<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<STYLE>.hmmessage P {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
BODY.hmmessage {
FONT-FAMILY: Calibri; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
</STYLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23580"></HEAD>
<BODY class=hmmessage bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=-1>
<DIV class=subheadlinestyle><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 16pt" size=4>Trade
Legerdemain on Both Sides of the Atlantic </FONT></DIV>
<H1 class=article-title>How the Democrats Re-Branded Fast-Track</H1><BR><BR><A
href="http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/04/25/how-the-democrats-re-branded-fast-track/"
target=_blank>http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/04/25/how-the-democrats-re-branded-fast-track/</A><BR><BR><BR>
<DIV class=mainauthorstyle>by PETE DOLACK</DIV>
<DIV class=main-text>The Democratic Party has responded to the resistance
against ramming through new trade agreements by giving the process a new name.
“Fast-track” has been rebranded as “smart-track” and, voilà, new packaging is
supposed to make us forget the rotten hulk underneath the thin veneer.<BR>Don’t
be fooled. The Obama administration and its Senate enablers are nowhere near
giving up on its two gigantic trade deals, the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Because the stealthy “fast
track” route — special rules speeding trade legislation through Congress with
little opportunity for debate and no possibility of amendments — is the
only way these corporate wish lists can be enacted, a “rebranding” is in
order.<BR>The new chair of the U.S. Senate’s Finance Committee, Oregon Democrat
Ron Wyden, earlier this month, in a speech given to apparel-industry corporate
executives, announced his intention to replace the “fast track” process with a
“smart track” process. That is noteworthy because the Finance Committee has
responsibility in the Senate for trade legislation. It also noteworthy because
Senator Wyden has <A
href="http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27036/ron-wyden/63/trade#.U1c1icdn_Dw">voted
to approve the last five</A> U.S. “free trade” agreements, going back to
2005.<BR>Although the Transatlantic Partnership being negotiated between the
United States and the European Union receives less attention than the 12-nation
Trans-Pacific Partnership, neither has much chance of passing without special
fast-track authority. Should Congress agree to grant the White House fast-track
authority, the Obama administration would negotiate a deal and submit the text
for approval to Congress under rules that would prohibit any amendments or
changes, allow only a limited time for debate, and require a straight yes or no
vote.<BR>None other than the previous U.S. trade representative, Ron Kirk, said
the Trans-Pacific Partnership has to be secret because <A
href="http://www.occupy.com/article/trash-tpp-why-its-time-revolt-against-worst-trade-agreement-history">if
people knew what was in it</A>, it would never pass. We should take him at his
word.<BR><STRONG>Tell the people what they want to hear</STRONG><BR>On the
surface, Senator Wyden’s <A
href="http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/blog/post/21st-century-trade-policy-must-give-all-americans-a-chance-to-get-ahead">speech
to the American Apparel & Footwear Association Conference</A> on April
10 sounds conciliatory. He made the standard ritual references, calling for
trade agreements that create jobs and “expand … the winners’ circle.” The
senator proclaimed:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>“I want to be very clear: only trade agreements that include
several ironclad protections based on today’s great challenges can pass
through Congress. I am not going to accept or advance anything
less.”<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>He did not fail to declare that “strong standards and
enforcement” on labor and environmental standards “is an imperative.” But we can
be forgiven skepticism here because Senator Wyden had this to say on existing
labor and environmental standards:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>“People on all sides of the trade debate should more openly
acknowledge the progress in these areas and the hard work that went into
getting those reforms.”<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>Progress? There are no enforceable rules
concerning these areas in existing trade agreements such as the North American
Free Trade Agreement. Lost jobs, reduced wages, more unemployment, higher food
prices and reversals of environmental laws <A
href="http://systemicdisorder.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/nafta-bad-all-three-countries/">have
invariably been the results</A>. Unaccountable, secret tribunals staffed by
corporate lawyers have enabled corporations to overturn regulations in all three
NAFTA countries — and the U.S. government, in its current trade negotiations,
wants rules even more weighted in favor of multi-national corporations than
exists in NAFTA.<BR>If this is what Senator Wyden considers to be “progress,”
what possible basis could there be for believing the Trans-Pacific and
Transatlantic partnerships will deliver anything other than more
corporate-dictated austerity?<BR>The existing version of fast-track legislation
— the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act of 2014, better known as the
Camp-Baucus bill — was effectively dead not long after its January release. It
was expected that a new version of fast-track, with a couple of small, cosmetic
changes and a cover story that opponents had been heard, would come. Senator
Wyden has not disappointed, and it’s coming perhaps quicker than activists
expected. This will become a hot potato as the November mid-term elections
approach, so the senator was careful in his speech to not provide a
timetable:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>“I am going to work with my colleagues and stakeholders on a
proposal that accomplishes these goals [of more transparency] and attracts
more bipartisan support. As far as I’m concerned, substance is going to drive
the timeline.”<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><STRONG>‘Consultation’ only to let people
vent</STRONG><BR>The <EM>perception</EM> of more transparency and
public participation is all that we are likely to see, perhaps on the model of
the European Union’s new public-consultation process. The process centers on a
web site that E.U. citizens can use <A
href="http://trade.ec.europa.eu/consultations/index.cfm?consul_id=179">to fill
out a questionnaire</A>. The page is complicated to use, and has a 90-minute
time limit, after which any imputed data is wiped out. Write fast! And for good
measure, the E.U. trade commissioner, Karel De Gucht, <A
href="http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/february/tradoc_152198.pdf">once
again declared</A>, in his last visit to Washington:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>“[W]e are happy to be scrutinized on this: no standard in Europe
will be lowered because of this trade deal; not on food, not on the
environment, not on social protection, not on data protection. I will make
sure that [the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership] does not become
a ‘dumping’ agreement.”<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>Neither his office, nor that of the U.S.
