Obama Trade Document Leaked, Revealing New Corporate Powers And Broken Campaign Promises
Zach Carter
zach.carter@huffingtonpost.com
HUFFPO
Posted: 06/13/2012 9:17 am Updated: 06/14/2012 6:45 pm
WASHINGTON -- A critical document from President Barack Obama's free trade negotiations with eight Pacific nations was leaked online early Wednesday morning, revealing that the administration intends to bestow radical new political powers upon multinational corporations, contradicting prior promises.
The leaked document has been posted on the website of Citizens Trade Campaign, a long-time critic of the administration's trade objectives. The new leak follows substantial controversy surrounding the secrecy of the talks, in which some members of Congress have complained they are not being given the same access to trade documents that corporate officials receive.
"The outrageous stuff in this leaked text may well be why U.S. trade officials have been so extremely secretive about these past two years of negotiations," said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch in a written statement.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has been so incensed by the lack of access as to introduce legislation requiring further disclosure. House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has gone so far as to leak a separate document from the talks on his website. Other Senators are considering writing a letter to Ron Kirk, the top trade negotiator under Obama, demanding more disclosure.
The newly leaked document is one of the most controversial of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact. It addresses a broad sweep of regulations governing international investment and reveals the Obama administration's advocacy for policies that environmental activists, financial reform advocates and labor unions have long rejected for eroding key protections currently in domestic laws.
Under the agreement currently being advocated by the Obama administration, American corporations would continue to be subject to domestic laws and regulations on the environment, banking and other issues. But foreign corporations operating within the U.S. would be permitted to appeal key American legal or regulatory rulings to an international tribunal. That international tribunal would be granted the power to overrule American law and impose trade sanctions on the United States for failing to abide by its rulings.
The terms run contrary to campaign promises issued by Obama and the Democratic Party during the 2008 campaign.
"We will not negotiate bilateral trade agreements that stop the government from protecting the environment, food safety, or the health of its citizens; give greater rights to foreign investors than to U.S. investors; require the privatization of our vital public services; or prevent developing country governments from adopting humanitarian licensing policies to improve access to life-saving medications," reads the campaign document.
Yet nearly all of those vows are violated by the leaked Trans-Pacific document. The one that is not contravened in the present document -- regarding access to life-saving medication -- is in conflict with a previously leaked document on intellectual property (IP) standards.
"Bush was better than Obama on this," said Judit Rius, U.S. manager of Doctors Without Borders Access to Medicines Campaign, referring to the medication rules.
In a statement provided to HuffPost, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative downplayed the concerns.
"This administration is committed to ensuring strong environmental, public health and safety laws," said USTR spokesperson Nkenge Harmon. "Nothing in our TPP investment proposal could impair our government's ability to pursue legitimate, non-discriminatory public interest regulation, including measures to protect public health, public safety and the environment."
Words like "legitimate" and "nondiscriminatory" can have flexible interpretations among international tribunals, however, which have recently ruled that U.S. dolphin-safe tuna labelling and anti-teen smoking efforts are unfair barriers to trade, according to prior trade pacts. The new investment rules, for instance, extend to government contracting negotiations, eliminating so-called "Buy American" preferences for domestic manufacturers.
USTR has previously stated that it does not comment on the terms of an allegedly leaked document.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative insists that while broad standards require many medical patents and IP rules that would increase the price of medications, the U.S. intends to work with countries involved in the Trans-Pacific talks to ensure that the agreement does not restrict access to life-saving drugs.
That statement is belied somewhat by recent American efforts in other international negotiations to establish controversial medical patents that grant companies long-term monopolies on life-saving medications. Those monopolies increase drug prices, which impede access to medications, particularly in developing nations. The World Health Organization and dozens of nonprofit public health groups have objected to the standards sought by the Obama administration. Two United Nations groups recently urged global governments not to agree to trade terms currently being advocated by the Obama administration, on the grounds that such rules would hurt public health.
Such foreign investment standards have also come under fire at home, from both conservative sovereignty purists and progressive activists for the potential to hamper domestic priorities implemented by democratically elected leaders. The North American Free Trade Agreement, passed by Congress in 1993, and a host of subsequent trade pacts granted corporations new powers that had previously been reserved for sovereign nations and that have allowed companies to sue nations directly over issues.
While the current trade deal could pose a challenge to American sovereignty, large corporations headquartered in the U.S. could potentially benefit from it by using the same terms to oppose the laws of foreign governments. If one of the eight Pacific nations involved in the talks passes a new rule to which an American firm objects, that U.S. company could take the country to court directly in international tribunals.
Public Citizen challenged the independence of these international tribunals, noting that "The tribunals would be staffed by private sector lawyers that rotate between acting as 'judges' and as advocates for the investors suing the governments," according to the text of the agreement.
In early June, a tribunal at the World Bank agreed to hear a case involving similar foreign investment standards, in which El Salvador banned cyanide-based gold mining on the basis of objections from the Catholic Church and environmental activists. If the World Bank rules against El Salvador, it could overturn the nation's domestic laws at the behest of a foreign corporation.
Speaking to the environmental concerns raised by the leaked document, Margrete Strand Rangnes, Labor and Trade Director for the Sierra Club, an environmental group said, "Our worst fears about the investment chapter have been confirmed by this leaked text ... This investment chapter would severely undermine attempts to strengthen environmental law and policy."
Basic public health and land-use rules would be subject to challenge before an international tribunal, as would bank regulations at capital levels that might be used to stymie bank runs or financial crises. The IMF has advocated the use of such capital controls, which would be prohibited under the current version of the leaked trade pact. Although several countries have proposed exceptions that would allow them to regulate speculative financial bets, the U.S. has resisted those proposals, according to Public Citizen.
Trans-Pacific negotiations have been taking place throughout the Obama presidency. The deal is strongly supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the top lobbying group for American corporations. Obama's Republican opponent in the 2012 presidential elections, Mitt Romney, has urged the U.S. to finalize the deal as soon as possible.
This post has been updated to include comment from the USTR and the Sierra Club.
CORRECTION: A previous version of this article said the leaked document was posted to the Public Citizen website. It was posted to the Citizens Trade Campaign website.
huffingtonpost.com
*** *** ***
Trans-Pacific Partnership: Key Senate Democrat Joins Bipartisan Trade Revolt Against Obama
Zach Carter
zach.carter@huffingtonpost.com
HUFFPO
Posted: 05/23/2012 8:32 pm Updated: 05/24/2012 10:54 am
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced legislation late Wednesday to protest the Obama administration's refusal to share information about controversial trade negotiations with the senator.
The administration's blockade against Wyden, who chairs a subcommittee on international trade, conflicts with its prior statements to the press, and raises concerns that President Barack Obama's administration is selectively icing out critics of the administration's trade strategy.
Wyden said that his office was locked out of information about a trade pact in the works known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The deal, which involves eight other Pacific nations, includes broad details on government contracting terms that would ban "Buy American" preferences for U.S. manufacturers, and intellectual property standards that would increase prescription drug prices abroad. Those positions have drawn criticism from American labor unions, domestic manufacturers and international public health advocates.
But while the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative shares draft negotiation documents on the Trans-Pacific deal with the governments of other nations and American corporate executives who serve on advisory boards, it withholds them from the American public and most nonprofit groups -- forcing many public health advocates, for instance, to learn about the deals through illegal leaks or informal channels.
"The majority of Congress is being kept in the dark as to the substance of the TPP negotiations, while representatives of U.S. corporations -- like Halliburton, Chevron, PhRMA, Comcast and the Motion Picture Association of America -- are being consulted and made privy to details of the agreement," said Wyden.
