For the purposes of this post, I’m not going to litigate the pros and cons of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I just want to note that the president is heading to Asia and that he will be making a final push (particularly in Laos) for the trade agreement. And, despite all appearances, there are people who think that Congress could still conceivably have a vote and potentially pass the treaty in a lame duck session of Congress after the election.
“T.P.P. is, in many ways, seen as a litmus test for whether or not the U.S. has staying power in this region,” Benjamin J. Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser, said to reporters on Monday. “What the countries of the Asia-Pacific region want to know, particularly the Asian countries, is whether or not we can be counted on.”
Mrs. Clinton’s unyielding opposition has been particularly troubling to Asian leaders, analysts said, given that she spoke out regularly in favor of the agreement when she was secretary of state. “I oppose it now, I’ll oppose it after the election, and I’ll oppose it as president,” she said last month at a campaign rally in Michigan.
Many Asian leaders believe that Mrs. Clinton would happily carry out the T.P.P. if it were approved before her inauguration, as do some members of the Obama administration. Others believe she will reverse her position if a few elements of the pact are tweaked. But as she has dug in her heels, such a reversal is harder to contemplate.
“They are starting to realize that if it doesn’t get through in the lame duck, it will be very hard for her to pivot back to the position she had as secretary of state,” said Michael J. Green, an expert on Asia at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Now, I’ve never thought that the TPP has a chance in hell of passing, but I’m trying to imagine the hue and cry if it actually did.
Clinton long ago disavowed the support she gave the treaty as a loyal soldier in the Obama administration, and both Trump and Sanders have been vehement opponents. Regardless of who wins the election in November, they’ll be officially opposed to the TPP.
Under those circumstances, a lot of voters would be justified in seeing a mandate against the treaty and that it would be wrong and unfair to saddle the incoming president with implementing a policy that they ran against.
Maybe it will somehow pass anyway, but it’s hard to see how it can get the votes when it’s seen as so toxic that the presidential candidates can’t support it.
And, whatever Clinton thinks about the merits in the privacy of her own office, she would not want to begin her presidency with the left feeling betrayed and saying “I told you so.”
It’s also hard for me to envision the Republicans coming up with enough votes to overcome near-universal opposition from the Democrats. If the popularity of Trumpism with their base isn’t enough to warn them off, their aversion to working to advance Obama’s agenda and legacy will probably be enough to dissuade them.
She simply wouldn’t be able to sleep at night.
More like she’d have no honeymoon and poll numbers that crotchrot would envy.
Winning is everything; she couldn’t care less. Hard to believe this hasn’t been made abundantly clear. Repeatedly and at length.
Over-under on this happening regardless?
Republicans and the media will make sure there is no Clinton honeymoon. They sprung that in 1992, rememeber?
Nobody knows what the TPP is.
(So of course there will be enough Dem votes to support Obama’s last hurrah push for a thingie he owes to his and their corporate backers. And of course Clinton will advance it after she’s elected President. And if Obama fails to pass it or just gives up like he did trying to give Repubs the ranch on Social Security reform, of course Hillary will change her mind, with or without tweaks, and will easily line up the votes needed in the Senate to get it through. Hillary’s nomination pretty much assures TPP will be passed one way or another eventually. No one “serious” doubts it, and what else do we need to know?)
And after it’s passed and effective law and the policy of the land, still nobody will know what TPP is. (And that was the goal all along, really, wasn’t it? Like Obamacare? That nobody would know what the fuck it is?)
The text is actually now available. I have links below.
I’m talking about a thing called the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It doesn’t even have the word trade in the title. I stand by my point, even the folks that wrote it don’t know what it is (or top line, they’re trying to hide it).
Germany and France have just come out against it.
Hollande: “Timing isn’t right.”
Elections due in Germany and France 2017, TTIP is a hard sell to the electorate in both countries.
○ A Breaking Corporate Alliance: Brexit, TTIP and $15bn Tax Fee to Apple
○ Trade Pacts – Oligarchy in Action, US Not Really a Democracy (May 2014)
TTIP is going onto the rocks, thank goodness. One more massive pile of crap, which is good for internationalists, and bad for 99.99% of the actual people.
It will be reborn, renamed, repackaged and provided with a bodyguard of lies. We are such suckers these days.
I have watched this TPP thing with confusion. No one in the Democratic Party backs, save a few in farm states. Many republicans support it.
Why is Obama so dead-set on passing this massive shit sandwich? What is in it for him? The pile of crap in this dreadful treaty (which is available, BTW, contrary to some comments above
https:/ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-full-text
Here is a summary:
https:
/ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2015/october/summary-trans-paci
fic-partnership
The summary is provided by the US Trade Negotiator, who is hardly unbiased.
