Global Research
Despite Outcry of Opposition, Obama Pushes “Horrific” Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Trade Deal in Asia
Though president once railed against so-called “free trade”
agreements, he has now become outspoken champion of secretive deals that
critics call attack on democracy, workers, and the planet.
Despite consistent and vocal opposition from organized labor, environmentalists, progressive economy experts and others warning against the damaging impacts of a trans-Pacific trade agreement that remains under negotiations by the U.S. and twelve other nations, President Obama on Monday once again voiced his support for what he said would be a “historic” agreement.
In Beijing for talks with his Chinese counterpart and to attend
the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, Obama championed the
so-called “free trade” deal, known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership
(TPP), even though critics have described the agreement as a “horrific” corporate giveaway that
would further codify the undemocratic mechanisms of global trade,
breaking down protections for workers, consumers, and the planet’s
natural systems.
Though Obama ran for president in 2008 as a staunch opponent of similarly designed trade deals, including NAFTA, since taking in office, he has forcefully pushed for the TPP and a similar deal with European nations, called the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).
“This has the potential for being an historic agreement,” Obama said of the TPP to heads-of-state and trade commissioners at the APEC summit’s opening session on Monday.
If approved, the TPP would be the world’s largest economic trade agreement, encompassing more than 40 percent of the world’s GDP. Though China would not be party to the agreement, the TPP would cover the U.S., Canada and Mexico in North America; Chile and Peru in South America; and Japan, Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, and Vietnam in the Pacific-Asia region.
Though U.S. officials said no breathroughs or announcements were expected on the deal during this trip, the president used the occasion to champion the aims of the TPP.
“What we are seeing,” Obama told those in attendance, “is momentum building around a Trans-Pacific Partnership that can spur greater economic growth, spur greater jobs growth, set high standards for trade and investment throughout the Asia-Pacific.”
Following last weeks mid-term elections in the U.S., some analysts argued that a Republican-controlled Congress—which is generally friendlier to the corporate trade framework of such deals—is more likely to help Obama push through the agreement. However, as Lori Wallach, director of the Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, pointed out, that calculation may be misplaced.
According to Public Citizen, the TPP would be a grab-bag of policies designed to empower corporate entities while stripping the people of these twelve nations of self-determination and democratic process. According to the group:
Despite consistent and vocal opposition from organized labor, environmentalists, progressive economy experts and others warning against the damaging impacts of a trans-Pacific trade agreement that remains under negotiations by the U.S. and twelve other nations, President Obama on Monday once again voiced his support for what he said would be a “historic” agreement.
Japanese farmers and their supporters
hold placards and chant slogans against an anti-Trans Pacific
Partnership (TPP) trade deal at a rally in front of the prime minister’s
official residence in Tokyo on April 22, 2014, the day before US
President Barack Obama visits. Japan seeks to retain tariffs on five
farm product categories, rice, wheat, beef and pork, sugar, and dairy
products, amid strong concern from the domestic agricultural industry.
(Photo: AFP)
Though Obama ran for president in 2008 as a staunch opponent of similarly designed trade deals, including NAFTA, since taking in office, he has forcefully pushed for the TPP and a similar deal with European nations, called the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).
“This has the potential for being an historic agreement,” Obama said of the TPP to heads-of-state and trade commissioners at the APEC summit’s opening session on Monday.
If approved, the TPP would be the world’s largest economic trade agreement, encompassing more than 40 percent of the world’s GDP. Though China would not be party to the agreement, the TPP would cover the U.S., Canada and Mexico in North America; Chile and Peru in South America; and Japan, Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, and Vietnam in the Pacific-Asia region.
Though U.S. officials said no breathroughs or announcements were expected on the deal during this trip, the president used the occasion to champion the aims of the TPP.
“What we are seeing,” Obama told those in attendance, “is momentum building around a Trans-Pacific Partnership that can spur greater economic growth, spur greater jobs growth, set high standards for trade and investment throughout the Asia-Pacific.”
Following last weeks mid-term elections in the U.S., some analysts argued that a Republican-controlled Congress—which is generally friendlier to the corporate trade framework of such deals—is more likely to help Obama push through the agreement. However, as Lori Wallach, director of the Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, pointed out, that calculation may be misplaced.
According to Public Citizen, the TPP would be a grab-bag of policies designed to empower corporate entities while stripping the people of these twelve nations of self-determination and democratic process. According to the group:
Although it is called a “free trade” agreement, the TPP is not mainly about trade. Of TPP’s 29 draft chapters, only five deal with traditional trade issues. One chapter would provide incentives to offshore jobs to low-wage countries. Many would impose limits on government policies that we rely on in our daily lives for safe food, a clean environment, and more. Our domestic federal, state and local policies would be required to comply with TPP rules.
The TPP would even elevate individual foreign firms to equal status with sovereign nations, empowering them to privately enforce new rights and privileges, provided by the pact, by dragging governments to foreign tribunals to challenge public interest policies that they claim frustrate their expectations.
Global Research Related Articles
The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Global Corporate Coup, Assault on Democracy and National SovereigntyAccording
to Ron Kirk former US Trade Representative : making the text public
would raise such opposition that it could make the deal impossible to
sign. There is a battle building between the people of the planet and
transnational ... 
The Trans-Pacific Partnership: We Won’t Be Fooled By Rigged Corporate Trade AgreementsEarly
October, President Obama will attend the Asia-Pacific Economic
Coordination (APEC) meeting in Bali, Indonesia where he is expected to
announce his goal of having the Trans-Pacific Partnership signed into
law by the end of 2013. Obama will host ... 
NAFTA on Steroids, Three "Secret" Concurrent "Free Trade" Deals: Can the TPP, the TTIP and CETA be Stopped?I
voted against CAFTA, never supported NAFTA, and will not support
NAFTA-style trade agreements in the future. NAFTA’s shortcomings were
evident when signed and we must now amend the agreement to fix them.
While NAFTA gave broad rights to ... 
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): A Corporate Coup d'Etat - Handcuffs Governments, Gives New Powers to CorporationsThe
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a trade deal from hell. It's a
stealth corporate coup d'etat.It's a giveaway to banksters. It's a
global neoliberal ripoff. It's a business empowering Trojan horse. It's a
freedom and ecosystem destroying nightmare.The Electronic ... 
Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole
responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on
Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect
statement in this article. The Center of Research on Globalization
grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on
community internet sites as long as the text & title are not
modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For
publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms
including commercial internet sites, contact: publications@globalresearch.ca
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: publications@globalresearch.ca
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: publications@globalresearch.ca
Copyright © Jon Queally, Common Dreams, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment