Who's side is government on, Main Street or Wall Street? The multi-national corporate domination steamroller continues to lead the US in a race to the bottom in quality of life on earth. Rep Alan Grayson (D-FL) is
raising the alarm on a trade deal being negotiated that has some alarming provisions according to the article in
Huffington Post.
Known as a "NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) with Europe,"
the "partnership" is actually a deal between multinational corporations
and their minions in government. It features "investor-state" dispute
resolution, which would permit foreign corporations to file lawsuits to
prevent government actions that they don't like, such as health,
environmental and safety regulations.
Interesting concept, but it has degenerated into handcuffs on
government, slapped on at will by special interests. Let's say your
country or state passes a consumer protection law -- such as one that
says fishing companies must label tuna caught using methods that kill
dolphins. A Mexican corporation that sells tuna in the United States
might declare this is a "non-tariff barrier" to trade, undercutting
Mexican sellers of tuna versus American ones (though it applies equally
to both).
Under the guise of a "free trade" agreement, the government could be sued, and have the dolphin-safe tuna law overturned.
This actually happened, in 2012. The World Trade Organization ruled
against the American dolphin-safe tuna labeling law. So this is not just
a theoretical possibility. "These provisions elevate corporations to
the level of nation states and allow them to sue governments over nearly
any law or policy which reduces their future profits," the Sierra Club
warns.
Canada has been sued under a similar clause in NAFTA for refusing to
export its water. Canada has also been sued for keeping a pollutant
out of its gasoline supply, and for taxing windfall profits by oil
companies. This next wave of trade agreements may prioritize corporate
rights over the privacy of our personal data, restrict regulation on
fracking and (as Senator Elizabeth Warren [D-Mass.] has warned) roll
back much-needed rules on large banks.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has probably never met a regulation it
didn't want to repeal or violate. The chamber is even arguing that the
Volcker Rule, which restricts gambling with tax-payer protected deposits
by large banks, violates U.S. trade policy.
The US government has a terrible track record on international trade issues, and President Obama has continued in the footsteps of past administrations.
Public Citizen has noted that after one year of a trade agreement with South Korea, we're worse off in terms of our trade deficit with them.
Just-released government trade data, covering the first year
of implementation of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement (FTA), shows a
remarkable decline in U.S. exports to Korea and a rise in imports from Korea,
provoking a dramatic trade deficit increase that defies the Obama
administration’s promises that the pact would expand U.S. exports and create
U.S. jobs, Public Citizen said today.
Many of the sectors that the Obama administration promised would be the biggest
beneficiaries of the Korea FTA have actually been some of the deal’s largest
losers:
- U.S. pork exports to Korea have declined 24 percent
under the first year of the FTA relative to the year before FTA
implementation.
- U.S. beef exports have fallen 8 percent.
- U.S. poultry exports have plunged 41 percent.
The U.S. deficit with Korea in
autos and auto parts increased 16 percent in the first year of the FTA. U.S.
auto imports from Korea have surged by more than $2.5 billion under the FTA’s
first year. FTA proponents have shamelessly touted “gains” in U.S. auto exports
without revealing that this increase totaled just $130 million, with fewer than
1,000 additional U.S. automobiles sold in Korea relative to the 1.3 million
Korean cars sold here in 2012.
Read additional
analysis of the government data on U.S. trade with Korea under the
U.S.-Korea FTA.
