Here’s a helpful document that provides basic analysis of the contents and implications of many of the key TPP chapters. It was compiled by trade experts from labor and public interest organizations.
Eyes on Trade is a blog by the staff of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch (GTW) division. GTW aims to promote democracy by challenging corporate globalization, arguing that the current globalization model is neither a random inevitability nor "free trade." Eyes on Trade is a space for interested parties to share information about globalization and trade issues, and in particular for us to share our watchdogging insights with you! GTW director Lori Wallach's initial post explains it all.
Here’s a helpful document that provides basic analysis of the contents and implications of many of the key TPP chapters. It was compiled by trade experts from labor and public interest organizations.
Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch has gone carefully through the 50-plus pages of the very troubling investment chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal –-as well as the lengthy country-specific annexes. We found that the final text is worse than we thought, with almost every remaining undecided issue left in the March 2015 leaked draft resolved by eliminating various reform proposals.
The TPP would VASTLY expand both the number of foreign investors that could use ISDS to attack U.S. policies (more than 9200 new firms, which would double the current U.S. ISDS exposure), and it would expand the kinds of ISDS cases that could be brought. Instead of reforms to scale back ISDS, for the first time the TPP would allow ISDS attacks against financial regulations investors say undermine their “reasonable expectations” and hurt their expected profits. And TPP would be the first U.S. trade pact that would allow drug firms to demand cash compensation for claimed violations of World Trade Organization rules on creation, limitation or revocation of intellectual property rights.
Meanwhile, the reforms to the ISDS process that the administration has been advertising did not materialize. There are no new conflict interest rules. There is no appeals mechanism. There is no cap on tribunal costs or discretion about how much governments can be ordered to pay the investor. The ONLY improvement in the text from a public interest perspective is a partial carve out of tobacco control policies from ISDS attack, and that clause in part highlights how no other public health or environmental policies are similarly safeguarded.
Please read the analysis here: http://www.citizen.org/documents/analysis-tpp-investment-chapter-november-2015.pdf
Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch has carefully analyzed the Financial Services Chapter of the recently released Trans-Pacific Partnership. One story that has not been told about the TPP is how this first U.S. trade agreement negotiated since the global financial crisis would impose the same model of financial deregulation that is widely understood to have fueled the crisis.
For the first time in any U.S. trade agreement, the TPP empowers some of the world’s largest financial firms to challenge U.S. financial regulatory policies in extrajudicial investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) tribunals using the broadest “minimum standard of treatment” claim.
And, the TPP would be the first U.S. pact to empower some of the world’s largest financial firms to launch ISDS claims against U.S. financial policies. Now none of the world’s 30 largest banks may bypass domestic courts, go before extrajudicial investor-state tribunals of three private lawyers, and demand taxpayer compensation for U.S. financial policies. Among the top banks in TPP countries that could newly do so: Mitsubishi UFJ, Mizuho, ANZ, Commonwealth Australia, West Pac, National Australia Bank, Bank of Tokyo, Sumutomo, Royal Bank of Canada.
Despite the pivotal role that new financial products, such as toxic derivatives, played in the financial crisis, the TPP would require all TPP countries to allow new financial products and services to enter their economies if permitted in any other TPP countries.
Meanwhile, the provision USTR calls a “prudential filter” would not shut down investor attacks on financial policies. Rather, it would provide for 120 day consultation after which the case could proceed unless the government of the suing investor agreed to shut down the case.
This analysis provides interested parties with a guided walk-through of the chapter and related annexes.
Please read out analysis here: http://www.citizen.org/documents/analysis-tpp-financial-services-chapter-november-2015.pdf
Yesterday, more than 75 labor, environmental, consumer, transparency, agriculture, and other U.S. groups and academics sent a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman calling on USTR to increase transparency in the Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA) negotiations (also called the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP).
