May 23, 2022 Breaking News, Latest News, and Videos

Go Slow On Trans-Pacific Partnership Pact:

References to trade agreements were some of the very few passages during President Obama’s State of the Union speech late last month that moved Republicans to stand and applaud along with Obama’s Democratic Party allies.

And when Obama talks about trade bills pending in Congress, the biggest is a plan to give the President fast-track authority to move forward with the so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership, America’s newest putative free trade agreement.

Because of its location, this deal would affect California more than any other part of the nation. So far, there has been no movement toward opening up the negotiations to public scrutiny, which can only lead to speculation about what an eventual treaty might contain.

The Tea Party, for example, told its members in an email the other day that “Obama is secretly planning to ram through Congress one of the most ambitious free trade agreements ever negotiated…the launch pad for the ‘New World Order.’” Obama, the ultra-conservative organization warned, “fully intends to surrender U.S. sovereignty under this agreement.”

As often happens with outraged political rhetoric, there is a grain of truth behind some of the claims. In this case, leaked versions of the Trans-Pacific pact that may emerge from more than two-dozen negotiating sessions held in the last few years indicate it will set up the same kind of tribunal that exists under NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Such tribunals, as NAFTA’s history demonstrates, do tend to interfere with American sovereignty, sometimes allowing international judicial panels to overrule U.S. and state laws.

The most famous such case came while California in the late 1990s sought to rid gasoline here of the additive MTBE, whichfeatured noxious odors and taste, along with alleged cancer risks. MTBE leached into some drinking water as it leaked from rusty storage tanks and the engines of small boats into aquifers and reservoirs.

But the state’s MTBE ban, imposed by then-Gov. Gray Davis, threatened the profits of the Canadian Methanex Corp., which filed a $970 million claim for lost sales in a NAFTA tribunal, circumventing American courts. Methanex eventually lost its case for health reasons, but the point was made: In some cases, the U.S. Supreme Court may no longer be so supreme, especially when corporations manage to bypass it.

Another key NAFTA tribunal ruling went against U.S. dolphin-safe tuna labeling requirements because they could impede free trade.

That’s a major loss of sovereignty, one which could be widened under expected provisions of the Trans-Pacific agreement. Other countries that have already joined the pact and agreed to such terms include Brunei, Chile, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Singapore. If the U.S. joins, the treaty will likely expand further to Canada, Japan, Mexico, Peru and Vietnam, too.

But no one outside the Obama administration and a few foreign negotiators knows what’s in the latest draft version of this agreement. If Congress gives Obama the fast-track authority he seeks and which most of Congress applauded during his speech, it’s possible no one will be able to prevent offshoring of millions of jobs (predicted by consumer advocate Ralph Nader) and rolling back banking reforms, safe food laws, Internet freedom and environmental safeguards.

That’s because fast-track authority prevents Congress from holding full-scale hearings or amending the treaty when it comes up for action there. There would be just one up-or-down vote, with no changes allowed on anything from copyright infringement provisions to human rights.

So going fast could lead not just to reduced American authority over our own affairs but to corporate lobbyists sneaking in self-serving elements that could not be exposed via Congressional hearings. That’s why any fast-tracking bill and any consideration of this agreement before it’s adopted should include mandatory publication of the entire agreement, so Americans are not forced to buy the proverbial pig in a poke.

This is the only way Americans can know what they’d get if this treaty ever becomes effective, and just what they’d lose.

in Opinion
Related Posts

Is the Big Housing Crunch Mostly Fiction?

May 20, 2022

May 20, 2022

By Tom Elias, Columnist In some parts of California, there is definitely a housing crunch: small supplies of homes for...

Is Gelson’s Our Future? Bigger Is Not Better & Not Necessary! – Part 2

May 20, 2022

May 20, 2022

The dream of our beachfront city is about to become a nightmare! Just imagine a tsunami of these projects washing...

Column From Santa Monica Mayor Himmelrich: We Walk the Talk

May 12, 2022

May 12, 2022

By Sue Himmelrich, Santa Moncia Mayor  I like the SMa.r.t. architects. I often agree with them. But in allowing Mark...

Is Gelson’s Our Future? Bigger Is Not Better!

May 12, 2022

May 12, 2022

It’s appalling to see what’s happening in our city – projects recently built or about to be approved – in...

Renting Your Second Home

May 6, 2022

May 6, 2022

If you are among the many Americans who own a second home that you occasionally use as a vacation getaway,...

Column: Cities Fight to Maintain Distinctive Characters

May 6, 2022

May 6, 2022

By Tom Elias, Columnist Anyone who knows California well will realize that Palo Alto does not look much like nearby...

SMa.r.t. Column: Gelson’s, Boxed-In

May 6, 2022

May 6, 2022

This week we are re-visiting an article from 2018 regarding the Miramar project, by simply replacing the word “Miramar” with...

Column: Are You Talking Yourself Out of Saving for Retirement? Here’s How to Break the Habit

May 5, 2022

May 5, 2022

Saving for retirement can be an abstract concept. It’s something we all know we should do, but the farther away...

SMa.r.t. Column: Failure to Plan…

April 30, 2022

April 30, 2022

Over the last approximately two years your City has been busy trying to respond to new California laws that are...

Letter to Editor: Your “Standing Firm With Santa Monica” Initiative

April 25, 2022

April 25, 2022

The following is an open letter to Councilmember Sue Himmelrich from Santa Monica resident Arthur Jeon regarding a proposed transfer...

SMa.r.t. Column: Planning The Real Future

April 24, 2022

April 24, 2022

In the 1970s, renowned USC architecture professor Ralph Knowles developed a method for planning and designing cities that would dramatically...

SMa.r.t. Column: New City Financial Plan: The Resident Homeowner Bank

April 15, 2022

April 15, 2022

Part II: Who pays the proposed transfer tax and where does the money go? Last week, we introduced the proposed...

Column: NIMBYs Getting a Bad Rap

April 8, 2022

April 8, 2022

By Tom Elias Rarely has a major group of Californians suffered a less deserved rash of insults and attacks than...

SMa.r.t. Column: New City Financial Plan – The Resident Homeowner Bank

April 8, 2022

April 8, 2022

Part 1 of 2 In this two-part article, we will discuss both the proposed transfer tax ballot initiative and the...

Column: Tackling Childcare Costs

April 7, 2022

April 7, 2022

Finding affordable, quality childcare is essential for many working parents. The current shortage of care options is helping drive up...