trade representative, Michael Froman, have been kind enough to share with the
public when the next Transatlantic negotiating session will be held. There has
been no lack of communication with corporate lobbyists, however. A European
public-interest group, Corporate Europe Observatory, requested documents from
the European Commission (the bureaucratic arm of the E.U.) to discover with whom
E.U. negotiators are consulting.<BR>It was revealed that of 127 closed meetings
concerning the Transatlantic Partnership talks, at least 119 were with large
corporations and their lobbyists. <A
href="http://corporateeurope.org/trade/2013/09/european-commission-preparing-eu-us-trade-talks-119-meetings-industry-lobbyists">The
Observatory reports</A>:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>“The list of meetings reveals that … there is a parallel world of
a very large number of intimate meetings with big business lobbyists behind
closed doors — and these are not disclosed online. These meetings, moreover,
were about the EU’s preparations of the trade talks, whereas the official
civil society consultation was merely an information session after the talks
were launched. The Commission’s rhetoric about transparency and about
consulting industry and NGOs on an equal basis is misleading and gives
entirely the wrong impression of [the European Commission’s] relations with
stakeholders.”<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>Three German Green Party members of the European
Parliament (Ska Kellar, Rebecca Harms and Sven Giegold) have <A
href="http://ttip2014.eu/blog-detail/blog/TTIP%20leak%20Germany.html">leaked the
E.U.’s position paper</A> on the Transatlantic Partnership negotiations
(Members of the European Parliament are shut out of the negotiations.) Although
this leak offers only a glimpse at E.U. negotiating positions, Europeans have a
basis for concern. A rough English translation of the leaked document (<A
href="http://www.ttip-leak.eu/">available only in German</A>) states:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>“The agreement will provide for the reciprocal liberalization of
trade in goods and services and rules on trade-related issues, which it
pursues through ambitious goals that go beyond what is available via the
existing WTO commitments.”<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>Although it also says the agreement
will include a “general exception clause” on the basis of <A
href="http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/gatt_ai_e/art20_e.pdf">articles
XX</A> and XXI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which
purport to allow exceptions to trade agreements when necessary to safeguard
human, animal or plant life or health, such clauses are meaningless. Other
agreements have similar clauses, but are consistently superseded by rules such
as Article 12.6 of the Trans-Pacific Partnership text that “Each Party shall
accord to covered investments treatment in accordance with customary
international law.”<BR><STRONG>‘Customary law’ is what a secret tribunal says it
is</STRONG><BR>Precedents handed down in secret tribunals are what constitute
“customary international law.” That the E.U. negotiators intend to “go beyond”
the rules of the World Trade Organization should leave no doubt that “law” as
desired by multi-national corporations is what is contemplated. Indeed, the
leaked E.U. text states an intention to:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>“Provide a level playing field for investors in the U.S. and in
the EU. … The agreement should provide an effective mechanism for the
settlement of disputes between investors and the state.”<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>That
goal should be borne in mind when evaluating the E.U.’s April 10 announcement
that it has refused to include the standard investor-state dispute rules in its
proposed trade agreement with Canada, despite Canada’s now dropped insistence
that it be included. <A
href="https://wtonewsstand.com/Inside-US-Trade/Inside-U.S.-Trade-04/11/2014/menu-id-445.html"><EM>Inside
U.S. Trade</EM> reports</A> that:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>“Canada and the EU have agreed to a ‘closed list’ approach toward
defining what constitutes a breach of fair and equitable treatment that was
proposed by the EU. … The closed list that the two parties agreed upon is
comprised of: denial of justice in criminal, civil or administrative
proceedings; a fundamental breach of due process; manifest arbitrariness;
targeted discrimination on manifestly wrongful grounds; and abusive treatment
of investors.”<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>On the surface, the “closed list” approach to the
bases over which a corporation can sue a government appears to have narrowed
from the more common approach that places no limits on corporate suits. But,
critics say, the list of arbitrable issues remains open-ended and open to
corporate abuse. The Canadian public interest group International Institute for
Sustainable Development, <A
href="http://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/pdf/2013/commentary_investment_chapter_CETA.pdf">in
a recently updated paper</A>, warns:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>“The definition of investment is defined too broadly, covering any
kind of asset, independent of whether or not investments are associated with
an existing enterprise in the host state. … [The E.U. proposal would] make the
concept of fair and equitable treatment very open-ended and, as a consequence,
highly problematic.”<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>The agreed-upon language, by not defining
what constitutes an “asset,” would enable corporations unlimited opportunities
to sue governments. Any rule or regulation that a corporation says will reduce
its profits remains eligible to be overturned under the precedents of “customary
international law.” The text of the agreements — and how they are likely to be
interpreted — count for vastly more than the happy talk of trade negotiators,
whichever side of the Atlantic or Pacific oceans.<BR>European countries with
strong regulations on the environment or food safety are at grave risk from the
U.S., and environmental laws everywhere are prime targets. Activist work against
these multi-national trade agreements has gained momentum in the past year, but
there is much work to be done to stop what constitutes the most destructive
corporate power grabs yet. Popular pressure is the only means to stop the
Trans-Pacific, Transatlantic and Canada-E.U. trade deals. The next task will be
to reverse existing trade deals that have done so much damage.<BR><I><B>Pete
Dolack</B> writes the <A href="http://systemicdisorder.wordpress.com/"
target=_blank>Systemic Disorder</A> blog. He has been an activist with
several groups</I>.<BR></DIV></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>