So what is in this for Obama? My only conclusion is that somewhere there is a massive pile of cash in the millions which he gets if he crams this foul turkey through.
What’s in it for him is his entire Asian Pivot and bringing the pro-Western Far East into alignment with us rather than have them cower under China’s umbrella.
OK, I can appreciate that, and that is a good thing. However, I do not see that as a compelling argument.
In the last 25 years, we have heard one argument in favor of internationalism after another. They always tell us that it is going to make things better.
And things have just not gotten better. Things are much worse now. So I don’t believe any of that shit anymore. I am a committed protectionist now. I don’t give a flying fuck about jobs overseas. I want jobs in East Teaneck, KY. There are huge parts of America which are just in terrible shape, and somehow that never comes up. My next book is that book “Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis”. The rural parts of the midwest and south are just in terrible shape, with opiates, alcohol, no jobs, etc.
Hear what the oldest free-trade agreement did to Apple this week, and the company’s special deal with Ireland reducing its corporate tax rate from “1 per cent on its European profits in 2003 down to 0.005 per cent in 2014”? Supranational groupings can fight corporations, single nations can’t.
Thus the single thing most people paying attention worried about in the TPP negotiations was the possibility that the US could force the other parties to accept an abusive copyright protection for biologic medicines; instead the other countries were able to resist.
I guess you can call the EU organizing document a free-trade agreement, but it bears little resemblance to the forms of TTIP, or WTO for that matter. Guess you could call our Constitution one, too.
You quote an drug industry post on minimum initial patent protection compromise that insinuates it will make cheaper generics come online faster. Not even close:
“The TPP member states have surrendered their sovereign right to define `patentability’ criteria. Not only have they have surrendered their right, they have agreed to grant patents for:
a) new uses of a known product;
b) new methods of using a known product, or;
c) new processes of using a known product.
This would lead to the “evergreening” of patents and result in an average extension of monopoly by at least five years. Some can stretch it beyond five years, as was done by Novartis AG for Gleevec (imatinib). This would encourage innovators to go for low-hanging fruits at the cost of more difficult-to-succeed efforts. Generics will slow down and patients will have to wait longer for affordable treatments.
(http://www.ip-watch.org/2015/12/02/impact-of-the-tpp-on-the-pharma-industry/)
Explain this logic:
Even though the TPP text explicitly states that nothing in it should be interpreted to override the TRIPS and Doha agreements with respect to IP rights of the parties (and in the Investment chapter, see article 9.10 para. 2, as well as the Intellectual Property chapter), it overrides them all the same?
Don’t all his bolded subheadings explain exactly which TRIPS flexibilities are overridden and how it advantages longer patents?
The European Union is – as opposed to for example the Europen Free Trade Area – not only a free trade area but a quite explicit attempt at building a European federal state. Hence the federal elements such as the Commission and federal state aid rules.
Certainly, but it began in 1950 as the Coal and Steel Community aiming at a customs union first, and the regulation of commerce between members and with outside trading partners remains the core of what it does. (In contrast the US became a federal state in one go, after the false start of the Articles of Confederation, becoming a customs union when it abandoned internal tariffs at the same time.)
US Pharma pushed for 14 years marketing exclusivity, Australia has 5 years and didn’t accept any extension. Thus
no gain / loss for consumers in Australia, but lower healthcare costs for US consumers by ratification of TPP.
○ Defining the difference: What Makes Biologics Unique?
In theory, true. But “The TPP member states have surrendered their sovereign right to define `patentability’ criteria.” A loophole to drive an evergreen through. Pharma lobbyists WROTE the legislation. Not consumer advocates.
Actually in the past 25 years things have gotten much better, for 100s of millions of Chinese, Indians, etc. , in large part due to trade with the West. This is really a fantastic development for humanity, even if it has caused some pain in the US.
You mean on the backs of 300,000,000 in the United States.
But the last 25 years also come just after a long period where Chinese, Indians, etc. were repeatedly invaded and colonised.
So while trade and technology transfer has been important, I think it is easy to credit it way to much. Independence and peace goes a long way to explain the development too.
Peace and economic cooperation go hand in hand. Trade agreements foster peaceful relations. Trade wars can lead to actual wars. Recall that one important reason Japan declared war on the US was our economic sanctions,(eg steel embargo ) imposed after their invasion of Indochina
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1930
Can you explain why? Because without some support for that opinion, the rest of your post loses a lot of its persuasiveness.
