‘Glad #TPP is dead’: Sanders & Dems applaud Trump for pulling out of global trade deal


RT

U.S. President Donald Trump holds up the executive order on withdrawal from the Trans Pacific Partnership after signing it in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington January 23, 2017. © Kevin Lamarque / Reuters


President Donald Trump is being commended by former presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) as well as some Democrats facing tough reelection campaigns, following his executive order removing the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

“I am glad the Trans-Pacific Partnership is dead and gone,” Sanders said in a statement Monday.

The self-declared democratic socialist campaigned hard to keep Trump out of the White House, stumping for Hillary Clinton despite a fierce primary battle that included a biased Democratic National Committee. But since the election, Sanders has expressed openness to working with Trump, whom he agreed with on his populist opposition to global trade deals.

“For the last 30 years, we have had a series of trade deals – including the North American Free Trade Agreement, permanent normal trade relations with China and others – which have cost us millions of decent-paying jobs and caused a ‘race to the bottom’ which has lowered wages for American workers,” Sanders said Monday.

“If President Trump is serious about a new policy to help American workers, then I would be delighted to work with him,” he added.

This political alliance may be brief and coincidental, but Sanders has a reelection campaign in 2018 to consider. The two-term senator won handily in 2012 with 71 percent of the vote, and Vermont went for Clinton in 2016, but some Democratic senators who have also come out in praise of Trump over TPP are not in as comfortable a position.

Democratic Senators Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin both saw their blue states go red for Trump, a first in decades. They also both face reelection in 2018. Senator Baldwin tweeted Monday: “Withdrawing from #TPP & moving to renegotiate #NAFTA are good 1st steps from @POTUS, but more must be done to keep his word to WI workers.”

“I support President Trump’s issuing of an executive orders that will pull the U.S. out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and his recent steps to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA),” Casey said in a statement Monday. “NAFTA has adversely impacted middle class families in Pennsylvania and the TPP would have cost jobs and hurt income growth, which is why I voted against fast tracking the deal in 2015.”

All political rules went out the window when it came to Trump’s campaign for president. Only time will tell if any more are broken, as the midterm election season creeps up.

 

..

The Malevolent Trade Pacts (of Death)


What’s more delightful and heartening about this report is that it comes from non other than the cabal owned propaganda machine the Financial Times. The winds of change are blowing hard that even the MSMs are finding it difficult to keep their silence on the deadly agendas of their masters. Though this is specifically TTIP but it transposes the other pacts TPP and TISA just as well…and perfectly.


 

FT

The transatlantic trade pact that risks more harm than good

As real incomes stagnate voters have concluded that economic gains benefit everyone but them


sans_titre-2

The British electorate rebelled against membership of the EU. The Italians may rebel against constitutional reforms in a referendum in November. The Germans, French, Austrians and Belgians, among others, are rebelling against the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, otherwise known as TTIP.

President François Hollande of France said last week that he no longer sees an agreement on TTIP in time for ratification before President Barack Obama leaves the White House in January. Since neither of the candidates to succeed him — Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump — supports TTIP, there is a strong probability that it will fail…

TTIP is not a classic free trade agreement. It is largely about investment and the reduction of regulatory barriers. As such it is similar to the single European market though not nearly as comprehensive. It also constitutes an intrusion into national sovereignty over economic policy. While UK voters rebelled against the single European market, continental voters reject the single transatlantic market. This is no coincidence.

Proponents of TTIP are making the same mistake as the Remain supporters did ahead of the UK referendum on EU membership in June. They are exaggerating the economic impact of their case and running the equivalent of a Project Fear campaign. The Austrian government’s growing rejection of TTIP and a similar EU-Canada trade deal drew an angry response from Elmar Brok, head of the foreign affairs committee of the European Parliament and member of Ms Merkel’s Christian Democrats. Mr Brok attacked Christian Kern, Austria’s chancellor, as irresponsible and said his actions were not compatible with “serious politics”. A transatlantic free trade deal would, he says, bring economic advantages to Austria and Germany…

A more convincing argument is the one used by Mr Kern who says that TTIP would strengthen the power of multinational companies at the expense of elected politicians…

Continue reading…

..

Who is in charge of destroying economies?


nomorefakenews.com

A dog whistle to Trump supporters.
by Jon Rappoport
March 11, 2016
(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)
Who sets that policy?  Who keeps it intact, despite new legislators and Presidents exiting and entering office?

Who keeps pushing new economy-destroying trade treaties, like the upcoming TPP?  Who demands that these treaties must be ratified?

A number of groups—but one group has been virtually forgotten.  Its influence is enormous.  It has existed since 1973.

It’s called the Trilateral Commission (TC).
tc
In a minute, I’m going to print a stunning piece of forgotten history, a 1978 conversation between a US reporter and two members of the Trilateral Commission.

I discovered the conversation in the late 1980s, and ever since then, I’ve been looking at it from various angles, finding new implications.  Here, I want to point out that the conversation was public knowledge at the time.

Anyone who was anyone in Washington politics, in media, in think-tanks, had access to it.  Understood its meaning.

But no one shouted from the rooftops.  No one used the conversation to force a scandal.  No one protested loudly.

The conversation revealed that the entire basis of the US Constitution had been torpedoed, that the people who were running US national policy (which includes trade treaties) were agents of an elite shadow group.  No question about it.

And yet: official silence.  Media silence.  The Dept. of Justice made no moves, Congress undertook no serious inquiries, and the President, Jimmy Carter, issued no statements.  Carter was himself a covert agent of the Trilateral Commission in the White House, a willing pawn, a rank con artist, a hustler.  He had been plucked from obscurity and, through elite TC press connections, vaulted into the spotlight as a pre-eminent choice for the Presidency.

To boil down the 1978 conversation between the reporter and two Trilateral Commission members, and the follow-on response:

“The US has been taken over.”

“Yeah, so?”

Many people think the TC, created in 1973 by David Rockefeller, is a relic of an older time.

Think again.

Patrick Wood, author of Trilaterals Over Washington, points out there are only 87 members of the Trilateral Commission who live in America. Obama appointed eleven of them to posts in his administration.

For example:

* Tim Geithner, Treasury Secretary

* James Jones, National Security Advisor

* Paul Volker, Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee

* Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence

Several other noteworthy Trilateral members:

* George HW Bush

* Bill Clinton

* Dick Cheney

* Al Gore

Keep in mind that the original stated goal of the TC was to create “a new international economic order.”

In the run-up to his inauguration after the 2008 presidential election, Obama was tutored by the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Brzezinski wrote, four years before birthing the TC with his godfather, David Rockefeller:

“[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”

Any doubt on the question of TC goals is answered by David Rockefeller himself, the founder of the TC, in his Memoirs (2003):

“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure-one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

Okay.  Here is a close-up snap shot of a remarkable moment from out of the past. It’s through-the-looking-glass—a conversation between reporter, Jeremiah Novak, and two Trilateral Commission members, Karl Kaiser and Richard Cooper. The interview took place in 1978. It concerned the issue of who exactly, during President Carter’s administration, was formulating US economic and political policy.

The careless and off-hand attitude of Trilateralists Kaiser and Cooper is astonishing. It’s as if they’re saying, “What we’re revealing is already out in the open, it’s too late to do anything about it, why are you so worked up, we’ve already won…”

NOVAK (the reporter): Is it true that a private [Trilateral committee] led by Henry Owen of the US and made up of [Trilateral] representatives of the US, UK, West Germany, Japan, France and the EEC is coordinating the economic and political policies of the Trilateral countries [which would include the US]?

COOPER: Yes, they have met three times.

NOVAK: Yet, in your recent paper you state that this committee should remain informal because to formalize ‘this function might well prove offensive to some of the Trilateral and other countries which do not take part.’ Who are you afraid of?

KAISER: Many countries in Europe would resent the dominant role that West Germany plays at these [Trilateral] meetings.

COOPER: Many people still live in a world of separate nations, and they would resent such coordination [of policy].

NOVAK: But this [Trilateral] committee is essential to your whole policy. How can you keep it a secret or fail to try to get popular support [for its decisions on how Trilateral member nations will conduct their economic and political policies]?

COOPER: Well, I guess it’s the press’ job to publicize it.

NOVAK: Yes, but why doesn’t President Carter come out with it and tell the American people that [US] economic and political power is being coordinated by a [Trilateral] committee made up of Henry Owen and six others? After all, if [US] policy is being made on a multinational level, the people should know.

COOPER: President Carter and Secretary of State Vance have constantly alluded to this in their speeches.

KAISER: It just hasn’t become an issue.

Source: “Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management,” ed. by Holly Sklar, 1980. South End Press, Boston. Pages 192-3.

This interview slipped under the mainstream media radar, which is to say, it was ignored and buried.

US economic and political policy run by a committee of the Trilateral Commission—the Commission had been created in 1973 as an “informal discussion group” by David Rockefeller and his sidekick, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

When Carter won the presidential election, his aide, Hamilton Jordan, said that if after the inauguration, Cy Vance and Brzezinski came on board as secretary of state and national security adviser, “We’ve lost. And I’ll quit.” Lost—because both men were powerful members of the Trilateral Commission and their appointment to key positions would signal a surrender of White House control to the Commission.

Vance and Brzezinski were appointed secretary of state and national security adviser, as Jordan feared. But he didn’t quit. He became Carter’s chief of staff.

Now consider the vast propaganda efforts of the past 40 years, on so many levels, to install the idea that all nations and peoples of the world are a single Collective.

From a very high level of political and economic power, this propaganda op has had the objective of grooming the population for a planet that is one coagulated mass, run and managed by one force. A central engine of that force is the Trilateral Commission.

How does a shadowy group like the TC accomplish its goal?  One basic strategy is: destabilize nations; ruin their economies; ratify trade treaties that effectively send millions and millions of manufacturing jobs off to places where virtual slave labor does the work; adding insult to injury, export the cheap products of those slave-factories back to the nations who lost the jobs and undercut their domestic manufacturers, forcing them to close their doors and fire still more employees.

And then solve that economic chaos by bringing order.

What kind of order?

One planet, with national borders erased, under one management system, with a planned global economy, “to restore stability,” “for the good of all, for lasting harmony.”

The top Trilateral players, in 2008, had their man in the White House, another formerly obscure individual, like Jimmy Carter: Barack Obama.  They had new trade treaties on the planning table.  Obama was tasked with doing whatever was necessary to bring those treaties, like the TPP, home.  To get them passed.  To get them ratified.  No excuses.

That’s why, months ago, when anti-TPP criticism and rhetoric was reaching a crescendo, when Obama was seeking Congressional fast-track approval of the treaty, he was in a sweat and a panic.  He and his cabinet were on the phones night and day, scrambling and scraping for votes in Congress.  This was the Big One.  This was why he was the President.  To make this happen.

His bosses were watching.

These men run US policy, when and where it counts.  They don’t tolerate failure.

This is also why, after Obama was inaugurated for his first term, he shocked and astonished his own advisors, who expected him, as the first order of business, to address the unemployment issue in America.  He shocked them by ignoring the number-one concern of Americans, and instead decided to opt for his disastrous national health insurance policy—Obamacare.

Why?  Because he never had any intention of trying to dig America out of the crash of 2008.  That wasn’t why he was put in the Oval Office.  He could, and would, pretend to bring back the economy, with fudged numbers and distorted standards.  But really and truly, create good-paying jobs for many, many Americans?  Not on the TC agenda.  Not in the cards.

It was counter-productive to the TC plan to torpedo the economy further.

It still is.

The Matrix Revealed by Jon Rappoport
Now you have deeper background on the source of the political/media establishment’s panic and hysteria about Donald Trump.  That establishment has received its marching orders.  Take Trump down.

As far as the Trilaterals are concerned, it doesn’t matter whether The Donald is just blustering and bloviating about bringing jobs back to America, creating new prosperity, and “making America great again.”  What matters is, he is raising the issue forcefully, out in the open.  And huge numbers of people are responding.  They’re confirming that the Obama economic recovery is a lie.

Trump has opened up an unprotected front in the war to sink the US economy.  Suddenly, his supporters, like shock troops, are pouring through.

The censorship blocking discussion of the true state of the union has been cracked.

The genie must be put back in the bottle.

But by whom?

What Presidential candidate can now convince the people that all is well, good jobs are plentiful, and the country is prosperous again?  Who can float that absurd lie and make people believe it?

If she can stop coughing, sputtering, cackling, switching accents, and grinning like a circus clown on meth, the task falls to Hillary.

Good luck with that one.

Maybe she should come right out and say: “You know me.  I love wars.  Put me in the Oval, and I’ll launch more wars than you can shake a stick at.  And then you’ll see some goddamn prosperity.  Everyone has a job in a full-bore wartime economy.”

 

To #TPP or not to TPP – that is Jokowi’s question


New Mandela

I think its a wrong question. The right question “Is Jokowi a minion of the bank$ter$?”


 

Indonesia’s president needs to be wary of Washington’s overtures when it comes to world’s largest trade agreement.

In February, Indonesia President Joko ‘Jokowi’ Widodo was in the United States to attend the ASEAN-US Summit.

The sit-down in Sunnylands was one of the most important recent high-level meetings between ASEAN and Washington — especially after the regional countries decided to elevate the status of their relationship with the US into a “strategic partnership” last year.

In a press conference before boarding the presidential carrier to California, Jokowi outlined a number of important points.  First, his trip to the US was about strengthening a “partnership for peace and prosperity.” This vision stresses that both the US and ASEAN countries have an obligation to contribute to global peace and wealth.

At the same time, the relations between the two should bring about mutual benefits for the people of both ASEAN and the US. Beyond the rhetoric there were some signs that these noble goals could be made reality.

During his visit, Jokowi brought up several ways that the US and Indonesia could work together, including increasing cooperation in the field of small to medium enterprises, entrepreneurship, innovation, and development of the digital economy.

Meanwhile, President Barrack Obama asked the Indonesians to lead a special session on the issue of terrorism. Indonesia, as Jokowi emphasised, can share much needed experience and insight when it comes to preventing radicalisation and combating terrorism.

But it’s fair to say that the ASEAN-US Summit was also a tool for Washington to advance its own interests, mainly in the areas of geopolitics and economics. The geopolitical aspect includes the South China Sea, which has now become the “new battlefield” between Washington and Beijing.

Not less important is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which was discussed extensively during the Summit under the guise of enhancing trade and investments between ASEAN and the US. Four ASEAN countries have already signed up to it — Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore, and Vietnam. Indonesia, the Philippines, and Thailand are currently weighing up the pros and cons of participating in what is supposedly the world’s largest free trade agreement.

The US Ambassador to Indonesia Robert Orris Blake Jr recently reiterated the strategic importance of Indonesia for the TPP. These include the country’s very large market, the rapid growth of the middle class, and the large number of youth.

The past six months have seen a serious discussion at the governmental level about the possibility of Indonesia joining. As always, there are pros and cons in this debate. There are those who are very supportive of the initiative, even though they have not yet seen or read the detailed documents. There are also those who prefer to be cautious because Indonesia will only be a market for foreign products.

Late last year, Jokowi stated that the government was carefully examining the benefits and the drawbacks of participating in the TPP. It was said that there was a possibility for Indonesian products to enter the TPP market. However, Jokowi also believed that Indonesia could simply become a large market for the US and its allies.

It is hoped that after the Summit meeting in Sunnylands the Indonesian government will be able to truly represent its people on the issue. Undeniably, Jakarta should protect the sovereignty of its national economy as well as small businesses.

Why? Because that is what has been repeatedly said by Washington when putting forward the TPP agenda. In his speech in front of the 12 ministers from the TPP participating countries one year ago, Obama made this clear.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership finished negotiations on an agreement that reflects America’s values and gives our workers the fair shot at success they deserve. This partnership levels the playing field for our farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers by eliminating more than 18,000 taxes that various countries put on our products.

Obama’s speech clearly indicates the TPP’s real roadmap for the future. The government in Jakarta should not deviate its course by blindly following the direction of other countries or partnerships.

Muhammad Zulfikar Rakhmat is a PhD scholar at the University of Manchester.

..

#TPP: The Latest Assault on Free Trade


Misses Institute


October 7, 2015

free tradeThe Trans Pacific Partnership is just the latest assault on free trade, although, like previous assaults before it, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, it is labeled as having something to do with free trade.

Today’s Mises Daily article describes it best: agreements between governments have nothing to do with free trade. This was the understanding of the early laissez-faire liberals. To have free trade, governments merely need only refrain from restricting it. And more specifically to the situation in the US, to allow free trade, the US government merely need refrain from prosecuting people who attempt to trade with foreigners who do not have the official stamp of approval from the US government. (See also Carmen Dorobat’s article from yesterday.)

To support restrictions on free trade is to support the jailing and prosecution of peaceful private citizens who trade with foreigners. Whatever the motivation, whether it is to attempt to punish foreign regimes (as with supporters of the Cuban or Iranian embargoes), or protect certain favored industries, the fundamental mechanism behind restrictions on trade is the prosecution and punishment of private entrepreneurs who engage in peaceful trade.

The TPP, like all other trade agreements of its type, was designed to serve the strategic interests of the governments involved, and has nothing to do with opening up new opportunities for free trade among ordinary members of the domestic societies that are taxed to finance the governments involved. There is no doubt that certain large corporate interests with political power will benefit from agreements like TPP. Large interests have the clout and the resources to change and shape these agreements to favor them. Small enterprises and businesses, and small entrepreneurs will only endure greater restrictions.

The New York Times reports how US allies are using the TPP as a “check on China.” It’s a national “security” scheme and has nothing to do with freer trade for you and me. Meanwhile, the CBC (Canada) admits that the TPP will do little to actually lower your grocery bill or the price of automobiles. So, if a trade agreement does nothing to actually make goods more available to the public, what does it have to do with free trade? The answer is: nothing.


The TPP and the Trade Rhetoric

The final and most important effect of this rhetoric is that when the TPP will fail to bring about the touted benefits—as it will not in fact promote a wider and freer division of labor—the market will become the scapegoat once more. And governments will again be called in to address the ‘market failure’. To paraphrase Elinor Dashwood (of Austen’s Sense and Sensibility), the market will suffer the punishment of a badly done trade agreement without enjoying any advantages. Read more

..

#MH370 : France and Malaysia clash over missing plane debris


Why is the Malaysian govern-ment so anxious to close the book on MH370?

Has it got to do with John Kerry’s visit? I heard that Obama is coming here again so soon after his last visit…to squeeze Malaysia into signing the TPP?


Irish Examiner

Malaysia’s claim that more debris linked to missing flight MH370 has washed up on an Indian Ocean island has been disputed by French officials.

Ever since the Boeing 777 vanished on a Malaysia Airlines flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing on March 8 2014, Malaysian officials have been accused of giving inaccurate statements and withholding information from families and other countries involved in the investigation.

Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak’s statement that a wing fragment found on the island of Reunion had been definitively linked to Flight 370 prompted cautious responses from French, US and Australian officials involved in the probe, who would say only the part was likely to have come from the missing plane.

MH370

Malaysian transport minister Liow Tiong Lai added to the confusion, saying a Malaysian team had found more debris on the island, including a window and some aluminium foil, and had sent the material to local authorities for French investigators to examine.

“I can only ascertain that it’s plane debris,” Mr Liow said. “I cannot confirm that it’s from MH370.”

French officials involved with the investigation in both Paris and Reunion were baffled by Mr Liow’s announcement; none were aware of any discovery or material in French custody. The Paris prosecutor’s office, which is spearheading a French legal inquiry into the crash, later denied there was any new debris.

A spokesman for Australian transport minister Warren Truss said that while a great deal of additional material has been handed to police in Reunion, none appears to have come from the plane.

