Skip to main content

View Diary: Failing To Respect The Third Rail (290 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Sounds like you know a lot about the WTO... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lostinamerica, Jim P, elwior

    ...but, did you read the full article excerpted in this comment?

    "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

    by bobswern on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 06:34:58 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  there's not really anything new here (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      goodpractice, NoMoreLies, FG

      Most of those provisions are already in the WTO rules. They're also included in most of the "side agreements" that the US has been making since the Dubya years (with Panama, Colombia, Korea and others). TPP is just a continuation of Dubya's policy of trying to replace the WTO with a series of individual bilateral trade agreements between the US and particular nations or regions---a policy which was itself brought about by the hostility of the neocons to anything "international" (such as WTO). It was hoped that if a series of bilateral trade agreements were to replace WTO, the US could once again act unilaterally with impunity. Me, I think the WTO isn't going away any time soon--mostly because all the global corporations want it, and they always get what they want.

      When it comes to international trade regs, there has been zero difference between Dems and Repugs. After all, it was Bill Clinton who helped establish WTO (and who signed NAFTA).  Dubya negotiated the trade agreements with Korea, Panama and Colombia--but it's Obama who has introduced them to the Senate for ratification. The whole international trade regime is bipartisan policy.

      •  You say, "Nothing new here..." (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NoMoreLies, copymark, Creosote, elwior

        ...so, you've read the latest cut of the TPP Agreement? I was under the impression that you had to be a registered trade agent just to get access to this info. And, somewhere around only 600 people in the U.S. are privy to that level of knowledge (i.e.: TPP Agreement updates, etc.), correct?

        "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

        by bobswern on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 07:37:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I doubt the Japanese and Chinese would (0+ / 0-)

          agree to anything that everyone else hasn't already (nor will the WTO view anything favorably that bends its own rules too much, and it's the WTO that has the real power). So I see no reason why TPPA would have any different terms than CAFTA did, or FTAA, or all the bilateral one-on-one agreements. Certainly nothing in what you cited indicates anything different from all the others. It's the same ole anti-democratic thing as always--made in secret, enforced in secret, unappealable, veto power over any country's democratic laws, no elected representatives . . . . same ole same ole.  Even fast-tracked like most of them are. It may be new to YOU, but I don't see anything about it that isn't already in every other free trade agreement the US has signed. (shrug)

          PS-- I'm assuming you have no access either--which makes me wonder how, if there is anything different in it, you would know.

          •  I've read commentary by those that have had... (5+ / 0-)

            ...or, claimed they had, access to the latest drafts.

            That being said, it's my understanding that: a.) China's nowhere near signed-off on this, and they may never even be a party to it; and, b.) whether or not Japan was going to be a party to this agreement was actually one of the greatest (and one of the most controversial) issues of the recent Japanese national election.

            "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

            by bobswern on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 08:17:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  to be blunt, it doesn't matter (0+ / 0-)

              Both China and Japan are already part of the WTO, so they already live under virtually all those rules anyway. TPPA might set different numbers for particular products or industries, but the rules of the game are the same as WTO, and they are already under those rules.

              TPPA is itself part of a mostly failed attempt by the neocons to replace the multinational WTO with bilateral agreements which the US can dominate. It's entirely possible that TPPA will fall flat on its face, like FTAA already has. But the WTO remains, and everyone already bows to it.

            •  there is a reason that (0+ / 0-)

              China and Japan would balk,  now they have rules that no foreign corporation can operate independently by just selling inside their countries at will.  The US gave that ball away years ago.   That big stink about Jeep creating factories in China, that is so they can sell in China, otherwise they are very limited on what they can import.   Clearly the US does not demand part ownership in local factories or even that their be local factories.   I doubt the Chinese want to be subject to the same kind of foreign product invasion the US has been subject to most of my life.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site