The letter notes that while the European Commission has published the "actual language and binding commitments" it has proposed for TTIP, the U.S. government has thus far failed to make any textual proposals or negotiating texts public. “If the EU is willing to publish its textual proposals, there is no reason why the U.S. cannot immediately release its own textual proposals as well,” the letter said. “This significant change from present practice would be a major step toward the release of composite draft texts after each round. It would also help produce trade negotiations guided by the principles of democracy, transparency, and political accountability.”
USTR has been repeatedly criticized for excessive secrecy in its negotiations of TTIP and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a controversial "free trade" agreement with 11 other countries in the Pacific Rim. Experts and civil society have pointed out that while the public and the press are not allowed to see the negotiating text for either of these agreements (and Members of Congress were only granted very limited access after years of demands), more than 500 so-called "trade advisors," nearly 9 out of 10 representing corporate and industry interests, have special access.
The European Commission's move to publish its textual proposals proves that USTR's extreme secrecy measures, which it has repeatedly defended, are completely unnecessary. USTR should – at the very least - follow the Commission's lead so that the American public can see for themselves who exactly stands to benefit from these trade deals that are being negotiated in their name.
Today in Atlanta, cancer patient Zahara Heckscher was arrested after disrupting negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in a protest aimed at maintaining access to affordable cancer medicines in the 12 countries affected by the trade treaty.
Heckscher, in a t-shirt reading "I HAVE CANCER. I CAN'T WAIT 8 YEARS," and holding an IV pole that read "TPP: Don' t Cut My IV,” refused to leave the Westin Hotel, the site of the negotiations between U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman and the other TPP trade ministers. She demanded that they show her the secret TPP text to verify for herself and other people living with cancer around the globe that the TPP would not include a "death sentence clause," the text of the US proposal to extend de facto monopolies on biological medicines by up to 8 years.
Heckscher, a seven-year breast cancer survivor, calls herself a cancer thriver. She has been treated by biologicals including trastuzumab (Hercepin) and pertuzumab (Perjeta). She is currently undergoing chemotherapy as part of a clinical trial, and continues on denosumab (Xgeva) treatment as well.
According to Heckscher, "For thousands of women to die unnecessary of breast cancer because of the TPP is a horrible, cruel, premeditated, and avoidable catastrophe. The provisions being decided by TPP ministers today could allow drug monopolies on biologics for 8 years. Some of these medicines cost up to tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of dollars a year."
"When you have breast cancer today, you can’t wait 8 years or 7 years or 6 years for a treatment to become available or affordable. When you have cancer, even a one-year delay in affordable medicine can be a death sentence. That is why we call this proposed provision of the TPP a 'death sentence clause.' If it passes, thousands of women like me will die waiting."
Like the 8-hour workday, child labor laws and a minimum wage, Labor Day is often taken for granted. Merely an extra day off.
But these immense contributions to our society’s wellbeing were hard-won by the labor movement.
What are unions – and all of us – doing as a nation to achieve greater progress and celebrate today’s workers, as well as the future’s? What are we doing the rest of the year to harm workers and roll back hard-fought gains?
One inspiring way in which the labor movement is partnering with environmental, consumer, faith and other civil society organizations to fight for a better quality of life for all Americans is to demand more fair trade and globalization policies. The fight against a more-of-the-same wage-lowering, job-killing trade agenda has generated more public interest and action than at any time in decades.
Why? Because the Obama administration sadly picked up where the Bush administration left off in negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a massive 12-nation NAFTA-style trade agreement.
With our grills cooled from Labor Day and the fall legislative season starting, it worth considering what cause workers might actually have to celebrate the TPP:
Does an agreement that forces workers to compete with workers in Vietnam, where minimum wages average less than 60 cents an hour, child labor is rampant and independent unions are banned, sound like a reason to revel?
Does Labor Day mean anything if our government is pushing to enact trade pacts that actually provide incentives for U.S. firms to offshore jobs to low-wage countries?
What middle class person – small business owner or her employee –would eagerly praise the gutting of Buy American policies, policies that recycle our tax dollars to create good jobs in the U.S.?
