Obama Trade Document Leaked (Yet another broken campaign promise)

[kgbsquirrel]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/obama-trade-document-leak_n_1592593.html


I can say with all honesty that this didn't even warrant an eyebrow raise from me. More of "yup, SSDD for our domestic fascist dictator, oh look a far more interesting article about seaworld..." The short of it is: Giving international courts the authority to over-ride U.S. law as it pertains to foreign corporations operating on U.S. soil.


From the leaked document:

Under the agreement currently being advocated by the Obama administration, American corporations would continue to be subject to domestic laws and regulations on the environment, banking and other issues. But foreign corporations operating within the U.S. would be permitted to appeal key American legal or regulatory rulings to an international tribunal. That international tribunal would be granted the power to overrule American law and impose trade sanctions on the United States for failing to abide by its rulings.

The campaign *snerk* promise:

"We will not negotiate bilateral trade agreements that stop the government from protecting the environment, food safety, or the health of its citizens; give greater rights to foreign investors than to U.S. investors; require the privatization of our vital public services; or prevent developing country governments from adopting humanitarian licensing policies to improve access to life-saving medications," reads the campaign document.

[slingshot]

I read through that article.  When it said Mitt Romney supported it, I had to raise an eyebrow and wonder if I am missing something.  I expect this kind of thing from our President, but if it is true about Romney, I he just dropped a couple levels and it may in fact become like the last presidential election that I have to hold my nose when I vote.  I believe I need to learn more and the Huffington Post is generally not a good source of unbiased reporting.

The UN Small Arms deal is another one that is being negotiated by Hillary as I understand it.  From my limited knowledge, it would appear to be a back door approach to getting gun registration in the USA implemented as many progressives have wanted for years.

Any treaty or international agreement that results in our government loosing sovenrity within our own shores, I am against.  Foreign corporations operating within the US should have to adhere to our laws and regulations and the same applies to our corporations operating inside another country must abid by their laws. 

[MechAg94]

Why would a treaty have the authority to remove Trade Regulation powers from Congress and give them to an international body?  That would seem to be a back door Amendment. 

[slingshot]

According to Dick Morris, all of the treaties are back door amendments to our Constitution as they have the force of law here.  We would abide by the treaty, and others would only abide when it was convenient to do so.

[Regolith]

According to Dick Morris, all of the treaties are back door amendments to our Constitution as they have the force of law here.  We would abide by the treaty, and others would only abide when it was convenient to do so.

From what I understand, while treaties have the same force as a law passed by congress, they cannot override the constitution without a specific constitutional amendment.

[RevDisk]

From what I understand, while treaties have the same force as a law passed by congress, they cannot override the constitution without a specific constitutional amendment.

Bingo. They do not trump Constitution.

[MicroBalrog]

Why do we have a problem with a treaty whose purpose seems to be... to limit how much signatory powers may infringe upon private business transactions?

[Scout26]

Why do we have a problem with a treaty whose purpose seems to be... to limit how much signatory powers may infringe upon private business transactions?

It creates an unlevel playing field.  US Companies have to play by American Rules, while foreign companies would play by no rules...

[MicroBalrog]

It creates an unlevel playing field.  US Companies have to play by American Rules, while foreign companies would play by no rules...

How do you get that from the post?

[Regolith]

The European countries wouldn't get to play by no rules, but they'd definitely get to play by a different rule set than US companies, and I'd guess that they'd pick and choose which rules benefit them the most. That would give them an unfair advantage over US companies.

There's also the part where it violates national sovereignty.

[MicroBalrog]

Treaties are treaties. They don't violate national sovereignty because nations voluntarily sign and join them.

[MicroBalrog]

In other words:

1. Free trade is an unambiguously good thing according to practically every reasonable school of economics. In fact, Milton Friedman and everybody  to his right argued that it would be smartest not to bother with free trade treaties, and just abolish trade barrriers unilaterally. That is obviously not tenable politically, so:

2. Free trade agreements are signed. But free trade does not just mean lowering trade barriers. There are also the dangers that a country might "cheat" - for example, subsidize a domestic industry to make it more competitive (basically, a hidden tariff), or impose regulations such that they would disproportionately impact foreign companies. For example, Israel at one point had a rule that imported ketchup bottles needed to be of a certain specific size, making it impossible for companies to use their existing bottles. This, while not technically a 'tariff' served to somewhat protect existing Israeli katchup makers from competition.

3. Other things that are often included in these agreements are equal access to non-defense bids for government contracts, and protection for foreign companies against unreasonable government action, seizure, etc.

4. Obviously , the treaties that result are complex and elaborate, and therefore international organizations are needed to resolve the conflict, such as the WTO court or similar groups.

These are our three alternatives

1. Free-trade treaties like this one.
2. Unilateral free-trade (not happening).
3. Protectionism.

Choose.

[Scout26]

Micro,

Climb down off your soapbox, you are preaching to the saved.


This is not a "free trade" treaty.  It is a Foreign Companies can play by different rules.  Let's take, oh Guns for example.  The BATFE says that guns imported must have 10 US made parts (dumb rule, but still the rule).

You make a "The TactiFool" Shotgun in Isreal and must source 10 parts from the US.

I make the "The TactiTool" Shotgun in the US, and could source parts cheaper from overseas.

You go to whatever "International tribunal" and whine and they say you don't have to follow that rule and you source your parts from Israel or China or where ever is cheapest. 

I still have to source my parts from the US. 

That's not a level playing field.  Everyone plays by the same rules.  Not US companies have to follow one set while foreign (mostly Pacific rim countries) play by another or in the case of China, which may or may not have rules/laws/regulations about the environment, banking, etc, they would play by, none.