Meanwhile, Mr Liow sparked further questions when he said that a maintenance seal and the colour tone of the paint on the wing part, known as a flaperon, matches the airline’s records.

Chinese protesters

An Australian government official said that the paint is not a unique identifier for Flight 370; rather, it comes from a batch that Boeing used on all its planes when the missing plane was manufactured.

Mr Liow said on Thursday that differences with other countries amounted to “a choice of words”. But the comments prompted frustration from families of those on board the plane, who have waited more than 500 days for solid clues into the fate of their loved ones.

In Beijing, about 30 Chinese relatives of Flight 370 passengers marched to the Malaysian Embassy seeking answers about why Malaysia confirmed the part came from the plane when French investigators had not.

Read more: http://www.dw.com/en/mh370-families-express-fresh-anger-over-wreckage-find/a-18633329 | http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/malaysia-seeks-help–france-widens-search-for-missing-plane/41590500

..

Malaysia – TPP The Final Nail In The Coffin


stop TPP

Malaysia is under both political and financial turmoil, and is currently being hit by the Economic Hit Man. The 1MDB scams and scandals are but, a part of the grand scheme to subjugate if not to destroy the country.

The central bank in the country is the driving machine behind in a economic hit.

Simultaneously, the death-trap TPP is being shoved down Malaysia’s throat which could be the final nail in the coffin.

The govern-ment is also being surrounded and ill-adviced by the local economists who have sold themselves to the enemy.

The former PM Tun Mahathir strongly opposed this devious trade pact.

Read more: https://peoplestrustmalaysia.wordpress.com/2014/07/11/former-malaysian-prime-minister-advises-reject-the-nwos-tppa/

The people must ensure Malaysia is not persuaded or arm-twisted in signing the TPP…or else …


Malaysian  Digest

Malaysia To Continue TPPA Negotiations

KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysia will continue to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) based on the mandate of defending and promoting the country’s interest.

MustapaInternational Trade and Industry Minister Datuk Seri Mustapa Mohamed said in the TPP Ministerial Meeting held in Hawaii recently, Malaysia highlighted the areas of government procurement, state-owned enterprises and the Bumiputera issues as they issues touched upon the constitution and core policies

“On intellectual property rights, our stand in the negotiations is to ensure that the public has access to affordable drugs and health care while providing the necessary incentives to innovators to produce new drugs.

“On market access, we have concluded our negotiations with most TPP parties, where import duties for most products will be eliminated,” Mustapa said in a statement today.

The TPP parties are Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Singapore, United States, New Zealand and Vietnam.

“The outcome provides us good market access opportunities especially in markets where Malaysia does not have free trade agreements such as US, Canada, Mexico and Peru.

“It will give Malaysian exporters a competitive advantage over regional competitors in exporting electrical and electronics, chemical, palm oil, rubber, wood, textiles products plus automotive parts and components,” Mustapa said in a statement today.

He said as an open economy and a country that has benefited from a more open trade and investment regime, Malaysia needed to move in tandem with regional and global developments.

“We would like to reiterate that in the event the TPP negotiations are concluded, the text will be presented to the public and Parliament for debate.

“Whether or not Malaysia becomes a party to the TPP will be a collective decision,” he added.

The TPP Ministerial Meeting held in Hawaii from 28-31 July 2015 was preceded by a meeting of TPP Chief Negotiators from July 24-27.

– Astro Awani

..

BREAKING: WikiLeaks Leaks TPP Draft!!!


Daily Kos

TPPA

Here it is, for the world to see.

Per WikiLeaks:

This is an advanced January 2015 version of the confidential draft treaty chapter from the Investment group of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) talks between the United States, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Malaysia, Chile, Singapore, Peru, Vietnam, New Zealand and Brunei Darussalam. The treaty is being negotiated in secret by delegations from each of these 12 countries, who together account for 40% of global GDP. The chapter covers agreements on investments from one TPP nation to another, including empowering foreign firms to “sue” other states’ governments, as well as regulations around investor-state dispute settlements and tribunals. This document was prepared by TPP investment chapter negotiators in advance of the informal round of negotiations held in New York City 26th January to 1st February, 2015

Global Trade Watch has just provided an analysis of the leaked text via email (and now on its website more details):

The TPP would grant foreign investors and firms operating here expansive new substantive and procedural rights and privileges not available to U.S. firms under U.S. law, allowing foreign firms to demand compensation for the costs of complying with U.S. policies, court orders and government actions that apply equally to domestic and foreign firms. This includes:

§ Foreign investors would be empowered to challenge new policies that apply equally to domestic and foreign firms on the basis that they undermine foreign investors’ “expectations” of how they should be treated. This includes a right to claim damages for government actions (such as new environmental, health or financial policies) that reduce the value of a foreign firm’s investment (what the leaked text calls “indirect expropriation”) or that change the level of regulation a foreign investor experienced under a previous government (a violation of what the text calls a “minimum standard of treatment” for foreign investors).

