Home » Posts tagged 'free trade'
Tag Archives: free trade
OTTAWA – No one will ever again accuse Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his trade minister of not being able to land the big one.
After years of hooking minnows like Honduras, Panama and Jordan, Ottawa has now not only concluded talks with the world’s biggest economy — the European Union — but also with South Korea and, in doing so, opened the door to the world’s most promising market.
The double-coup will certainly become a bragging point for the prime minister in next year’s expected election campaign — before the impacts of the deals, both good and bad, are felt in the economy.
The prime minister has placed expanding trade, along with balancing the budget, at the top of the government’s economic action agenda and the Conservatives will likely be able to claim progress on both fronts by the fall of 2015.
The agreements also put the opposition — particularly the left-leaning New Democrats — in the unenviable position of either having to cheer “me too” or risk continuing to be portrayed as ideologically set against free trade, rather than a particular deal.
In an interview and news release, NDP trade critic Don Davies reserved judgment until the text of the South Korea deal is released, but blasted the government for an “utter lack of transparency,” and warned about possible damage to jobs in the auto sector.
The reaction from Liberal critic Chrystia Freeland was somewhat more positive, saying the party was “broadly supportive” but will need time to review the details.
Analysts say the South Korea deal, although it is far smaller in scope that the European agreement in principle, has the potential of being transformative in Canada’s dealings with what is becoming the world’s most important and biggest economic regions.
By way of comparison, Ottawa estimates free trade with Europe will expand Canada’s gross domestic product output by $12 billion once fully implemented, as opposed to only $1.7 billion in the case of Korea.
But Ian Lee, of the Sprott School of Business at Carleton University, says Korea’s significance is strategic.
“Now we’re in the major league,” he says. “I see South Korea not so much about the actual dollars of trade that’s involved, but it provides a beachhead into Asia and the Asian-Pacific countries that watch each other like a hawk. So it’s a very important precedent in what I believe is the most important part of the world.”
Next on the menu for Harper and Trade Minister Ed Fast are Japan, India and the biggest prize – the TransPacific Partnership, which includes many of the region’s key economies.
Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada president Yuen Pau Woo agrees Korea represents a “breakthrough” in the region that has resisted Canada’s entreaties for years.
“I think it will have a demonstrable effect on our Japan bilateral negotiations because Korea and Japan compete in our market in a number of sectors (particularly autos) and the Korea deal gives it an advantage over Japanese exporters,” he explained.
Economically, trade deals don’t show their true colours until years have passed.
Most economists and business leaders believe the removal of artificial barriers is a general good for a country’s well being, as it forces domestic producers to become more efficient and competitive, while offering consumers lower prices and a wider variety of goods.
Labour groups, however, argue that the theory works only when the playing field is level. In most cases, they see free trade agreements merely resulting in jobs gravitating to low-wage jurisdictions in a classic race to the bottom.
Ford Canada chief executive Dianne Craig’s chief argument in opposing the South Korea deal is not that the Canadian auto sector can’t cope with the removal of a 6.1 per cent tariff on overseas cars, but that South Korea is not a fair player in terms of trade in autos. The deal will allow South Korea to sell more cars in Canada, she believes, while deploying non-tariff barriers to keep Canadian-assembled cars out Korea.
Still the agreement is supported by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, which includes Ford Canada and other motor companies as members.
CCCE president John Manley says Ford’s concern has the benefit of putting the government to the test, to ensure Korea does not thwart car imports.
The bigger game, however, is that Canada is positioning itself for the economy of the 21st century that will be dominated by the Asia-Pacific market.
“It’s not enough on it’s own, but it’s consistent with a broader strategy to build better trade links, including supply chains into Asia,” said Manley. “Canada is a small open economy and most of our sectors rely on the ability to export.”
As with the Canada-EU agreement, however, the Korean pact does not guarantee that Canadian firms will be successful in expanding exports and investments.
Toronto-based trade counsel Lawrence Herman says the deal, like all others, should be looked at as a “vehicle” that gives Canadian exporters in goods and services an opportunity, but does not mean they will succeed in seizing it.
He expects they will but also says he is confident that Canadian negotiators have given firms the best deal on offer.
“Canada has some of the best trade negotiators in the world, people don’t realize that,” he said. “They are not going to leave anything on the table.”