Would you toast to the fact that, though American workers have doubled productivity since the 1970s, they are still being paid 1970s-level wages? Especially since this yawning gap would only be widened with another status quo trade deal, exasperating the worst U.S. income inequality in the last century.
Are we honoring America’s workers by enacting trade pacts that don’t include binding rules against currency cheating that displaces U.S. jobs? The TPP closely models previous pacts that have not only failed to meet expectations for job creation, but also exacerbated the trade deficit and cost 5 million American manufacturing jobs?
Who could lounge by the pool on any day knowing the TPP allows countries that tolerate the trafficking of workers and migrants – a form of modern-day slavery – to participate in the agreement? Or worse, that countries like Malaysia would be given a pass on horrific trafficking violations because they are already participating in TPP talks?
Does a deal with 500-plus corporate advisors, and only a few public interest and labor groups, sound like it’s a promotion for workers? How about if it is being negotiated entirely behind closed doors?
Would America’s workers rest easy knowing this might be the last summer holiday before their families will be subjected to floods of unsafe food imports, increased medicine prices and worse environmental degradation?
How do we as a nation pause one day to celebrate workers, and then actively work on policies that harm their best interests the very next?
But there is one thing that is worth celebrating as we reflect on Labor Day: American unions are united with the unions in the other TPP countries to fight this corporate power grab branded as a trade deal.
Workers here and around the world have had to fight constantly for decent wages, dignity, respect and safety. Even against overwhelming amounts of money, power and corporate propaganda our grandparents and parents won the rights many now take for granted.
We can show we care about labor the other 364 days a year by uniting to give workers something back in return for all they do: a dead TPP, the gift that keeps on giving.
This will be yet another important labor achievement worthy of celebration come Labor Day 2016.
Uruguay’s initial decision to join the TiSA negotiations was met with strong and vocal opposition. Last month, more than 40,000 protestors shut down the city of Montevideo for a 24 hour general strike in which the TiSA was a major issue. The Frente Amplio (FA), Uruguay’s leading political party, passed a resolution calling for Uruguay to leave the negotiations, and yesterday, Uruguyan President Vázques officially announced Uruguay’s departure. Uruguay’s decision is in no small part thanks to the tireless efforts of many activists, labor unions, environmental organizations, and other civil society groups in the country.
And the Uruguayans are right to be concerned about TiSA. Comprised of 51 nations, negotiations on the “trade” agreement have been on-going since 2013. Much like its TPP and TAFTA counterparts, TiSA negotiations have been conducted behind closed doors, with no access for civil society or stakeholders. However, a number of leaks of negotiating documents have confirmed the worst: TiSA is a threat to key public services and domestic regulations that we rely on for commonsense financial regulations, data privacy, net neutrality and a number of other issues. And that’s just what we can confirm based on leaks.
While Uruguay’s rejection of TiSA is certainly a moment to celebrate in the fight against the global expansion of the corporate trade model, much work remains. Given what we know about TiSA, its completion would be disastrous for workers, consumers, internet users, and those in need of public services. Therefore, the campaign continues, and in the words of Rosa Pavanelli, General Secretary of the Public Services International global union (one of the groups leading the charge against TiSA), Uruguay’s decision is “an example that we hope others will soon follow.”
This blog post is a farewell of sorts. After three years, today is my last day at Public Citizen. In a couple weeks, I’ll be continuing to push for a more just trade model over at Sierra Club’s climate and trade program as senior policy advisor. Eyes on Trade, of course, will still be here in the good hands of my colleagues at Global Trade Watch.
It has been a treat to have this space to amplify the call of many for a new trade model, document the damage wrought by our existing trade deals abroad and at home, fact-check dubious economic projections and predictable spin jobs for pending trade deals, spotlight the threats those deals pose to our health/environment/economy/democracy, and witness the growth of the largest, most diverse coalition ever to oppose an expansion of the trade status quo.