Bipartisan congressional tension surrounding the Trans-Pacific deal has been building for the past month. More than 60 House Democrats and one House Republican sent a letter to Obama objecting to the "Buy American" ban on May 3. On May 15, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) called for more transparency in the negotiation process and leaked the entire draft intellectual property chapter from the Trans-Pacific deal to the public on his website. Although the document previously was available over the Internet through legally ambiguous channels, Issa's move dramatically increased political pressure on the administration to share more information about the deal with the public.
Publicly, the administration said it shares information on the trade pact with all members of Congress.
"U.S. TPP documents are available to members of Congress representing all Americans," USTR told HuffPost on May 16 in a statement. USTR also told HuffPost it works to keep nonprofit groups abreast of its position and give them input into the negotiation process.
But Wyden's office said the administration has only shared that information with about 12 members of Congress, advancing legal arguments that the only members of Congress permitted to see trade documents are those in the Congressional Oversight Group. According to Wyden's office, a 2002 law requires the administration to share trade documents with all members of Congress. His legislation would make that obligation even more explicit.
USTR representatives were not available for comment on Wyden's bill.
Like Issa, Wyden spent much of 2011 opposing new intellectual property standards from the Stop Online Piracy Act that Internet experts warned would stifle online innovation and threaten the functionality of the web. Internet freedom groups and tech companies have been critical of the positions advanced by the U.S. in the Trans-Pacific deal, leading many in Washington to assume that Wyden opposes the agreement.
Wyden's office detailed the Obama administration's obstruction in a statement provided to HuffPost.
"Months ago, we were told our staffer could only view the documents if he got a clearance," Wyden spokesperson Jennifer Hoelzer told HuffPost in an email.
"So, he applied for the appropriate security clearance which was completed two months ago. Now, after two months of back and forth to try and get this resolved, it seems that the Administration is interpreting that 2002 law to say that only members on the Congressional Oversight Group or who work for members of the COG are allowed to see the agreements. If that is in fact their interpretation, it means that neither Senator Wyden nor his trade subcommittee staff are allowed to review documents pertaining to trade agreements."
huffingtonpost.com
*** *** ***
Darrell Issa Questions Obama On Trans-Pacific Partnership, Leaks Key Text Of Trade Deal
Zach Carter
zach.carter@huffingtonpost.com
HUFFPO
Posted: 05/16/2012 12:26 pm Updated: 05/16/2012 4:28 pm
WASHINGTON -- House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has taken the unprecedented step of leaking a secret U.S. trade document, in hopes of pressuring President Barack Obama's administration into disclosing the details of a major trade deal with far-reaching implications on everything from " Buy American" contracting rules to prescription drug prices to internet freedom.
Issa -- who endeared himself to the tech community in 2011 by speaking out against the Stop Online Piracy Act -- is again taking up Silicon Valley's cause in the talks surrounding the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a multilateral free trade agreement currently being negotiated between the United States and eight Pacific nations. His move follows a barrage of criticism over U.S. demands in the talks, which have alarmed global health experts, domestic labor unions and government transparency advocates.
But a common complaint from nearly every non-profit group monitoring the Trans-Pacific deal is the intense level of secrecy surrounding it. The governments of every nation involved in the talks can see the draft proposals offered by the Obama administration, as can American corporate officials serving on government advisory boards. But the proposals are shielded from the general public, with many nonprofits only made aware of the potential impact on jobs, health or technology through leaked texts.
On Tuesday afternoon, Issa published the entire intellectual property (IP) chapter of the Trans-Pacific agreement as drafted by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the White House agency responsible for negotiating trade deals. The document was previously available online through unofficial channels of questionable legality, but Issa's posting of the document dramatically increases the political pressure on USTR and the Obama administration.
A spokeswoman for USTR told HuffPost that it works to keep nonprofits abreast of its negotiating position, and that it has expanded the number of groups it receives input from under Obama -- including public health groups, internet freedom advocates and major labor unions. Nevertheless, any organizations that are able to see actual negotiation texts must comply with USTR confidentiality rules limiting public disclosure -- a policy intended to improve the agency's ability to reach a deal.
