National Sovereignty At Stake
by: Emily Petrovski Posted on: December 08, 2013
Editor’s Note: Read the Dirt intern Emily Petrovski does some background research on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. Your sovereignty would appear to be at stake.
By Emily Petrovski
The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement: “The scariest trade agreement you’ve never heard of”
The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is being negotiated by the United States, Australia, Chile, Singapore, Peru, Brunei, Canada, Malaysia, Japan, New Zealand, Mexico and Vietnam. The TPP is an expanded version of the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement, a trade agreement signed in 2005 by Brunei, Chile, Singapore and New Zealand.
According to the U.S. Trade Representative website, the United States joined the TPP “to advance our economic interests in the critical Asia-Pacific region. Expanding U.S. exports is critical to our economic recovery and to the creation and retention of high-quality jobs in the United States.”
Opponents call it “NAFTA on steroids” and say it could destroy internet freedoms, undermine environmental protections, negate our laws, encourage globalization and benefit only corporations. Many protestors are highly critical of the secrecy surrounding the TPP negotiations.
A brief history
In late 2009, President Obama announced his intention to participate in the TPP negotiations.
The TPP has 17 non-trade chapters, 5 trade chapters, 4 administrative chapters and 3 chapters that are unknown in content.
There have been 20 rounds of negotiations since 2010 with the latest taking place this November in Salt Lake City, Utah where protests broke out over the secrecy of the trade agreement.
The U.S. currently has trade agreements with six countries negotiating the TPP.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a free trade agreement between Canada, Mexico and the U.S., came into force on January 1, 1994. NAFTA created the world’s largest free trade area, according to the U.S. Trade Representative website. Its impacts on national sovereignty and the democratic powers of the participating nations have been widespread. See our “suggested further reading” below for more on NAFTA.
Implications of the TPP
The TPP protects free trade from democratically passed laws. It can strip power from environmental laws in all participating countries. The Philippines, for example, has not joined the TPP because its constitution protects the country’s natural resources. In April 2013, the Philippine Trade Secretary said the country still had more research to do before it could decide to join the TPP.
The TPP will allow companies to sue outside local court systems, in secret tribunals at the World Trade Organization. Under the TPP companies can sue sovereign nations over laws they believe are hurting their profits, might hurt future profits or undermine their rights as defined in the TPP, such as the TPP’s extended patent time limits.
There are currently 518 such cases pending against governments, said Robin Everett of the Seattle Sierra Club.
After the Canadian province of Quebec imposed a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing, a U.S. oil and gas exploration company that operates in Canada sued the Canadian government. The company, Lone Pine Resources, said the ban was illegal under the North American Free Trade Agreement. The process is ongoing.
The Australian government was sued by tobacco companies from Ukraine, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Indonesia and Honduras. As part of an anti-smoking campaign, the government put warnings and plain packaging on cigarette packs. The tobacco companies argued the packing hurt sales and infringed upon their right to sell tobacco products. The process is also ongoing.
The penalties nations face when the World Trade Organization rules against them include trade sanctions or compensation by the country.
Canada banned the export of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) to the U.S. in 1995 because of the harm they cause to the environment and human health. An Ohio-based corporation that specializes in PCB equipment recycling sued the Canadian government, alleging it suffered economic harm because of a loss of Canadian contracts and opportunities. The company, S.D. Myers, was awarded over $6 million CAD in the lawsuit. Canada then revoked the ban. See this link for more info: http://ban.org/ban_news/canada_slapped.html
The TPP would strip the U.S. Department of Energy of its authority to regulate whether or not we export natural gas, Everett said. The DOE would not be able to review and analyze the impacts of the export of natural gas on the economy or environment. They would have to automatically approve any exports of natural gas, Everett said, or risk paying huge fines imposed by the World Trade Organization.
Six years ago Mexico sued the U.S. over its use of “dolphin safe” labels on tuna cans. Mexico claimed the label was an unfair trade practice, arguing the U.S. labeling of dolphin safe tuna gave an unfair disadvantage to Mexican tuna fishermen—that it restricted free trade. Mexico won the court case—no more “dolphin safe” labels.