OTTAWA – The Harper government is set to sign a long-sought trade deal with South Korea early next week, despite entrenched opposition by some in Ontario’s critically important auto sector, sources close to the talks say.
Preparations are underway for a signing ceremony in Seoul early next week, ending nearly 10 years of on-and-off talks that one of Canada’s biggest industries has long prevented from reaching the finish line.
Cracks began to appear in the Canadian auto industry’s united front last month when the association representing Japan’s automakers in Canada came out largely in favour of a deal, saying it would complement the agreement signed in the fall with the European Union and ease talks with Japan.
Another impetus was introduced when Korea was able to successfully complete deals with Canada’s two largest trading partners, the United States and the European Union, leaving Canada out in the cold.
Government officials in Ottawa refused to confirm the agreement Thursday.
The deal, coming on the heels of an historic pact with the EU, will go a long way towards cementing the Harper government’s expansionist trade agenda, and its stated goal that it wants to be a serious economic player in Asia.
Still, significant opposition remains. Ford of Canada chief executive Dianne Craig recently called the 2012 Korea-U.S. agreement a “disaster” for the sector — even though Ford, along with the General Motors and Chrysler, initially supported the pact.
At issue for Canada is a 6.1 per cent tariff on car imports. Critics fear once it’s removed, it will further skew the automotive playing field between the two countries, with Korean-made brands Hyundai and Kia selling about 90,000 units in Canada annually in direct competition with Canadian-assembled vehicles. Korea also assembles autos in the U.S., which it exports into Canada duty free.
Ontario’s economic development minister, Eric Hoskins, said Korea out-exports Canada 50 to one in autos. Hoskins said nothing he has heard from Ottawa so far has eased his concern that Canada’s automakers won’t be even more outgunned once tariffs are removed.
“We want a free-trade agreement that’s good for all sectors, but on autos particularly it’s disadvantageous,” he said. “I haven’t been given information to suggest that the improvements that we’ve asked for have been addressed.”
In particular, Ontario and the industry has asked for a slower phase-out of tariffs and a “snap-back” provision allowing Canada to re-impose tariffs if there’s evidence Korea is not meeting its obligations.
With the deal, Canada hopes to arrest the deterioration in exports to Korea since the U.S. agreement went into effect, particularly in the agricultural sector.
But Jim Stanford, chief economist with the Unifor union, which represents Canadian auto workers, says in effect Canada has traded off “billions of dollars” in the auto sector to win over “tens of millions” in more pork and beef exports.
“It’s a trade of cars for pigs and cows,” he said. “The government is willing to sacrifice autos, which is by far the largest trade item with Korea, in order to make some gains in agriculture and that’s all about the government’s political base in the West.”
Rudy Husny, a spokesman for Trade Minister Ed Fast, said Canadian exports to South Korea had fallen by $1.5 billion — or about 30 per cent — since the U.S. agreement went into effect.
“We will only sign an agreement that’s in the best interest of hardworking Canadians including though the elimination of Korean tariffs and creation of effective tools to counter non-tariff barriers to trade,” Husny said via email.
The data is not clear cut, however. According to U.S. trade numbers analyzed by Washington-based Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, the U.S. has also seen the monthly average of exports to Korea fall 10 per cent from prior to the deal. The U.S. Department of Commerce, however, has noted that Ford has increased its export of vehicles into Korea since the deal.
Aside from the auto sector, most business groups in Canada will welcome the breakthrough, particularly if it is the first step to greater economic penetration into the fast-growing economies of Asia.
“Undoubtedly the Canadian-based auto assemblers are concerned, as they rightly should be, but you can’t make trade policy based on only one sector,” said John Manley, who is head of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, the country’s most influential business lobby group.
“It’s important from an offensive point of view, but it’s also important defensively because, frankly, the United States got in first and they have been methodically taking market share from Canadian producers.”
An agreement will be particularly welcomed by the Canadian agricultural sector, which has complained that Korea’s agreements with other nations has put them at a competitive disadvantage.
Gary Stordy of the Canadian Pork Council said it’s been a straight line down for pork shipments since the Korea-U.S. deal of about two years ago, with exports falling to about $70 million in 2013 from $223 million in 2011.
South Korea is currently Canada’s seventh largest merchandise trading partner and third largest in Asia after China and Japan. But the relationship has been decidedly one-sided, with Korea exports totalling $6.3 billion in 2012 while Canadian shipments totalled $3.7 billion.