I started working on trade when I realized that three lawyers in an investor-state tribunal could trump basic tenets of democracy and rule against health and environmental protections for which many of us have fought. When I saw how a particular model of trade has contributed to the growing gulf between the rich and the rest of us. When I realized that multinational corporations could obtain special protections that restrict consumers' access to life-saving medicines and still get away with calling it "free trade."
Of course, one need not work on trade to know about trade. It is little wonder that majorities of Republicans, Democrats and independents alike oppose the status quo trade pact model. More than two decades of NAFTA, the WTO and NAFTA expansion pacts have contributed to surging U.S. trade deficits, widespread job loss, a flood of agricultural imports, downward pressure on middle-class wages and unprecedented levels of income inequality. Behind the aggregate data lie shuttered factories, lost livelihoods and struggling communities.
These outcomes directly contradict the rosy promises made by corporate interests to sell these controversial deals to a skeptical U.S. Congress and public. They also contradict President Obama’s stated economic agenda to revive U.S. manufacturing, boost middle-class wages and tackle inequality – an agenda that the TPP would undermine. The Obama administration’s push for yet another NAFTA expansion deal casts a blind eye to the damaging legacy of the current trade model.
With opinion polls showing that the U.S. public is painfully aware of this legacy, the administration’s TPP push faces stiff opposition in the halls of Congress and the court of public opinion. Turning a blind eye to the lived realities of the status quo trade model is unlikely to prove a winning strategy.
And with that, at the risk of making this my shortest blog post to date (a perhaps not difficult feat), I bid you adieu. It has been an honor to work with Public Citizen, and to work alongside many of you in pushing for a fair trade policy. I look forward to continuing to do so from my new post.
Statement of Lori Wallach, Director, Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch
Today’s fourth “final” TPP ministerial without a deal means the clock has run on possible U.S. congressional votes in 2015. No deal means the TPP is thrown into the political maelstrom of the U.S. presidential cycle and with opposition building in many countries there are reduced chances that a deal will ever be reached on a pact that U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman declared to be in its “end game” in 2013 but that has become ever more controversial since.
It’s good news for people and the planet that no deal was done at this final do-or-die meeting given the TPP’s threats to jobs, wages, safe food, affordable medicines and more. Only the beleaguered negotiators and most of the 600 official U.S. trade advisors representing corporate interests wanted this deal, which recent polling shows is unpopular in most of the countries involved.
This ministerial was viewed as a do-or-die moment to inject momentum into the TPP process, so this Maui meltdown in part reflects how controversial the TPP is in many of the involved nations and how little latitude governments feel to make concessions to get a deal.
The intense U.S. national political battle over trade authority was just a preview of the massive opposition the TPP would face once members of Congress and the public see the specific TPP terms that threaten their interests. Given the damaging impacts that some TPP proposals could have for many people, it’s not surprising that the same set of issues including investor-state dispute resolution and medicine patents as well as market access issues like sugar, dairy, and rules-of-origin on manufactured goods like autos remain deadlocked given they will determine whether a final pact is politically viable in various TPP countries.
Many of the 28 House Democrats who supported Fast Track authority for Obama explicitly said that their support for the TPP relied on certain goals being met, including strong, enforceable labor and environmental standards, and no rolling back of past patent rule reforms relating to access to medicines – terms meeting the “May 2007” standard that elements of the TPP do not meet.
Exactly one decade later, today trade ministers are gathering in Hawaii to try to conclude deadline-missing negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – a sweeping deal that would expand the CAFTA model of trade across the Pacific.
In attempt to quell the controversy surrounding the TPP, the administration is recycling the same lofty promises that were used to push for passage of CAFTA: the deal would safeguard public health, spur economic prosperity at home and abroad, and protect workers, consumers, and the environment.
