Obama and the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement: Should I be outraged?

[John_Stamos'_Left_Ear]

First of all, the story which has gained traction in the Blogosphere:

Obama Trade Document Leaked, Revealing New Corporate Powers And Broken Campaign Promises

A critical document from President Barack Obama's free trade negotiations with eight Pacific nations was leaked online early Wednesday morning, revealing that the administration intends to bestow radical new political powers upon multinational corporations, contradicting prior promises.

The leaked document has been posted on the website of Citizens Trade Campaign, a long-time critic of the administration's trade objectives. The new leak follows substantial controversy surrounding the secrecy of the talks, in which some members of Congress have complained they are not being given the same access to trade documents that corporate officials receive.

The newly leaked document is one of the most controversial of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact. It addresses a broad sweep of regulations governing international investment and reveals the Obama administration's advocacy for policies that environmental activists, financial reform advocates and labor unions have long rejected for eroding key protections currently in domestic laws.

Under the agreement currently being advocated by the Obama administration, American corporations would continue to be subject to domestic laws and regulations on the environment, banking and other issues. But foreign corporations operating within the U.S. would be permitted to appeal key American legal or regulatory rulings to an international tribunal. That international tribunal would be granted the power to overrule American law and impose trade sanctions on the United States for failing to abide by its rulings.

The terms run contrary to campaign promises issued by Obama and the Democratic Party during the 2008 campaign.

"Bush was better than Obama on this," said Judit Rius, U.S. manager of Doctors Without Borders Access to Medicines Campaign, referring to the medication rules.

Trans-Pacific negotiations have been taking place throughout the Obama presidency. The deal is strongly supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the top lobbying group for American corporations. Obama's Republican opponent in the 2012 presidential elections, Mitt Romney, has urged the U.S. to finalize the deal as soon as possible.

The Huffington Post

This is pretty serious accusations. Taken on face value, it claims that Obama - supposedly the best hope the middle class has - is just as in bed with corporate interests as Romney or anyone else. And that he is willing to sell out the country and his own supposed ideals.

This story has infected places online that are usually not hostile to Obama which has lent a certain veracity to it all.

In searching around, I found a rebuttal:

The Crumbling Case of the Freakout Brigade: Trans-Pacific Trade Edition

So, the Huffington Post went on full freakout mode yesterday based on a leak from Public Citizen of a single chapter of a still-in-the-works trans-Pacific trade agreement with the United States that is still under consideration.

Sounds scary, don't you think? That corporate-shilling, backstabbing good-for-nothing Obama! Impeach him!

Except, maybe one should ask if this is actually true. Would foreign corporations operating within the United States be able to contravene American law, and worse yet, appeal American legal or regulatory rulings in international tribunal?

Umm, no.

(T)here is no question of an international tribunal overruling a ruling from an American court or an administrative panel since once a foreign investor takes an issue to an American court or an administrative panel, they lose their right to go to the international tribunal. That is from the dispute section of the leaked document, which is itself a part of a good number of still-in-process documents constituting the agreement. And where Huffpo and Public Citizen came up with the concept of foreign companies gutting environmental regulations is beyond me, since this agreement - at least this leaked part - seems to exclusively cover financial investments and products.

But this would raise a legitimate question. Can a foreign investor just skip the American legal process and take everything to the international arbitration process provided for in the document? The answer to that is as follows: for any legal matter, no.

Here is what we do know, from the leaked document - it requires that the investments are made in accordance with the laws, administrative process and policies of the territory where the investment is made.

A simple reading of this would seem to indicate that foreign corporations that make investments in another country covered by this agreement would have to follow the laws and regulations in that country (the US, for example). The only disputes as a matter of law that would be the purview of the international arbitration, then, would be any laws or regulations that contradict and contravene the terms of the trade pact. Which, one might note, is traditionally the case under any trade agreements - as trade agreements are passed by Congress and are thus duly constituted US law.

And this process of mediation and arbitration is not alien to trade pacts. On the contrary, it's the norm. When two parties are at a dispute over the terms of an agreement, they set up a process of mediation or arbitration to solve it. That has nothing whatsoever to do with exempting foreign corporations from laws that American corporations need to abide by.

So why the freakout? If you look at the people making the accusations, you can easily tell. Public Citizen - the organization founded by Ralph Nader, and an anti-free trade organization.

It's a legitimate policy debate as to whether or not free trade is beneficial to the great many, and if so, what kind... What is not legitimate, however, is trying to score points based on misinterpretations and misdirections. What is not legitimate, is to manufacture outrage based upon the mere existence of an international dispute resolution panel. It is not legitimate to make outlandish claims based on a document that clearly does not support those claims.

These tactics, sadly, are no better than what the Right wing uses to stop progress. Groups and people that are against all trade agreements should make their case, not manufacture falsehoods to try to score fake points.

The People's View

So what is it, kids? Has Obama sold his lefty supporters out? Or is this just more manufactured outrage? It's so hard to tell anymore...