Washington’s Blog | Liberal Politicians Launched the Idea of “Free Trade Agreements” In the 1960s to Strip Nations of Sovereignty and Hand Power Over to Global Corporations
Liberal Politicians Launched the Idea of “Free Trade Agreements” In the 1960s to Strip Nations of Sovereignty and Hand Power Over to Global Corporations
It’s Not Only Conservative Politicians Backing Giant Multinational Corporations Over National Sovereignty
Preface: Liberals might assume that it is Republicans who are cheerleaders for global corporations at the expense of government. But, as shown below, liberal politicians have been just as bad … or worse.
Matt Stoller – who writes for Salon and has contributed to Politico, Alternet, Salon, The Nation and Reuters – knows his way around Washington.
Stoller – a prominent liberal – has scoured the Congressional Record to unearth hidden historical facts. For example, Stoller has previously shown that the U.S. government push for a “New World Order” is no wacky conspiracy theory, but extensively documented in the Congressional Record.
Now, Stoller uses the Congressional Record to show that “free trade” pacts were always aboutweakening nation-states to promote rule by multinationals:
Political officials (liberal ones, actually) engaged in an actual campaign to get rid of countries with their pesky parochial interests, and have the whole world managed by global corporations. Yup, this actually was explicit in the 1960s, as opposed to today’s passive aggressive arguments which amount to the same thing.
Liberal internationalists, including people like Chase CEO David Rockefeller and former Undersecretary of State and an architect of 1960s American trade policies George Ball, began pressing for reductions in non-tariff barriers, which they perceived as the next set of trade impediments to pull down. But the idea behind getting rid of these barriers wasn’t about free trade, it was about reorganizing the world so that corporations could manage resources for “the benefit of mankind”. It was a weird utopian vision that you can hear today in the current United States Trade Representative Michael Froman’s speeches. I’ve spoken with Froman about this history, and Froman himself does not seem to know much about it. But he is captive of these ideas, nonetheless, as is much of the elite class. They do not know the original ideology behind what is now just bureaucratic true believer-ism, they just know that free trade is good and right and true.
But back to the 1967 hearing. In the opening statement, before a legion of impressive Senators and Congressmen, Ball attacks the very notion of sovereignty. He goes after the idea that “business decisions” could be “frustrated by a multiplicity of different restrictions by relatively small nation states that are based on parochial considerations,” and lauds the multinational corporation as the most perfect structure devised for the benefit of mankind. He also foreshadows our modern world by suggesting that commercial, monetary, and antitrust policies should just be and will inevitably be handled by supranational organizations. [Background.]
Here’s just some of that statement. It really is worth reading, I’ve bolded the surprising parts.
“For the widespread development of the multinational corporation is one of our major accomplishments in the years since the war, though its meaning and importance have not been generally understood. For the first time in history man has at his command an instrument that enables him to employ resource flexibility to meet the needs of peopels all over the world. Today a corporate management in Detroit or New York or London or Dusseldorf may decide that it can best serve the market of country Z by combining the resources of country X with labor and plan facilities in country Y – and it may alter that decision 6 months from now if changes occur in costs or price or transport. It is the ability to look out over the world and freely survey all possible sources of production… that is enabling man to employ the world’s finite stock of resources with a new degree of efficiency for the benefit of all mandkind.
But to fulfill its full potential the multinational corporation must be able to operate with little regard for national boundaries – or, in other words, for restrictions imposed by individual national governments.
To achieve such a free trading environment we must do far more than merely reduce or eliminate tariffs. We must move in the direction of common fiscal concepts, a common monetary policy, and common ideas of commercial responsibility. Already the economically advanced nations have made some progress in all of these areas through such agencies as the OECD and the committees it has sponsored, the Group of Ten, and the IMF, but we still have a long way to go. In my view, we could steer a faster and more direct course… by agreeing that what we seek at the end of the voyage is the full realization of the benefits of a world economy.