After 10 years of CAFTA, the emptiness of such promises is on full display. Today in Central America, life-saving medicines are more expensive due to monopoly protections that CAFTA gave to pharmaceutical corporations – protections that are slated for expansion in the TPP. And the headlines from several CAFTA countries do not report economic prosperity, but economic instability, drug violence and forced migration. Meanwhile, CAFTA’s labor provisions have failed to halt the assassination of dozens of Central American union workers who were trying to end unmitigated labor abuses like wage theft. In contrast, the pact’s foreign investor privileges, which the TPP would expand, have succeeded in empowering multinational corporations to challenge domestic laws, including consumer and environmental protections.
Worse than repeating the mistakes of the past, the TPP would repeat the mistakes of CAFTA’s present.
Making life-saving medicines unaffordable
During the debate over CAFTA, health experts warned that by handing pharmaceutical firms greater monopoly protections, the deal would restrict Central Americans’ access to more affordable generic versions of life-saving drugs.
Unfortunately, they were right. Take, for example, Kaletra, a drug used to fight HIV/AIDS. Under CAFTA rules, Kaletra has enjoyed monopoly protections in Guatemala, making generic versions unavailable, for the entire first decade of CAFTA. Without a generic alternative, Guatemala’s public health system pays about $130 per bottle of Kaletra. In contrast, the generic version of Kaletra costs less than $20 per bottle, according to the Pan American Health Organization reference price. For Guatemala’s taxpayers, paying more than six times the generic price for Kaletra under CAFTA means less money to build schools or bridges. For Guatemala’s HIV/AIDS patients, it can mean the difference between life and death.
Like CAFTA, the TPP is slated to include extreme monopoly protections for pharmaceutical corporations. Indeed, the deal even omits limited provisions to protect access to affordable medicines that were included the most recent U.S. free trade agreements. That’s why Doctors without Borders has described the TPP as not only worse than CAFTA in restricting access to medicines, but “the most damaging trade agreement ever for global health.”
Turning a blind eye to labor abuses
One decade ago, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative sold CAFTA as the “best ever trade agreement on labor,” boasting “world class” labor provisions. Those provisions failed to prevent the murder of 68 Guatemalan unionists over the course of seven years without a single arrest. In 2008, the AFL-CIO and Guatemalan unions filed an official complaint under CAFTA’s labor provisions, calling for an end to the rampant anti-union violence, wage theft, and other abuses. It was not until six years and dozens of unionist murders later that the U.S. government moved to arbitration on the case. Today Guatemala’s union workers still endure frequent attacks with near-total impunity.
CAFTA’s labor provisions have proven similarly ineffective in the Dominican Republic, where sugar cane workers endure 12-hour workdays in hazardous conditions without receiving legally-required overtime pay. A Spanish priest who filed an official CAFTA complaint in attempt to rectify the abuses was informed by U.S. Department of Labor officials, “Nothing is going to happen on account of not complying.” Indeed, nothing has happened. Despite CAFTA’s “world class” labor provisions, the Dominican Republic’s underpaid cane workers continue laboring in squalid conditions.
Why has CAFTA, like U.S. trade agreements before and since, failed to curb widespread labor abuses? Kim Elliot, a member of the Department of Labor’s National Advisory Committee on Labor Provisions of U.S. Free Trade Agreements, recently offered this blunt explanation: the labor provisions of U.S. trade deals “are in there because they’re necessary to get deals through Congress.” She added, “It’s really all about politics and not about how to raise labor standards in these countries.”
Now, in attempt to get the TPP through Congress, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is parroting the same promise it made for CAFTA, claiming that the deal would include “the highest-ever labor commitments.” While the TPP’s labor provisions have been described as more “enforceable” than those in CAFTA, this is nothing new. The last four U.S. Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) already included such “enforceable” terms, but still failed to end on-the-ground offenses, according to a 2014 U.S. government report. Colombia’s unionists have faced dozens of assassinations and hundreds of death threats despite the Colombia FTA’s inclusion of TPP-like labor provisions. And last year Peru explicitly rolled back occupational health and safety protections for workers despite the Peru FTA’s “enforceable” labor provisions. Neither country has faced penalties under the FTAs. It’s unclear why the TPP’s replication of such unsuccessful labor provisions should be expected to curb the systematic labor abuses in TPP countries like Vietnam, which bans independent unions, uses forced labor, and, by the Vietnamese government’s own estimate, has more than 1.75 million child laborers.