Under the TPP labelling genetically modified organisms wouldn’t be allowed.
Japanese farmers protested the TPP in October 2011 when Japan joined in negotiations. They argued the TPP would increase their dependence on food imports and negatively impact their agricultural production, according to this article from the Japan Times. They protested again in Tokyo in April 2012.
The TPP could negatively impact endangered species and encourage illegal exploitation of natural resources and organisms, Everett said. The Sierra Club believes the TPP should have a strong and binding environmental chapter. The Sierra Club also believes the TPP should have transparency, no investor-state (that allows investors to sue foreign governments) and no fast-track in the U.S. House of Representatives, which constitutionally must approve all U.S. trade agreements, Everett said.
President Obama said he is working to get safeguards into the TPP, Everett said.
The TPP will boost the U.S. economy, support U.S. jobs, increase U.S. exports, and increase U.S. competitiveness in the Asia-Pacific market, according to the U.S. Trade Representative website.
Only those working on the TPP know what it contains. Even members of the House will not be able to read the agreement before they vote on whether to approve it. However, Wikileaks released the chapter on intellectual property rights on November 13 (see below).
Over 600 advisers, most of whom work for large corporations, are working with the U.S. Trade Representative on the Agreement. Public interest groups have not been allowed in negotiations, Everett said.
If the TPP is approved, the document will not be released to the public for four years, Everett said.
If democratically elected members of the U.S. House of Representatives want to know what is in the agreement, they have to contact a TPP representative with a specific question. The representative will then get back to them with the answers they can give.
At the recent round of negotiations in Salt Lake City, protestors organized by the Citizens Trade Campaign rallied against the secrecy of the TPP negotiation process.
Members of the public can make comments about the TPP through the U.S. Trade Representative website. The comment period ends January 25, according to the website.
Public comments on the TPP can be found here: http://www.regulations.gov/#!searchResults;rpp=25;po=0;s=Trans%252BPacific%252BPartnership;dct=PS
Leaked chapter on Intellectual Property
On November 13, 2013 Wikileaks leaked a draft of the TPP’s Intellectual Property chapter. Many have called it an attack on Internet freedom. As laid out, the chapter, among other things, allows for longer patents than currently allowed in the U.S.
This chapter, which is 95 pages long, covers medicines, Internet, biological patents and civil liberties. It was obtained by Wikileaks and can be found here: http://wikileaks.org/tpp/
According to the Wikileaks, the TPP enacts some of the same surveillance and enforcement policies set forth by the Stop Online Privacy Act (SOPA) and the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. SOPA was halted in Congress by civic outrage over its implications for online freedom.
The TPP’s patent and copyright “protections” could make it harder to get generic drugs.
The fast track
Constitutionally, the U.S. House of Representatives must ratify trade agreements. Many trade agreements however are fast-tracked.
About 175 U.S. Representatives sent President Obama a letter expressing their intent to say “no” to the fast-track plan set forth by the President. The fast-track plan would prevent House members from making amendments to the agreement, or even reading it before voting. Representatives would only be allowed to vote yes or no on the TPP.
Suggested further reading:
The Intellectual property chapter: http://wikileaks.org/tpp/
Coverage from The Nation: http://www.thenation.com/search/apachesolr_search/tpp
Info from Public Citizen: http://www.citizen.org/TPP
Coverage from Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/search/term.html?KEYWORDS=Trans-pacific+partnership&mod=DNH_S
World coverage from Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/search?blob=trans-pacific+partnership
Government site for NAFTA: http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/north-american-free-trade-agreement-nafta
Public citizen NAFTA info: http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=531
U.S. Dept. of Ag. NAFTA info: http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/policy/nafta/nafta.asp
Photo: Gobierno de Chile
One Response to “National Sovereignty At Stake”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Articles On Ideas
Ideas: Lessons learned, perspectives, advice and more by and for organizers working toward a more democratic society.