Implied in this, of course, is a considerable erosion of the rigid concepts of national sovereignty, but that erosion is taking place every day as national economies grow increasingly interdependent, and I think it desirable that this process be consciously continued. What I am recommending is nothing so unreal and idealistic as a world government, since I have spent too many years in the guerrilla warfare of practical diplomacy to be bemused by utopian visions. But it seems beyond question that modern business – sustained and reinforced by modern technology – has outgrown the constrictive limits of the antiquated political structures in which most of the world is organized, and that itself is a political fact which cannot be ignored. For the explosion of business beyond national borders will tend to create needs and pressures that can help alter political structures to fit the requirements of modern man far more adequately than the present crazy quilt of small national states. And meanwhile, commercial, monetary, and antitrust policies – and even the domiciliary supervision of earth-straddling corporations – will have to be increasingly entrusted to supranational institutions….
We will never be able to put the world’s resources to use with full efficiency so long as business decisions are frustrated by a multiplicity of different restrictions by relatively small nation states that are based on parochial considerations, reflect no common philosophy, and are keyed to no common goal.” ***
These [“free trade”] agreements are not and never have been about trade. You simply cannot disentangle colonialism, the American effort to create the European Union, and American trade efforts. After their opening statements, Ball and Rockefeller go on on to talk about how European states need to be wedged into a common monetary union with our trade efforts and that Latin America needs to be managed into prosperity by the US and Africa by Europe. Through such efforts, they thought that the US could put together a global economy over the next thirty years. Thirty years later was 1997, which was exactly when NAFTA was being implemented and China was nearing its entry into the WTO. Impeccable predictions, gents.
I guess it turns out that the conspiracy theorists who believe in UN-controlled black helicopters aren’t as wrong as you might think about trade policy, and not just because United Technologies, which actually makes black helicopters, has endorsed the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
These agreements are about getting rid of national sovereignty, and the people who first pressed for NAFTA were explicit about it. They really did want a global government for corporations.
Ball in particular expressed his idea of a government by the corporations, for the corporations, in order to benefit all mankind. Keep that in mind when you think you’re being paranoid.
The full hearing can be downloaded here, though it is a big file.
The bottom line is not that liberals – or conservatives – are evil.
Indeed, a scripted psuedo-war between the parties is often used by the powers-that-be as a way to divide and conquer the American people, so that we are too distracted to stand up to reclaim our power from the idiots in both parties who are only governing for their own profit … and a small handful of their buddies. See this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.
It’s not just that banks are no longer needed–they pose a needless and potentially catastrophic risk to the nation. To understand why, we need to understand the key characteristics of risk.
The entire banking sector is based on two illusions:
1. Thanks to modern portfolio management, bank debt is now riskless.
2. Technology only enhances banks’ tools to skim profits; it does not undermine the fundamental role of banks.
The global financial meltdown of 2008-09 definitively proved riskless bank debt is an illusion. If you want to understand why risk cannot eliminated, please read Benoit Mandelbrot’s book The (Mis)Behavior of Markets.
Technology does not just enable high-frequency trading; it enables capital and borrowers to bypass banks entirely. I addressed this yesterday in Banks Are Obsolete: The Entire Parasitic Sector Can Be Eliminated.
Unfortunately for banks, higher education, buggy whip manufacturers, etc., monopoly and propaganda are no match for technology. Just because a system worked in the past in a specific set of technological constraints does not mean it continues to be a practical solution when those technological constraints dissolve.
What else can we do with the $1.25 trillion we’ll save by eliminating these obsolete financial middleman parasites? A lot.
Technology has leapfrogged the banking sector, rendering it as obsolete as buggy whips. So why are we devoting 9% of our economy to an obsolete parasite?Financial sector profits now total a staggering 4.5% of GDP (gross domestic product), while the expenses generated by financial churning account for another 4.5% of the economy.
Annie Jacobsen’s new book is called Operation Paperclip: The Secret Intelligence Program That Brought Nazi Scientists to America. It isn’t terribly secret anymore, of course, and it was never very intelligent. Jacobsen has added some details, and the U.S. government is still hiding many more. But the basic facts have been available; they’re just left out of most U.S. history books, movies, and television programs.
After World War II, the U.S. military hired sixteen hundred former Nazi scientists and doctors, including some of Adolf Hitler’s closest collaborators, including men responsible for murder, slavery, and human experimentation, including men convicted of war crimes, men acquitted of war crimes, and men who never stood trial. Some of the Nazis tried at Nuremberg had already been working for the U.S. in either Germany or the U.S. prior to the trials. Some were protected from their past by the U.S. government for years, as they lived and worked in Boston Harbor, Long Island, Maryland, Ohio, Texas, Alabama, and elsewhere, or were flown by the U.S. government to Argentina to protect them from prosecution. Some trial transcripts were classified in their entirety to avoid exposing the pasts of important U.S. scientists. Some of the Nazis brought over were frauds who had passed themselves off as scientists, some of whom subsequently learned their fields while working for the U.S. military.