Empowering corporate attacks on consumer and environmental protections
In contrast to CAFTA’s unenforceable “protections” for workers, the deal granted highly enforceable privileges to foreign corporations. This includes empowering them to bypass domestic courts and challenge domestic consumer and environmental protections before extrajudicial tribunals via “investor-state dispute settlement” (ISDS).
Corporations have not held back in using this controversial parallel legal system to challenge pro-consumer policies, including government efforts to keep electricity affordable. In 2010 a U.S. energy company with an indirect, minority stake in Guatemala’s electric utility used ISDS to challenge Guatemala’s decision to lower electricity rates for consumers. The next day, the company sold off its minority share. A three-person ISDS tribunal generously decided to treat the firm as a protected “investor” in Guatemala and ordered the government to pay the corporation more than $32 million. In another energy-related CAFTA case, a U.S. financial firm challenged the Dominican Republic’s decision not to raise electricity rates amid a nationwide energy crisis. The government decided to pay the firm to drop the case in a $26.5 million settlement, reasoning that it was cheaper than continuing to pay legal fees.
CAFTA countries also face an increasing array of ISDS cases against environmental protections. A U.S. mining company, for example, has launched a claim against the Dominican Republic for delaying and then denying environmental approval for an aggregate materials mine that the government deemed a threat to nearby water sources. Other U.S. investors in the Dominican Republic have threatened to launch a CAFTA claim against the government for denying environmental approval for their plans to expand a gated resort.
The TPP would dramatically expand the controversial ISDS system, newly empowering more than 28,000 additional foreign-owned firms to ask private tribunals to order taxpayer compensation for commonsense environmental and consumer protections.
Fueling economic instability
Ten years ago, CAFTA proponents promised the deal would bring economic prosperity to Central America, making it “the best immigration, anti-gang, and anti-drug policy at our disposal.” Today, CAFTA countries Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala are plagued by drug-related gang violence and forced migration. While the causes are many, “economic stagnation” has fed the crisis, according to the U.S. State Department. CAFTA clearly failed to deliver on its promise of economic growth for the region.
Worse still, CAFTA has contributed to the region’s economic instability. Before the razor-thin passage of CAFTA, development organizations warned that the deal could lead to the displacement of the family farmers that constitute a significant portion of Central America’s workforce, by forcing them to directly compete with highly-subsidized U.S. agribusiness. Indeed, agricultural imports from the United States in Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala have doubled since the deal went into effect, while the countries’ agricultural trade balance with the United States has dropped, spelling farmer displacement.
And despite promises that CAFTA would make up for rural job loss by creating new jobs in apparel factories, apparel exports to the United States from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala have actually fallen $1.6 billion, or 21 percent, since the year before CAFTA took effect. Not only has the promise of new factories disappeared – so have existing factories.
If the TPP were to take effect, the apparel jobs of Central America would be expected to decline even quicker, contributing to further economic instability. That’s because the TPP includes Vietnam, a major apparel exporter where independent unions are banned and where the minimum wage averages less than 60 cents an hour – a fraction of the minimum wages in Central America (or even in China). Central America is already losing the race to the bottom. It will only fall further behind if the TPP makes Vietnam the newest low-wage competitor.
The promise-defying track record of CAFTA need not be repeated. When the TPP negotiators meeting today in a resort hotel in Hawaii finish this round of negotiations, we are likely to hear a familiar litany of promises about how the TPP would benefit consumers, workers, and the environment. With those promises punctured by a decade of CAFTA’s stark realities, we have a unique opportunity to say “enough is enough.”