“Numerous reports in the business press make it clear that the agreement presents grave risks on all sorts of topics.” — Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.
After five years of secret negotiations, that agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), is headed for an up or down congressional vote. To consumer watchdogs, representatives of labor, most environmental groups, as well as Internet freedom and prodemocracy advocates, the TPP is worse than anticipated because what weak language initially existed to protect the public and the environment was largely eliminated from the final text during a last minute negotiating frenzy.
Unfortunately, Congressman Jared Polis has become an enthusiastic supporter of the TPP, touting alleged benefits from increased U.S. exports. For nearly two years, a broad coalition of local groups have been trying to convince Mr. Polis that this deal is bad for workers, bad for communities, bad for the environment and bad for democracy. Sadly Mr. Polis has ignored the facts and simply repeats U.S. trade office talking points.
Here’s a sampling of the reasons why Professor Stiglitz perceives “grave risks” arising from the TPP:
The TPP is much more than a trade treaty; it is an all-encompassing international investment agreement that carries the potential to negate a broad range of U.S. laws, regulations and policies. Foreign investors will be empowered to sue governments in international Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) tribunals whenever their “expected future profits” are threatened. Governments that lose these suits will be forced to modify or repeal national, state and local laws, regulations and policies aimed at protecting public health and the environment or pay unlimited compensation and costly legal fees.
The TPP will constrain how governments at all levels can spend tax dollars, limiting their freedom to create jobs, protect communities, build infrastructure, preserve the environment and provide necessary public goods and services. Any action thought to reduce foreign profits will be subject to an ISDS suit.
The TPP expands definitions of “investor” and “investment” to cover much more than is allowed under current U.S. law. Nearly anyone with the wherewithal to incorporate in one TPP country and make a minimal investment in another will have standing to sue. Thousands of foreign corporations, including a vast number of U.S. subsidiaries based in TPP countries, will be newly empowered, increasing the likelihood of suits aimed at overturning democratically determined laws, regulations and policies.
Opportunities to exploit cheap foreign labor will be significantly expanded, inducing companies to offshore American jobs. American workers will have to compete against 60-centsan-hour Vietnamese peasants and Malaysian sweatshops benefiting from a burgeoning Asian slave trade.
In Colorado, regulations passed to reduce fracking pollution or keep drilling away from homes and schools can be challenged under the TPP, forcing the government to repeal those regulations or pay huge fines. Moreover, the TPP requires its members to allow the export of liquefied natural gas, thereby accelerating fracking activity.
Efforts to green our economy and create local green jobs will be subject to challenge by foreign investors seeking a piece of the action or whose expected profits may be affected by changes in policy. The broadly popular 1933 Buy American Act, which encourages government purchases of American made products, will be effectively suspended.
Intellectual property rules will extend monopoly patents for life-saving drugs, allowing patent renewal for minor changes to formulations and delivery methods, thus delaying the availability of generic drugs and consigning thousands to unnecessary suffering and untimely deaths. Harsh Internet restrictions and extended copyrights will protect vested interests, interfere with non-commercial “fair use” of information and cultural products, criminalize owners who tinker with their personal computers, and impede research, innovation and the dissemination of knowledge.
Foreign food exporters will be able to challenge U.S. border inspections and food safety regulations intended to protect consumers from contamination and unsafe handling of imported food products.
So with all these untoward consequences potentially arising from the TPP, one has to wonder whose side Mr. Polis is on. Does he represent his Colorado constituents or large foreign corporations that stand to benefit from the emasculation of governments’ ability to serve and protect those constituents? If you believe the TPP goes too far, let Mr. Polis know. Send an email through his website or call his office at 303-484-9596 and 202-225-2161. Tell Jared in no uncertain terms to vote “No” on the TPP. To learn more go to tinyurl.com/pj7h669.
This opinion column does not necessarily reflect the views of Boulder Weekly.