Here’s one scenario, offered by one of the commenters here (don’t recall who) last week: the day after the election there will be a large cohort of congresscritters who will be out of a job. They’ll be looking for a new gig, ideally one that pays something north of $1 mil. They’ll know they can get those kind of offers but first they have to vote for the TPP on their way out of the door, in the lame duck session.
What do they have to lose?
Oh, FFS. Please, not “the left”. Once the votes are counted what would ever lead anyone to think that Clinton will care what “the left” thinks? “The left” is just a bunch of voters, not a part of her constituency. She’ll throw away “the left” like a used Kleenex.
It’s pretty simple: follow the damned money.
This is a compelling scenario.
Here’s another scenario: The day after the election, Clinton has a press conference. She reveals that she had never REALLY read the TPP. Overnight, she did read it, and, glory be, it’s not a job killer. Why ITS AN ENORMOUS JOB CREATION MEGA-MACHINE. And so she will go on the warpath to CRAM that SHIT SANDWICH down our throats.
Just wait and see. She’s gonna come round to the Obama shit-sandwich-eating club.
Mitch McConnell says TPP is dead this year.
“The Senate will not vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership this year because of “serious flaws” in the agreement, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told a farm group, effectively ending President Barack Obama’s drive for congressional approval before he leaves office in January.”
http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/mcconnell-comment-tpp-ends-obamas-chance-close-deal
You’ve said it often. Democrats don’t need the left to do anything. They have the rest of the spectrum up to the crazies.
What does Clinton care about unfavorables once she is elected to office? The Transition Team is a strong tell of what she actually thinks the political alignment is.
This place is filled with hobgoblins and vampires.
.
TTIP is dead for now. TPP might be passed in lame-duck.
But the one flying under the radar might be the worst of the bunch–esp for food security (seed sovereignty) in Third World and for any hope of reining in pharma costs. I would bet it is the one that corporates care the most about.
TISA could deregulate whole swathes of the economy and open them up to privatization: these include public services, financial services, State-owned enterprises, and government procurements. For NGOs and trade unions, this is also a matter of safeguarding existing social and environmental standards, protecting workers, consumers and privacy.
(http://www.alliancesud.ch/en/policy/trade/ttip-tisa-and-ttp-2013-world-trade-revolution)
I’d been holding off on this because of the TTP/TTIP battles but I suppose its time to look at this crap too.
Wish someone would ask HC and McConnell what their plans are for this one. Even Sanders is quiet.
Of course Sanders is quiet. He now endorses Clinton’s policies.
McConnell said in July “chances of a vote in 2016 are slim”. I think that means there’s no chance of a vote. More because of the goal of not allowing Obama any victories than any views on “free trade”.
Nope. I am not talking about TPP.
Oops, sorry.
Geezus another mega-crap burger. Will it ever stop?
No
I’ll amplify that. Both major parties, the only parties that matter, have become social parties interested in social matters only, race, sex, sexual identity, religion, et cetera. Both parties are fore-square in support of the 0.1% economically. Notice Obama’s latest attack on Federal workers: “Absent the president’s move, a higher increase would have been set using a formula put in place by the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act.” Both parties do do it and what they do is screw the working people and enrich the millionaires. Have not noticed that both the Obama’s and the Clinton’s are multi-millionaires? They have much more in common with Donald Trump and th Charles Koch than they do with you.
I [BooMan] thought it was the best State of the Union speech since at least 1999. I thought Marco Rubio sucked.
○ Why does Obama want this trade deal so badly? | The New Yorker – June 2015 |
○ Is The Trans-Pacific Partnership Obama’s Vietnam? | Huff Post – July 2016 |
Trade happens every day. I don’t even know how it is possible to argue these agreements are necessary. If the people of country X want a product produced in country Y, they will find a way to get it.
Illegal drugs are the best example of this. Trade barriers and legal barriers pose no threat to the drug trade (or the weapons trade for that matter.)
I do love this approach to policy making:
“T.P.P. is, in many ways, seen as a litmus test for whether or not the U.S. has staying power in this region,”
Every corrupt bargain and ill-advised military misadventure is justified this way.
We can’t have nice things because to do so would show weakness and embolden our enemies! Suffering builds character!
Goodness.
ISDS courts as presently constituted are becoming attractive sources of speculative investment by hedge funds. As one knew would happen… https:/www.buzzfeed.com/chrishamby/not-just-a-court-system-its-a-gold-mine?utm_term=.kbkljG8d7W#.xy
MODR5G4y
ISDS Attacks
Want to learn more about corporate attacks on the public interest? Click on one of the case category images to keep reading.
(http://www.isdscorporateattacks.org/)
Rebranded ICS in Europe to dodge criticism as treason to the state….https:
/www.tni.org/en/publication/the-zombie-isds