§ The leaked TPP text largely replicates the “minimum standard of treatment” language found in previous U.S. pacts that tribunals have used to issue some of the most alarming ISDS rulings. Tribunals often have broadly interpreted this vague “right” to fabricate new obligations for governments that do not actually exist in the texts of ISDS-enforced pacts, such as “not to alter the legal and business environment in which the investment has been made.” Due to such expansive interpretations, the “minimum standard of treatment” obligation has been the basis for three of every four ISDS cases “won” by the foreign investor under U.S. pacts.

The text allows foreign investors to demand compensation for claims of “indirect expropriation” that apply to much wider categories of property than those to which similar rights apply in U.S. law. To the limited extent that “indirect expropriation” compensation is permitted in U.S. law, it is generally available only for government actions affecting real property (i.e. land). But the leaked text would allow foreign investors to claim “indirect expropriation” if government regulations implicate their personal property, intellectual property rights, financial instruments, government permits, money, minority shareholdings or other forms of non-real-estate property.

· Foreign corporations could demand compensation for capital controls and other macro-prudential financial regulations that promote financial stability. This obligation restricts the use of capital controls or financial transaction taxes, even as the International Monetary Fund has shifted from opposing capital controls to officially endorsing them as legitimate policy tools for preventing or mitigating financial crises. Proposed provisions touted as “temporary safeguards” for capital controls would fail to protect many standard forms of capital controls, including those successfully used by TPP governments in the past to ward off financial crises.

· The leaked text could newly allow pharmaceutical firms to use TPP ISDS tribunals to demand cash compensation for claimed violations of the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) rules regarding the creation, limitation or revocation of intellectual property rights. Currently, WTO rules are not privately enforceable by investors. But the leaked TPP investment text could empower individual foreign investors to directly challenge governments over policies to ensure access to affordable medicines, claiming that they constitute TPP-prohibited “expropriations” of intellectual property rights if ISDS tribunals deem them to violate WTO rules.

· There are no new safeguards that limit ISDS tribunals’ discretion to create ever-expanding interpretations of governments’ obligations to foreign investors and order compensation on that basis. The leaked text reveals the same “safeguard” terms that have been included in U.S. pacts since the 2005 Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). CAFTA tribunals have simply ignored the “safeguard” provisions that the leaked text replicates for the TPP, and have continued to rule against governments based on concocted obligations to which governments never agreed. The leaked text also abandons a safeguard proposed in the 2012 leaked TPP investment text, which excluded public interest regulations from indirect expropriation claims, stating, “non-discriminatory regulatory actions … that are designed and applied to achieve legitimate public welfare objectives, such as the protection of public health, safety and the environment do not constitute indirect expropriation.” Today’s leaked text eviscerates that clause by adding a fatal loophole that has been found in past U.S. pacts.

· Most TPP countries, including the United States, have decided to expose decisions regarding the approval of foreign investments to ISDS challenge. Australia, Canada, Mexico and New Zealand have reserved the right to pre-approve foreign investors. But the United States took no exception for reviews by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States of planned foreign investments to determine whether they pose threats to national security.

· The amount that an ISDS tribunal would order a government to pay to a foreign investor as compensation would be based on the “expected future profits” the tribunal surmises that the investor would have earned in the absence of the public policy it is attacking as violating the substantive investor rights granted by the TPP.

· The text would submit the U.S. government to the jurisdiction of World Bank and United Nations tribunals. All TPP nations have agreed to be so bound with the potential exception of Australia, which has indicated that it might do the same, “subject to certain conditions.”

· None of the structural biases or conflicts of interest inherent in the ISDS system would be remedied. TPP ISDS tribunals would be staffed by highly paid corporate lawyers unaccountable to any electorate or system of legal precedent. They still would be allowed to rotate between acting as “judges” and advocates for the investors launching cases against governments. Corporations launching cases would still directly select one of the “judges.” The text includes no requirements for tribunal members to be impartial, reveal conflicts of interest or recuse themselves in instances of direct conflict. There is no internal or external mechanism to appeal the tribunal members’ decisions on the merits, and claims of procedural errors would be decided by another tribunal of corporate lawyers. The leaked text provides tribunals with discretion to determine the amount of compensation governments must pay investors and the allocation of costs, such as the tribunal members’ fees. A proposal that appeared in the 2012 leak of the text to standardize hourly fees for tribunal members at the lower end of the range of fees currently paid (about $375 per hour, compared to the $700 per hour that some tribunal members receive) has been eliminated.

· An overreaching definition of “investment” would extend the coverage of the TPP’s expansive substantive investor rights far beyond “real property,” permitting ISDS attacks over government actions and policies related to financial instruments, intellectual property, regulatory permits and more. Proposals in the 2012 leak of the text that would have narrowed the definition of “investment,” and thus the scope of policies subject to challenge, have been eliminated. Also omitted is a proposal from the earlier leaked version that would not have allowed ISDS cases related to government procurement, subsidies or government grants.

· An overreaching definition of “investor” would allow firms from non-TPP countries and firms with no real investments to exploit the extraordinary privileges the TPP would establish for foreign investors. Thus, for instance, one of the many Chinese state-owned corporations in Vietnam could “sue” the U.S. government in a foreign tribunal to demand compensation under this text.

