Discussion: Senate Democrats Will Block Obama's Trade Deal

TPM Article Topics
1

Discussion for article #236269

2

Is it too much to ask for some details?

1 Like
3

Kill the trade deal

4

Nice trade deal synopsis via NYTimes:

5

Funny. Usually at this point in the ‘battle’ there’s more misinformation coming at you, you don’t even know where the starting point is or was.

But this is, if true, great news. The problem isn’t a trade pact, it’s the neutron bomb that’s in the deal, ISDS:

The Investor-State Dispute Settlement’ empowers a foreign investor (either a corporation or an individual) to bring a claim directly against the host state for losses allegedly suffered. One particular cause of action which investors have invoked under the ISDS provision in some existing free trade agreements is ‘expropriation’. The elastic definition of the term in such treaties has enabled investors to haul up governments before an international arbitration tribunal for any move (e.g., a new regulation or policy fully justified in the interests of public health or other social concerns) which may be seen to deprive them of expected future profits. The usual fora for such adjudication are the tribunals conducted by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), an integral part of a ‘self-serving’ international arbitration industry which, as a damning international report has exposed, ‘has a vested interest in perpetuating an investment regime that prioritises the rights of investors at the expense of democratically elected national governments and sovereign states’.

Recent examples of this potential nightmare are:

OceanaGold vs. El Salvador
Occidential Petroleum vs Ecuador

6

“Obama maintains that U.S. goods and services need better access to the 95 percent of world consumers who live in other countries.”

Ugh. Red meat for the other side from where Warren is slinging it. “Access to markets” is a small part of this deal, going by reports I trust. Politicians gotta say what politicians gotta say, but this is disappointing on both sides.

7

Is this currently in the proposed treaty? It is ugly, indeed, but you aren’t telling us if it is in the deal right now?

8

Presented without endoresement, here is our government’s take on ISDS: https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/fact-sheets/2015/march/investor-state-dispute-settlement-isds

2 Likes
9

Since we don’t know how that particular issue is addressed in the TPP—because it’s all classified—we can’t make an accurate assessment of any potential danger.

10

I heard Warren talk about her reservations to ISDS this morning on NPR and was disappointed. She talked about how “corporate lawyers” were going to make all of the decisions on trade disputes and sue over regulations like selling cigarettes to minors and chemicals in foods. What she did not tell me was how those disputes, which are nothing new, have been resolved in the past. (My recollection is that those suits have not been very successful. Correct me if I am wrong.) She also did not talk about what would be a more palpable strategy of drawing some red lines for the pact, like saying the President gets fast track for a treaty that will not allow suits over explicitly defined types of regulation, say environmental and health. If the R’s and the NYDems corporate buddies want the agreement so bad, they should agree to those limits. She also talked about fear that an R President might complete the negotiations. Al the more reason to allow this one to get it done.

I am tired of Dems saying we have to protect old industry jobs like coal mining and steel manufacture. An educated nation can do better than that. I think in her dulcet tones Warren is pandering here. She should be cutting deals, not just standing on unfounded or unexplained principles.

3 Likes
11

Thank you posting this “secret” information contained on a public, government web site. There’s so much misinformation being distributed about the ISDS. People don’t even seem to understand that we (the US) already have investor-state arbitration tribunals from previous trade agreements.

2 Likes
12

You are correct. The United States has won every single case brought against it by foreign investors.

2 Likes
13

Don’t know, like everyone else, but as my old doper buddy use to say, “that’s so powerful shit man”. Read the details of either example (too long to post) and you’ll probably come to the conclusion that ISDS is critical (and very advantageous to the US) in making the TPP way more than just a trade deal.

Read the 1st page. This is with endorsement (government).
ISDS is a neutral, international arbitration procedure. Like other forms of commercial, labor, or judicial arbitration, ISDS seeks to provide an impartial, law-based approach to resolve conflicts.

Translation: Don’t Worry Be Happy

True but what could be the critical issue if not ISDS? It’s legitimate to argue for a trade deal in the Pacific considering China’s GDP growth has more than doubled ours in the past decade and if presented as such wouldn’t generate all the noise it has this past week.

14

The critical issue is the lack of transparency.
If the agreement were made public, there would be less consternation about it.

People have the wrong idea about most trade agreements—and thanks to NAFTA, which is more successful than is generally known, trade agreements have left a bad taste in the mouths of most Americans.

The biggest issue, to me, is the fast-track part of this.
The lack of ability to amend the agreement makes an outright rejection of it more likely.

And I have a feeling that it’s not as bad as its opponents are hoping it is.

2 Likes
15

The final deal is to have 6 months of public debate.[quote=“ThunderclapNewman, post:14, topic:20264”]
The biggest issue, to me, is the fast-track part of this.The lack of ability to amend the agreement makes an outright rejection of it more likely.
[/quote]

To me, that’s a plus of Fast Track. It outright precludes Republican filibuster and poison-pill amendments. BTW, Fast Track is nothing new. It’s been used in the past by both Republican and Democratic administrations.

It isn’t. The biggest obstacle has been the likes of Warren running around demagoguing and flat-out making up shit about the TPP. Very strange on her part. Normally I’m right there with her on economic issues, but I don’t know why she’s taken up the position she has.

1 Like
16

How so? All estimates say between 700K-800K American jobs were lost with 70% of them manufacturing jobs as a result of NAFTA. And no, it didn’t result in more exports to Mexico as was planned.

You may be right but when you state that NAFTA “is more successful than is generally known” w/o any proof it’s like Obama saying “bunk” to Sen Warren’s attacks on TPP. No one’s buying it.

1 Like
17

Au contraire.

1 Like
18

The TPA cloture vote has been successfully filibustered by Senate Democrats, by a comfortable margin.

So it’s back to the drawing board for the White House.

19

And even if NAFTA has been as bad as so many assert, Obama has explicitly said that the TPP has enforceable labor and environmental protections written into the body of the agreement, as opposed to NAFTA’s unenforceable side letter. Is he lying? Are the protections real? We’ll have months to see for ourselves before a final vote. It’s quite possible that Obama’s been as hampered as anyone by the secrecy. But that secrecy is a common, essential aspect of any multi-party international negotiation; we’ve just been through another one on Iran. Fast-track is another such aspect, btw – to have a multiparty agreement subject to amendment by all parties after negotiation is a sure route to never having international agreements. (And letting this GOP congress amend it seems especially unwise: are they more likely to get rid of stuff we don’t like, or, say, those new post-NAFTA protections Obama says are in there?)

Most ironic in all this is that, according to Paul Krugman, the “trade” implications of this deal, given how open global trade already is, are minimal wrt jobs lost or gained. He’s got his own reservations (calls himself a “lukewarm opponent”) but also sees the validity in supporting it in geostrategic terms:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com//2015/04/26/this-is-not-a-trade-agreement/

This whole discussion has become so untethered from reality – quite disillusioning for the “reality-based community” – that I can’t stand it.

2 Likes
20

But the way he went about the deal is what sunk him. Had Obama included members of labor, the environment and civic groups to be equal partners in the writing of the agreement with those elite business lobbyists then there would be more trust.

Obama put our faith and livelihoods in the hands of the worst of the 1%. If he keeps pushing this way the legislation will not revive and Obama will find himself a very lame duck.