"Putting text of a partially negotiated agreement online could weaken the hand of U.S. negotiators as they work strategically to get the best deal possible for American workers and businesses," USTR spokeswoman Carol Guthrie told HuffPost. "Moreover, USTR could not release the agreement text without breaching its commitment to its trading partners not to do so without their agreement."
While Hollywood movie studios and pharmaceutical companies have long backed aggressive U.S.-government imposed IP trade policies, corporate tech giants have joined internet freedom advocates in objecting to the Trans-Pacific deal's IP provisions, arguing such rules prevent the development of useful new products in the technology space.
Extreme copyright rules backed by Hollywood and Big Pharma formed the core of SOPA, which tech firms argued would throw internet functionality into a legal quagmire and discourage companies from introducing innovative products, for fear of sparking lawsuits. Tech firms have similar fears about the current Trans-Pacific deal. Trade agreements reached in the 1990s helped block recent efforts to reform domestic patent laws. Tech companies are constantly dealing with lawsuits surrounding vague and poorly defined patents, on everything from the hyperlink to the rounded corners of an iPhone. Due to the speed with which the tech sector evolves, the long-term monopolies granted by aggressive IP laws prevent companies from updating and improving on each others' ideas.
Aggressive patent laws also raise the cost of global medicines, as pharmaceutical companies exploit frivolous or secondary patents to maintain monopolies on life-saving medicines, jacking up prices abroad. Global health experts warn that the U.S. position in the Trans-Pacific deal risks undermining a U.S.-funded global AIDS relief effort, particularly in Vietnam, one of the countries involved in the deal with an acute HIV problem and limited economic resources.
USTR's position on multiple aspects of the Trans-Pacific deal stands in stark contrast to the Obama administration's official position on a host of policies, as Issa emphasized in a statement provided to The Huffington Post.
"While the Obama administration speaks publicly about protecting an open Internet and delivering open government, they continue pushing secretive agreements like ACTA and TPP that exclude the public and could undermine individual privacy rights and stifle innovation," Issa said. "They need to explain this apparent inconsistency."
The White House, which declined to comment for this article, opposed SOPA. But Obama signed ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, last year over objections from the tech community and European nations, which argued that the deal's copyright provisions would harm the development of internet technology. Open internet advocates view the Trans-Pacific deal's draft terms as more restrictive than ACTA.
Aspects of the Obama administration's economic platform also conflict with the Trans-Pacific deal. Obama has proposed a tax credit to benefit domestic manufacturers, but USTR's efforts to ban "Buy American" preferences in the market for federal contracts could undercut such efforts. USTR has said such bans will open up foreign markets for other government contracts to American producers. Since the size of the U.S. contract market is much larger than that of all the other Trans-Pacific nations combined, however, domestic labor unions are concerned that the deal will offshore U.S. manufacturing jobs.
Although they have received scant public attention since the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994, international trade pacts can have dramatic consequences for domestic policy. When the U.S. signs a trade deal, it must conform federal and state laws to the terms of the agreement. That makes future reforms more difficult, since they cannot independently amend the trade pact and are subject to WTO or World Bank sanctions.
Issa's leak follows attention to the deal from activist group the Yes Men and other government transparency advocates at the Trans-Pacific negotiations in Dallas last week. The Yes Men presented U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, an Obama appointee, with its farcical "Corporate Power Tool of the Year" award, during a disruptive presentation at the official corporate reception for the Dallas talks.
Earlier in the evening, Kirk, the former mayor of Dallas, joked about his home city's potential lessons for the trade pact. "There is a Latin saying that we use in Dallas called Veni, Vedi, Visa -- we came, we saw, we shopped," Kirk said.
huffingtonpost.com
ACTA: “Would Usurp Congressional Authority”, “Threatens Numerous Public Interests”, a “Backroom Special Interest Deal”, a “Masquerade”
Posted on January 30, 2012 by WashingtonsBlog
washingtonsblog.com |
