The Lie That "China Wins" If the TPP Kangaroo Tribunals Are Stopped

[bemildred]

Monday, 13 June 2016 00:00 By William K. Black, New Economic Perspectives | Op-Ed

Proponents of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) know that they have a major problem. Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump each oppose the deal. CEOs, however, have not given up on their dream of being able to rig the international system through the creation of kangaroo tribunals that can, effectively, destroy effective regulation and the enforcement of rules to protect the public. As I explained in my most recent column on this subject, "trade" is simply the pretext for this assault on the rule of law and national sovereignty. President Obama plans to try to get the TPP approved by the lame duck Senate after the November elections. Outgoing officials no longer must fear (or respect the will of) the voters and they are eager to cash in on the corporate largess that will reward politicians that vote for the international CEO impunity deals.

The "serious people" of the lame stream media are encouraging the lame ducks to vote for the CEOs' dream deal. One of their principal claims is "If T.P.P. falls apart, China wins. It's as simple as that." TPP is deliberately opaque, complex, and crafted in secrecy by the CEOs' lobbyists to be the opposite of "simple." It has nothing to do with China winning or losing. TPP is all about Article 9 of the TPP, which allows CEOs to rig the system so that the CEOs win and the people and nations lose. If the TPP becomes law Chinese CEOs win because the kangaroo tribunals of Article 9 will intensify the global "race to the bottom" that is eviscerating what remains of the rule of law even in nations that are not parties to the TPP.

The 'serious person's" article never mentions Article 9, but it does include this carefully crafted attempt to mislead his readers: "[TPP] binds Vietnam to countries where the rule of law is arbiter rather than authoritarian diktat." As Americans are now all too aware, the American "rule of law" is a threadbare pretense when it comes to powerful financial CEOs. Article 9 is the "rule of law" only in the sense that it specifies that the "rule of law" does not apply to the kangaroo tribunals that can impose billions of dollars in penalties on a nation for the high crime of trying to discourage smoking. Article 9 is designed to bypass one of the most important requisites of national sovereignty -- a nation's laws and judicial system.

Article 9 is authoritarian diktat -- by the CEOs of multinational corporations. CEOs share a community of interest to block effective regulation and enforcement against corporate crimes and abuses. CEOs and their lobbyists were given unique access to craft the draft deal while the public was excluded. Everything we know from human history tells us that they would use that power and secret access to rig the system to benefit their interests and ensure that they could use Article 9 to impair the ability of nations to use the "rule of law" to prevent corporate abuses and crimes.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/36402-the-lie-that-china-wins-if-the-tpp-kangaroo-tribunals-are-stopped

[okieinpain]

1. +1 n/t.

[geek tragedy]

2. Black substitutes his own oversimplification for someone else's oversimplification

such tribunals are part of many bilateral agreements already, including NAFTA

[Chan790]

5. Such tribunals are why we should be walking away from those agreements...

including NAFTA.

Kill free-trade everywhere, forever.

[bvar22]

3. Well, Hillary "says" she opposes the TPP,

which is 180 degrees different that what she has said before the campaign.

I fully expect this to change another 180 degrees after the inauguration.
There will be some minor token change or other misdirection that will make the TPP the "Gold Standard" once again.

Please bookmark my post, and make me eat it if I'm wrong.

[bemildred]

4. OK. nt

[bvar22]

6. I'll bookmark it too.....just for you. Meanwhile,

Cables Show Hillary Clinton's State Department Deeply Involved in Trans-Pacific Partnership

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Thursday attempted to distance herself from the controversial 12-nation trade deal known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. During her tenure as U.S. secretary of state, Clinton publicly promoted the pact 45 separate times -- but with her Democratic presidential rivals making opposition to the deal a centerpiece of their campaigns, Clinton now asserts she was never involved in the initiative.

"I did not work on TPP," she said after a meeting with leaders of labor unions who oppose the pact. "I advocated for a multinational trade agreement that would 'be the gold standard.' But that was the responsibility of the United States Trade Representative."

But at a congressional hearing in 2011, Clinton told lawmakers that "with respect to the TPP, although the State Department does not have the lead on this -- it is the United States Trade Representative -- we work closely with the USTR." Additionally, State Department cables reviewed by International Business Times show that her agency -- including her top aides -- were deeply involved in the diplomatic deliberations over the trade deal. The cables from 2009 and 2010, which were among a trove of documents disclosed by the website WikiLeaks, also show that the Clinton-run State Department advised the U.S. Trade Representative’s office on how to negotiate the deal with foreign government officials.

http://www.ibtimes.com/cables-show-hillary-clintons-state-department-deeply-involved-trans-pacific-2032948

[bemildred]

7. I'm not questioning your opinion of her views.

I just don't think it's a done deal, she might have to give it up to get elected, or she might not get elected, or she might not get a compliant Congress, it's still almost five months to go, and the citizenry is not happy, and things are not under control.

[bvar22]

8. Whether she would "get it" or not isn't the question.

The point is that she fully supported it, played a part in the drafting of it, believed in it ("The Gold Standard&quot , and lobbied FOR it..... BEFORE she claimed she didn't support it after the polls showed disapproval.

Doesn't that kind of reversal based on polls instead of personal integrity and an internal moral compass bother you....just a little?


....and as we all learned from Obama, all promises made during the campaign don't count after being elected.

[bemildred]

9. All right, you just talk to yourself, I won't interfere further. nt