by Jim Mays
So, what’s with this TPP thing? In 2009, the U.S. proposed to build on an existing trade agreement among four South American and Asian countries known as the Trans-Pacific Strategic Partnership agreement, the P-4. The intent was to reshape it along the lines of NAFTA, the North-American Free Trade Agreement.
 Photo by Jim Duffy Stephanie Low, left, chair of the Chapter's TPP Task Force, meets with TPP activists at the Forward on Climate Rally in Washington |
However, very little is actually known about the details, as secrecy prevails, and even members of Congress generally involved in the process have been kept in the dark. But not the 600 or so corporate “advisers.” What we know comes from leaked bits and pieces, some large, some small.
Currently, there are 11 countries participating in the negotiations. These include Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and the United States, and now Mexico and Canada, with Japan and possibly South Korea waiting in the wings. But not China, the dominant economy in the region.
It’s quite a mix, most are democracies to varying extent, and most are so-called market economies. Some may have been included only because they were part of the P-4 agreement and others have existing trade agreements with the U.S.
Ostensibly, the purpose of a trade agreement is to ease the flow of goods across national borders, thus benefiting all concerned. The adjective “free” has been added to make it more appealing: who could object to “free”?
Duties on much of this trade are already very low, with the exception of items of special interest such as cotton and sugar for the U.S. and rice for Japan, and this likely will not change.
When Mr. Obama ran for office he pledged to reexamine existing trade agreements and to change how we structured these agreements. He pledged to renegotiate NAFTA, among other things now consigned to history. Perhaps it can be blamed on an inherited trade office steeped in an old way of doing business and happy with its relationship with corporate America. And the proverbial revolving door of Washington.
Promises abound as to the benefits awaiting all. Our best record comes from NAFTA, and it hasn’t been encouraging. And studies from the Economic Policy Institute further show this.
In 2009, the total U.S. global trade for TPP countries (excluding then non-members Mexico and Canada) amounted to 4.2%. Agricultural market access is a major issue, and indications are that the U.S. is not about to grant greater access.
When we speak of trade, most people think of things. And Sierra Club members may question why their Club is even involved in trade issues. The reality of trade is that it effects many environmental, health and social issues. Fracking and other energy issues relate to climate, and the current boom in drilling for gas has led to a glut, with the only apparent solution being export. Under current rules, gas exports require federal permits, but under an agreement such as TPP, our ability to regulate would be limited.
Trade in goods—or, as Lori Wallach of Global Trade Watch is fond of saying, “things you can drop on your foot” —is, except for agriculture, not really the major purpose of agreements such as the TPP. It is an effort by the U.S. and its transnational corporations to gain or maintain control over certain aspects of the global economy. It is about eliminating disagreeable regulations. It is about the control of information in the form of patents and copyright; it is about combating generic medicines and state-sponsored pharmaceutical schemes.
Many countries, such as Australia have such pharmaceutical plans in order to provide medicine at affordable cost. But the industry has fought this as an infringement on its right to profit. This is the same thinking that came up against mandatory drug licensing in the worldwide AIDS epidemic.
TPP is also about regulating certain key sectors of the world economy. U.S. trade agreements consistently limit the import into the U.S. of certain commodities such as sugar and cotton, while making it difficult for others to similarly protect themselves. Mexico suffered an enormous influx of subsidized, industrially-produced U.S. corn, displacing its farmer population (and leading to increase in economic migration north).
It has also been argued that the TPP is about U.S. geopolitical influence in the region.
Bypassing the public interest
The proposed Investor-State Dispute Resolution mechanism follows the established model of investors being able to directly sue states before one of the international arbitration bodies. These disputes are resolved by three trade lawyers, behind closed doors, with limited appeal permitted.
Decisions are most often based on commercial or trade issues, with limited regard for the environment or social consequences. It is a system that allows investors to bypass laws made in the public interest, and exerts a chilling effect on enacting such rules.
This is a system subject to abuse: the lawyers function on both sides of cases, and even in victory, a poor country can accumulate significant legal costs, money that’s not going to education and health.
El Salvador prevailed in a case brought by Commerce Group of Milwaukee, WI, involving gold mining. The case was decided on technical grounds, not environmental, and El Salvador was forced to pay legal fees of $800,000.
Given the limited benefits of the TPP and the major problems, there is hope that the entire process will collapse, much as did the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas. However, we have seen 15 rounds of talks. We really don’t know what is going on inside the negotiations, only that they go on. The U.S. trade representative is stepping down. Does this indicate problems? We just don’t know. So we must urge our legislators to do the right thing.
Next stop: fast track
The agreement will be sent to Congress in the very near future. But before that, a piece of legislation called Fast Track must be enacted. This rule creates time limits and permits only an up-or-down vote with no modification. Negotiation on this step has begun. This will be the first fight in stopping TPP; it hasn’t quite begun, so stay tuned! Urging our representatives to vote against it is exactly how we can make a difference.
The Club is deeply concerned about the impacts of the TPP on the environment and the economy, though it hasn’t taken a position on TPP as yet. No documents have been finalized and released, so what it contains is largely unknown.
However, many people individually, both within and outside the Club, have grave doubts that it will be anything other than the same old trade agreement and a replay of NAFTA—which the Sierra Club strongly opposed.
The Club’s position has been very clear—it will not support an agreement that replicates this old, failed model of trade and investment.
Learn More
A longer version of this article is available on the Activist Network’s Responsible Trade page and more information on the TPP is available at www.sierraclub.org/trade/.
You can also find information and sign up for the TPP Task Force at www.nyc.sierraclub.org/tpp-resources.
Jim Mays, jmaysny@gmail.com, is a member of the Chapter’s TPP Task Force.