BIS abuse of power, arrogance and corruption to the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel, at the same time exposing the international body's plan to issue and control the global currency.

A global currency to replace the US dollar today may be a relished prospect for many, but does anybody (except the global bankers) believe in having a band of secretive, elitist, unelected and unaccountable powers, such as the BIS, define and control such a global currency? For most Filipinos who invariably don't know a thing about how their peso is controlled, much less manipulated, by alien elements, these issues do not matter. For this reason, the Philippine economy is one of the most badly victimized by the global currency manipulators. Every cycle of Philippine economic collapse has been precipitated by massive currency devaluations caused by global manipulations — from the decontrol by Diosdado Macapagal in the 1950s, which destroyed our incipient industrialization, to the 1970s devaluation that collapsed the Lopez empire, as well as the 1997-1998 Asian Financial Crisis.

Back to RA 10574 or the Foreign Equity bill allowing 60 percent voting stocks ownership of Philippine rural banks by foreign interests, one rural bank association official said, "Now that foreign investments are allowed, rural banks are… in a better financial position to reach out and serve both the unbanked and under-banked through improved banking services." But the fact that stares at anyone who cares to open his eyes is, the Philippines, along with its banking system, is awash with cash, which only needs to be redirected by Philippine financial and banking authorities to rural banks. This is evidenced by the repeated headlines in the business papers, such as "Cut in SDA rate seen to be just a matter of time," which means the further reduction of interest rates, from four percent just months ago to two percent today and even lower in the weeks ahead, for the P2-trillion Special Deposit Account (SDA) with the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.

What is the BIS' role in this? It's none other than to raise the equity requirements for all banks in the world under its aegis. Rich and powerful countries such as China would have no problem with it as they are awash with cash and are still able to retain control over their currency while maintaining public ownership and management of all major financial and banking institutions. For Philippine rural banks, however, no matter how well run, the requirement simply compels them to look for new sources of equity. Basel III is a key to pushing small rural banking systems of many Third World countries to control by foreign funds. What can and will surely follow is the rape of their economies.

The crafters of RA 10574 must have done their homework on how to justify the 60 percent foreign ownership of rural banks, which still ought to be subject to the constitutional provision protecting Filipino control; but we'll do our part now with pro bono lawyers to examine the constitutionality of this law.
Slowly but surely, the Philippines is coming under the New World Order run from the centers of Western finance (i.e. the City of London; Basel, Switzerland; Wall Street), under the direction of the unelected and unelectable oligarchs of money and power circles, e.g., the Bilderberg Group (whose last meeting at Grove Hotel, Hertfordshire, England on June 9, came complete with a no-fly zone).

But that should no longer come as a surprise since everything in the Philippines, from the top — its president, the entire banking system — down to the grassroots level (rural banks), is being unquestioningly placed under the control of those whom financial critic Max Keiser calls the global financial "banksters."

(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. on "Mon-Satan, the GMO evil"; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com; and text reactions to 0923-4095739)