One thing I do know is that Obama has yet to actually enter into any agreement or ask Congress to vote on a proprosed agreement. I think that's important though it would still bug me if he even put on the table some of the things he is being accused of.

[XT]

Don't know....it seems a good idea to me, on cursory examination. So, that probably answers the question in the title...'Should I be outraged?'. Answer...obviously you should.

So what is it, kids? Has Obama sold his lefty supporters out? Or is this just more manufactured outrage? It's so hard to tell anymore...

It's not manufactured, IMHO. What it is (again, understand, this is from just a cursory reading of this, since I don't usually follow the latest lefty outrage against Obama. I'm more worried about righty outrage against him usually, when I pay attention at all) is a bunch of disgruntled lefties who view everything through their ideological filters and who have been in low grade pissed off mode about Obama since he was elected because he didn't do everything they wanted him to do as soon as he got in. This constant drone (from a small percentage of liberal lefty types...at least I HOPE it's a small percentage, since he's going to need the base in the general election) that he's sold out, blah blah blah, has been going on since about the 2nd week of his taking office.

One thing I do know is that Obama has yet to actually enter into any agreement or ask Congress to vote on a proprosed agreement. I think that's important though it would still bug me if he even put on the table some of the things he is being accused of.

From what I can tell, this thing is still in the workshop phase, so I'm doubting that it's going to happen tomorrow...or even before the election. Right now, unless I'm missing something this seems much ado about nuffin, at least right now.

Here are some of the details of what the Trans-Pacific trade agreement might be:

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), also known as the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement, is a multilateral free trade agreement that aims to further liberalise the economies of the Asia-Pacific region; specifically, Article 1.1.3 notes: “The Parties seek to support the wider liberalisation process in APEC consistent with its goals of free and open trade and investment.”[1] The proposals have been accused of being excessively restrictive, providing intellectual property restraints beyond those in the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement,[2] and in developing countries, particularly Vietnam, could limit access to affordable medication, including generic drugs.[3]

The original agreement among the countries of Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore was signed on June 3, 2005, and entered into force on May 28, 2006. Six additional countries – Australia, Malaysia, Peru, Japan, United States, and Vietnam – are negotiating to join the group.[4] On the last day of the 2010 APEC summit, November 14, leaders of the nine negotiating countries endorsed the proposal advanced by United States President Barack Obama that set a target for settlement of negotiations by the next APEC summit in November 2011.[5] On 11 November 2011, the Japanese Prime Minister, Yoshihiko Noda, announced negotiations to join.[6] The eleventh round of negotiations is scheduled for March 1–9, 2012, in Melbourne, Australia.[7]

On March 5, 2012 a group of people, protesting the agreement, disrupted an outside broadcast of 7News Melbourne's 6pm bulletin in the city's Federation Square.

The TPP was previously known as the Pacific Three Closer Economic Partnership (P3-CEP), its negotiations launched on the sidelines of the 2002 APEC Leaders' Meeting in Los Cabos, Mexico, by Chilean President Ricardo Lagos and Prime Ministers Goh Chok Tong of Singapore and Helen Clark of New Zealand. Brunei first took part as a full negotiating party in the fifth round of talks in April 2005, after which the trade bloc became known as the Pacific-4 (P4). Although all original and negotiating parties are members of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the TPP is not an APEC initiative. However, it is considered as a pathfinder for the proposed Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP), an APEC initiative.

The objective of the original agreement was to eliminate 90 percent of all tariffs between member countries by January 1, 2006, and reduce all trade tariffs to zero by the year 2015. It is a comprehensive agreement covering all the main pillars of a free trade agreement, including trade in goods, rules of origin, trade remedies, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, technical barriers to trade, trade in services, intellectual property, government procurement and competition policy.[8]

From what I can tell, it's simply a free trade agreement between the US and several Pacific trading partners. I can see why liberal heads might be asploding over this (and probably some conservative heads as well, depending on what type of conservative they are).

-XT

[John Mace]

Under the agreement currently being advocated by the Obama administration, American corporations would continue to be subject to domestic laws and regulations on the environment, banking and other issues. But foreign corporations operating within the U.S. would be permitted to appeal key American legal or regulatory rulings to an international tribunal. That international tribunal would be granted the power to overrule American law and impose trade sanctions on the United States for failing to abide by its rulings.

Hah! Good luck getting that approved by the Senate.

Of course it must be true, though, coming from the Huffington Post and all...

[Bricker]

There's nothing to see here. The original critique is, technically, accurate. But its statements shade meanings and apply scare tactics to what is a very common process. And believe me: I am no fan of ceding American law to foreign courts.

Could it be that the lefty blogosphere is willing to shade the truth and misrepresent facts to favor the way they'd like the story to read???

I'm shocked, shocked to discover that there's gambling going on here.
[/Captain Renault]

And of course, to forestall the obvious: righty blogosphere, same thing, with salt.