· The leaked text reveals that U.S. negotiators are still pushing, over the objection of most other TPP nations, to empower foreign investors to bring to TPP ISDS tribunals their contract disputes with TPP signatory governments relating to natural resource concessions on federal lands, government procurement of construction for infrastructure projects, as well as contracts relating to the operation of utilities. (In the leaked chapter, text that is not yet agreed upon appears in square brackets; Public Citizen has seen a version of the text that lists which countries support various proposals.)

More from Global Trade Watch:

The leaked text provides stark warnings about the dangers of “trade” negotiations occurring without press, public or policymaker oversight. It reveals that TPP negotiators already have agreed to many radical terms that would give foreign investors expansive new substantive and procedural rights and privileges not available to domestic firms under domestic law.

The leaked text would empower foreign firms to directly “sue” signatory governments
in extrajudicial investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) tribunals over domestic policies
that apply equally to domestic and foreign firms that foreign firms claim violate their new substantive investor rights. There they could demand taxpayer compensation for domestic financial, health, environmental, land use and other policies and government actions they claim undermine TPP foreign investor privileges, such as the “right” to a regulatory framework that conforms to their “expectations.”

The leaked text reveals the TPP would expand the parallel ISDS legal system by
elevating tens of thousands of foreign- owned firms to the same status as sovereign governments, empowering them to privately enforce a public treaty by skirting domestic courts and laws to directly challenge TPP governments i n foreign tribunals.

And remember why this is important:

Foreign corporations have used these claims to attack tobacco, climate, financial, mining, medicine, energy, pollution, water, labor, toxins, development and other non-trade domestic policies. Under U.S. “free trade” agreements (FTAs) alone, foreign firms have already pocketed more than $440 million in taxpayer money via investor-state cases. This includes cases against natural resource policies, environmental protections, health and safety measures and more. ISDS tribunals have ordered more than $3.6 billion in compensation to investors under all U.S. FTAs and Bilateral Investment Treaties
(BITs). More than $38 billion remains in pending ISDS claims under these pacts, nearly
all of which relate to environmental, energy, financial regulation, public health, land use and transportation policies. Even when governments win cases, they are often ordered to pay for a share of the tribunal’s costs. Given that the costs just for defending a challenged policy in an ISDS case total $8 million on average, the mere filing of a case can create a chilling effect on government policymaking, even if the government expects to win. [emphasis added]

By the way, the screams and groans you just heard are coming from the White House and TPP supporters because when the elite New York Times–which has always flogged so-called “free trade” and treated opponents of such deals as backward people–writes this, this deal is sinking fast:

An ambitious 12-nation trade accord pushed by President Obama would allow foreign corporations to sue the United States government for actions that undermine their investment “expectations” and hurts their business, according to a classified document.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership — a cornerstone of Mr. Obama’s remaining economic agenda — would grant broad powers to multinational companies operating in North America, South America and Asia. Under the accord, still under negotiation but nearing completion, companies and investors would be empowered to challenge regulations, rules, government actions and court rulings — federal, state or local — before tribunals organized under the World Bank or the United Nations.

Backers of the emerging trade accord, which is supported by a wide variety of business groups and favored by most Republicans, say that it is in line with previous agreements that contain similar provisions. But critics, including many Democrats in Congress, argue that the planned deal widens the opening for multinationals to sue in the United States and elsewhere, giving greater priority to protecting corporate interests than promoting free trade and competition that benefits consumers.

..

Obama Accomplishes Little In Malaysia


lp

April 28, 2014 • 7:51AM

After a clear failure to accomplish anything in South Korea (except to say bad things about North Korea), President Obama’s stop in Malaysia looks to be another wash out.

After a meeting with Malaysian Prime Minister Najib, the two leaders have agreed to upgrade diplomatic ties to a “comprehensive partnership.” The content of this is not clear, although Najib said this would entail greater collaboration on the economy, security, education, science, and technology. No economic or strategic agreements of note were announced.

International coverage of Obama’s Malaysia visit centered on the lack of a meeting between Obama and opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, but in fact his national security adviser, British trained “regime change” expert Susan Rice, will meet British-Saudi agent Anwar on Monday, extending Rice’s role in allying the U.S. with Saudi jihadists. Obama will meet other “human rights” and dissident groups, including the sometimes violent Bersih.

On the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which again was on the agenda, Prime Minister Najib gave Obama a very polite “maybe.” Xinhua reported that Najib indicated that trade deals were always complex — therefore don’t expect a straight “yes.” Najib said the two countries were committed to resolving the remaining issues and he expressed his appreciation for Obama’s understanding of Malaysia’s sensitivities — that is, Najib laid out all the aspects of the TPP that Malaysia found objectionable, while Obama had to listen. Najib also said Malaysia was committed to the process of getting the acceptance of the people before signing the TPP. But opening the TPP–which has been negotiated in deep secrecy–to public scrutiny beforehand, is tantamount to outright rejection of the treaty.

…and I agree

 

home
.