- Sep 26 Education Sneak Peek
- Jun 5 US Climate Movement: Funnel Money Downward if You Want to Survive
- Jan 12 For Teachers and Citizens: How to Respond to Federal Immigration Raids
- Jan 5 How To Respond When Your (Local) Government Gets Sued By A Corporation
- Dec 8 Occupy’s Not So Invisible Work
- Dec 8 Getting Specific About What We Want
- Dec 8 National Sovereignty At Stake
- Dec 8 Lessons Learned By A Federal Enforcer
- Dec 8 Sacred Democracy-The Marriage of the Ethical and the Moral
- Dec 8 A Briefing On The State-Owned Bank of North Dakota
- Nov 8 Politicizing a Social Worker
- Nov 8 Sacred Democracy-Enlightenment and Democracy
- Oct 8 The People Know Best, Should We Listen?
- Oct 8 Sacred Democracy-Democracy: a Work in Progress
- Oct 8 Dispatches from Denmark-Ærø
- Oct 8 Protect The Local Initiative Process-Why Support WA Initiative 517
- Oct 8 Questions for a County Council Could-Be
- Sep 8 A Brief Chat about Workers’ Rights
- Sep 8 Sacred Democracy-Glimmers of Empathy in the Shadows of History
- Aug 8 Native Resilience and Interethnic Cooperation: How Natives are adapting to climate change, and helping their non-Native neighbors follow suit
- Aug 8 Imagining a New Society: Comparisons from Iceland
- Aug 8 Sacred Democracy-Rites of Nature
- Jul 8 Sacred Democracy-The Beatitudes of Fairness
- Jul 8 Speaking With a ‘Fractivist’: Data Acquisition to Federal Exemptions
- Jul 8 Selections from the Public News Service-July 2013 (Audio)
- Jul 8 How the Declaration of Independence got Hijacked
- Jun 10 A Bright Future: Creative, Passionate Students at Class Academy in Portland Participate in Read the Dirt Environmental Writing Contest
- Jun 8 (Audio): Read the Dirt’s Coverage of the 2013 Public Interest Environmental Law Conference
- Jun 8 Sacred Democracy-Living Democracy as Spiritual Practice (Or Vice Versa)
- May 8 Sacred Democracy-The Moral Blueprint
- May 8 Transforming Faith
- Feb 25 Park Rangers to the Rescue
- Feb 11 Washington’s Renewables: An Introduction
- Dec 12 Species Banks
- Nov 23 Our Slaves
- Nov 17 NW Coal Ports: Voice your concerns, voice them loud!
- Nov 13 Meditations on our Future
- Nov 4 Book: Ecoliterate: How Educators Are Cultivating Emotional, Social, and Ecological Intelligence
- Oct 14 Equity, Environmental Justice, and Industrial Pollution in Portland
- Oct 8 Cities advising Counties?
- Sep 12 Talking with Washington State Legislators-Stanford
- Aug 26 Talking with Washington State Legislators-Pollet
- Aug 21 Help! I’m being Climate Changed!
- Jul 14 Questionnaire for the authors of: THE GOLDILOCKS PLANET The 4 Billion Year Story of Earth’s Climate-Oxford University Press
- Jun 17 Can City Planning Make Us Cooler, Healthier and Friendlier?
- Jun 11 The Results-2012
- Mar 25 Making Clean Local Energy Accessible Now (Part 1)
- Mar 8 Our Right To Know
- Jan 18 PROTECT ONLINE FREEDOM—READ THE DIRT DEPENDS ON IT!
- Dec 23 Talking About Our Nuclear Hazard
- Oct 28 Why make Mt. St. Helens a National Park?
- Oct 20 The Story behind the Book, A Great Aridness: Climate Change and the Future of the American Southwest
- Jun 23 McKibben Comments on Expansion of Coal Exports at Cherry Point (Whatcom County)
- Apr 3 WASTED POWER
- Dec 20 Meet Some Environmental Consultants
- Dec 5 Using Dirt to Teach
- Oct 21 The We, The I and The Dirt
- Oct 21 Turning Pollution Into Energy
- Oct 21 Orange and Green
- Oct 21 Election 2010: Talk with a WA State Supreme Court Candidate (Wiggins)
- Oct 21 Election 2010: Talk with a WA State Supreme Court Candidate (Chief Justice Madsen)
- Oct 20 Our Dirty Web Designer (Video)