Secrecy rarely produces sound public policy, nor does it foster public trust, as the recently completed Trans-Pacific Partnership demonstrates. After shutting the doors on labor unions, environmental groups, privacy advocates and others with a stake in the discussions, President Barack
Secrecy rarely produces sound public policy, nor does it foster public trust, as the recently completed Trans-Pacific Partnership demonstrates. After shutting the doors on labor unions, environmental groups, privacy advocates and others with a stake in the discussions, President Barack Obama wants Congress to approve a regional trade deal that sacrifices too much.
Secrecy rarely produces sound public policy, nor does it foster public trust, as the recently completed Trans-Pacific Partnership demonstrates. After shutting the doors on labor unions, environmental groups, privacy advocates and others with a stake in the discussions, President Barack Obama wants Congress to approve a regional trade deal that sacrifices too much.
In fairness, there’s a lot to like in the deal, but not enough.
Obama stresses that the partnership, involving the United States and 11 other nations, streamlines and formalizes trade in a part of the world where greater predictability is desirable. That’s the good part.
The administration’s sales pitch so far has focused on the elimination of 18,000 tariffs that Pacific Rim nations place on U.S. goods, a move that’s expected to strengthen the standing of beleaguered American workers and generate much-needed economic growth here.
Easier access to markets means greater opportunity for exporting American goods.
“When it comes to Asia, one of the world’s fastest-growing regions, the rule book is up for grabs,” Obama said. “And if we don’t pass this agreement — if America doesn’t write those rules — then countries like China will. And that would only threaten American jobs and workers and undermine American leadership around the world.”
There’s little disputing the risk of letting China set the course, but critics of TPP are building a persuasive case that the deal still leaves far too much to chance, or to deliberate deception, in the name of free trade.
A major point of contention is the inclusion of an Investor-State Dispute Settlement, or ISDS, a process that enables foreign corporations to challenge a nation’s laws before an international court if they think they impinge too much on shareholder value.
Although the mechanism exists in other agreements in which the United States already participates, TPP critics — such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. — point to a spike in such challenges in recent years. …
Other parts of the deal also are drawing opposition. Human Rights Watch and others contend that bilateral agreements with Vietnam, Brunei and Malaysia over human rights and workers’ rights are toothless. Environmental groups such as the Sierra Club are incensed that the words “climate change” appear nowhere in the document and that fossil-fuel companies could use ISDS to undermine efforts to address global warming.
Two aspects of TPP — involving privacy rights and intellectual property rights — also are particularly worrisome.
The common thread in all of these complaints is that the criticism emanates from public interest groups prevented from stating their case to TPP negotiators as the deal was put together. If they had been involved in the negotiations, the problems might have been avoided or at least tempered.
Instead, negotiators chose secrecy. …
Obama, who won a hard-fought battle to win “fast-track approval” of trade deals, now faces a straight up-or-down vote by Congress. Lawmakers should demand better.
Congress’ role in trade deals is to represent the American people, to serve as a check on the White House.
The president deserves some deference in negotiating, but not unilateral authority.
— St. Louis Post-Dispatch