[MicroBalrog]

Forgetting how - in a sane reasonable universe - the 89' AW importation ban actually violates existing free-trade treaties the U.S. is already a member of and (because as we all know guns don't count) these are not enforced on it. And indeed the AW import ban was in fact a form of hidden protectionism whose only purpose was to jack up gun prices and give more work to US gun companies. This suited gun controllers and gun manufacturers.

If free-trade treaties applied to guns like they apply to, say, airplanes, H&K would be able to appeal the whole thing under GATT (as they actually wanted to at the time)).

...you surely realize that this is a Huffington Post reinterpretation of what is no doubt a massive 3000-page document.

You surely also realize that, should a regulation be found to be contrary to international law, it will be either repealed or no longer applied - and indeed if this agreement is anything like other free trade agreements, they'll only be able to sue if said regulations are a form of hidden protectionist barrier.

[kgbsquirrel]

...you surely realize that this is a Huffington Post reinterpretation of what is no doubt a massive 3000-page document.

52 pages. And you're quite welcome to read it for yourself and then draw your own conclusions.

http://www.citizenstrade.org/ctc/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/tppinvestment.pdf

[TommyGunn]

Treaties are treaties. They don't violate national sovereignty because nations voluntarily sign and join them.

Well, I would think that would depend upon what the purpose of the treaty was and if it conflicts with any part of the U.S. Constitution......

[French G.]

Treaties are treaties. They don't violate national sovereignty because nations voluntarily sign and join them.

The point is that we the mob, or more properly, our states of the republic would not vote in the light of day to do this, so who is Congress(our supposed reps) or the president to sign away our sovereignty?

[MicroBalrog]

The point is that we the mob, or more properly, our states of the republic would not vote in the light of day to do this, so who is Congress(our supposed reps) or the president to sign away our sovereignty?

You disagree with the Constitution, I see?

[French G.]

I'm saying the Republic is broken well and good if Congress would ratify something like that.

[MicroBalrog]

52 pages. And you're quite welcome to read it for yourself and then draw your own conclusions.

http://www.citizenstrade.org/ctc/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/tppinvestment.pdf

I have in fact looked through it. I have failed to find these mysterious clauses which say that foreign companies will be treated better than US companies.

Everywhere it seems to be similar to other treaties and laws I've read on free trade (IANAL, but I am a translator so sometimes I deal with this stuff), where the signatories are mandated to provide foreign companies with operating conditions similar to their own.

[RevDisk]

These are our three alternatives

1. Free-trade treaties like this one.
2. Unilateral free-trade (not happening).
3. Protectionism.

Choose.

Actually, 2 is what often happens. I spent over a year doing international arms trafficking. Yes, often the US does get kicked in the pants when it comes to trade treaties. And yes, foreign companies often do have a preferential position. Unilateral free trade? Usually no. "Not so much in our favor"? Absolutely.

India is a perfect example. Good luck getting access to India's protectionist market on an equal footing. Even if on paper it's equal, it is not. The Indian government is happy to let places open jobs in India. They're not so happy with international companies directly selling to India. Oh, you can. But be prepared to say, pay an 15% tariff on widget XYZ. But they sure as heck want a 5% tariff on any of their widget XYZ being sold to the US or EU.

Does not help that our State Department runs these kinds of treaty negotiations. By observation, I'd say the State Department dislikes the US only slightly more than Brezhnev did. And is certainly more damaging to the US than the USSR ever dreamed of being.


I lasted five minutes in the last international trade negotiation I attended, and then departed physically seeing red and hyperventilating. The global logistics manager was a lot more diplomatic than myself, and lasted 15, 20 before storming out cursing like a drunken sailor. I have a lot of self-centrol. THAT dude has serious absolute zen master control. Now, I'm not saying we should amend the Constitution to allow bills of attainder of members of the State Department... But if we should perhaps shift the GWOT to seeking enemy combatants deserving of Gitmo within that department, we'd make the US a much more safer, economically prosperous country.

[MicroBalrog]

Mind you, unilateral free trade is what Milton Friedman suggested.

But yes, what we can all agree on is that "foreign policy expert" is usually a euphemism for "unspeakably evil bastard."

[TommyGunn]

I have in fact looked through it. I have failed to find these mysterious clauses which say that foreign companies will be treated better than US companies.

Everywhere it seems to be similar to other treaties and laws I've read on free trade (IANAL, but I am a translator so sometimes I deal with this stuff), where the signatories are mandated to provide foreign companies with operating conditions similar to their own.

Why would you expect to find "these mysterious clauses which say that foreign companies will be treated better than US companies" anywhere? 
It doesn't have to blatently state that, all that's required is it sets up the conditions necessary to make that a consequence of the treaty, is all.

[MicroBalrog]

Why would you expect to find "these mysterious clauses which say that foreign companies will be treated better than US companies" anywhere? 
It doesn't have to blatently state that, all that's required is it sets up the conditions necessary to make that a consequence of the treaty, is all.

So we're just going to take a left-wing, anti-free-trade, anti-capitalism periodical on its word, ignoring what we can actually read in the document?

Who are you going to trust, the Huffington Post or your own lying eyes?

[TommyGunn]

So we're just going to take a left-wing, anti-free-trade, anti-capitalism periodical on its word, ignoring what we can actually read in the document?

Who are you going to trust, the Huffington Post or your own lying eyes?

Yes, no, and yes.  


I see no reason to give foreign corporations operating in the U.S. a set of rules that are different than ours.

I wouldn't trust the U. N. if the BankiMoony guy himself told me July follows June.