Agreement on Trans-Pacific Partnership ‘very close’, says Singaporean PM


FirstWhat is the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP)? Why the US and its minion countries are pushing hard for it?

TPP-banner

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a secretive, multi-national trade agreement that threatens to extend restrictive intellectual property (IP) laws across the globe and rewrite international rules on its enforcement. The main problems are two-fold:

(1) IP chapter: Leaked draft texts of the agreement show that the IP chapter would have extensive negative ramifications for users’ freedom of speech, right to privacy and due process, and hinder peoples’ abilities to innovate.

(2) Lack of transparency: The entire process has shut out multi-stakeholder participation and is shrouded in secrecy. Read further

Also read:

Now, our country is in the process of negotiating the biggest Free Trade Agreement in its history: the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP. Twelve trading partners are finalizing an agreement that will affect almost 40 percent of the global economy. Some of the more controversial hidden issues include currency manipulation, border adjustable taxes, environmental protection, and market access for agricultural products. – The Daily Caller

pacific-command-400x247WikiLeaks has done the world a huge service by showing how far apart the 12 countries are with regard to the Environment Chapter, which could strengthen the ability of countries to protect the environment and natural resources. Those who have expressed doubts about the TPP have been proven right. These important documents reveal that there has been no progress at all on trade-related issues that we know are damaging the environment; be it climate change, biological diversity, logging or over-fishing. Read further

..

The Malaysian Insider

Agreement on Trans-Pacific Partnership ‘very close’, says Singaporean PM

spm

Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong warned against a failure to reach a deal this year. – Reuters pic, February 18, 2014.

Negotiators are “very close” to completing a US-led Pacific trade pact this year, Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said ahead of a crucial meeting in the city-state this weekend.

Trade ministers from 12 countries will meet from Saturday to Tuesday in a bid to iron out kinks in the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) after negotiators failed to meet a self-imposed deadline to strike a deal by the end of last year.

“I think we are very close to completing it,” Lee Hsien Loong said in an interview with Chinese media group Caixin.

“I think, notwithstanding the previous missed targets, I think they are trying very hard, and we ought to be able to close this year,” Lee said in the interview, a transcript of which was sent by his office to AFP today.

Trade ministers from Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the US and Vietnam are reconvening in Singapore after ending talks in December with several issues still unresolved.

The 12 countries, which make up 40% of the global economy, have been divided on a number of issues, including opening up Japan’s auto and farm markets as well as limiting the role of state-owned enterprises in the economy.

US President Barack Obama’s administration has put a high priority on the TPP, seeing it as tying the US more firmly to the dynamic Asia-Pacific region at a time that China’s clout is rising.

Singapore’s Lee warned against a failure to reach a deal this year.

“If we don’t close this year, there is not much time left on the American political calendar to get it through Congress and to settle the matter,” he said.

“And when time passes, loose ends get unravelled and then it would be a setback.”

Lee said he hoped the US Congress would pass a bill that would empower the Obama administration to negotiate major trade agreements that the US legislature could approve or reject – without making changes.

Supporters said the four-year extension of the powers under the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), which last ended in 2007, is indispensable to speeding up trade negotiations.

The move however faces stiff opposition from House Democrats who feel it is too far-reaching.

Lee said the powers would ensure that US lawmakers would not be able to vote down items in the TPP that they were not in favour of as the pact is a negotiated package.

“So they have to get the TPA, otherwise I think it’s a big trouble.” – AFP, February 18, 2014.

..

Malaysia’s stance

Malaysia has not made any firm decisions on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA), said Minister of International Trade and Industry, Datuk Seri Mustapa Mohamed.

International Trade and Industry Minister Datuk Seri Mustapa Mohamed had also assured the public last year that Putrajaya would not sign the agreement if it proves detrimental to the nation.

“Of course, if the agreement is detrimental to our sovereignty, we will not sign it,” said Mustapa.

..

Press release: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) – Environment Chapter

tppwikileaks1

When compared against other TPP chapters, the Environment Chapter is noteworthy for its absence of mandated clauses or meaningful enforcement measures. The dispute settlement mechanisms it creates are cooperative instead of binding; there are no required penalties and no proposed criminal sanctions. With the exception of fisheries, trade in ‘environmental’ goods and the disputed inclusion of other multilateral agreements, the Chapter appears to function as a public relations exercise.

Julian Assange, WikiLeaks’ publisher, stated: “Today’s WikiLeaks release shows that the public sweetner in the TPP is just media sugar water. The fabled TPP environmental chapter turns out to be a toothless public relations exercise with no enforcement mechanism.” Read further

…the Congressional Record to show that “free trade” pacts were always about weakening nation-states to promote rule by multinationals:

Plus, TPP faces additional challenges beyond those normally faced by FTAs. While most FTAs face opposition from interest groups in vulnerable industries like textiles, agriculture, and manufacturing, TPP is threatened by public disapproval on a much wider level. The secretive process of TPP negotiations has many on edge, especially as recent spying scandals have eroded trust in the U.S. government. The draft texts of the treaty are not publicly available, and even many members of Congress don’t have access to the documents.

 

home
..