The U.S. occupiers of Germany after World War II declared that all military research in Germany was to cease, as part of the process of denazification. Yet that research went on and expanded in secret, under U.S. authority, both in Germany and in the United States, as part of a process that it’s possible to view as nazification. Not only scientists were hired. Former Nazi spies, most of them former S.S., were hired by the U.S. in post-war Germany to spy on — and torture — Soviets.
The U.S. military shifted in numerous ways when former Nazis were put into prominent positions. It was Nazi rocket scientists who proposed placing nuclear bombs on rockets and began developing the intercontinental ballistic missile. It was Nazi engineers who had designed Hitler’s bunker beneath Berlin, who now designed underground fortresses for the U.S. government in the Catoctin and Blue Ridge Mountains. Known Nazi liars were employed by the U.S. military to draft classified intelligence briefs falsely hyping the Soviet menace. Nazi scientists developed U.S. chemical and biological weapons programs, bringing over their knowledge of tabun and sarin, not to mention thalidomide — and their eagerness for human experimentation, which the U.S. military and the newly created CIA readily engaged in on a major scale. Every bizarre and gruesome notion of how a person might be assassinated or an army immobilized was of interest to their research. New weapons were developed, including VX and Agent Orange. A new drive to visit and weaponize outerspace was created, and former Nazis were put in charge of a new agency called NASA.
Permanent war thinking, limitless war thinking, and creative war thinking in which science and technology overshadowed death and suffering, all went mainstream. When a former Nazi spoke to a women’s luncheon at the Rochester Junior Chamber of Commerce in 1953, the event’s headline was “Buzz Bomb Mastermind to Address Jaycees Today.” That doesn’t sound terribly odd to us, but might have shocked anyone living in the United States anytime prior to World War II. Watch this Walt Disney television program featuring a former Nazi who worked slaves to death in a cave building rockets. Before long, President Dwight Eisenhower would be lamenting that “the total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government.” Eisenhower was not referring to Nazism but to the power of the military-industrial complex. Yet, when asked whom he had in mind in remarking in the same speech that “public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite,” Eisenhower named two scientists, one of them the former Nazi in the Disney video linked above.
The decision to inject 1,600 of Hitler’s scientific-technological elite into the U.S. military was driven by fears of the USSR, both reasonable and the result of fraudulent fear mongering. The decision evolved over time and was the product of many misguided minds. But the buck stopped with President Harry S Truman. Henry Wallace, Truman’s predecessor as vice-president who we like to imagine would have guided the world in a better direction than Truman did as president, actually pushed Truman to hire the Nazis as a jobs program. It would be good for American industry, said our progressive hero. Truman’s subordinates debated, but Truman decided. As bits of Operation Paperclip became known, the American Federation of Scientists, Albert Einstein, and others urged Truman to end it. Nuclear physicist Hans Bethe and his colleague Henri Sack asked Truman:
“Did the fact that the Germans might save the nation millions of dollars imply that permanent residence and citizenship could be bought? Could the United States count on [the German scientists] to work for peace when their indoctrinated hatred against the Russians might contribute to increase the divergence between the great powers? Had the war been fought to allow Nazi ideology to creep into our educational and scientific institutions by the back door? Do we want science at any price?”
In 1947 Operation Paperclip, still rather small, was in danger of being terminated. Instead, Truman transformed the U.S. military with the National Security Act, and created the best ally that Operation Paperclip could want: the CIA. Now the program took off, intentionally and willfully, with the full knowledge and understanding of the same U.S. President who had declared as a senator that if the Russians were winning the U.S. should help the Germans, and vice versa, to ensure that the most people possible died, the same president who viciously and pointlessly dropped two nuclear bombs on Japanese cities, the same president who brought us the war on Korea, the war without declaration, the secret wars, the permanent expanded empire of bases, the military secrecy in all matters, the imperial presidency, and the military-industrial complex. The U.S. Chemical Warfare Service took up the study of German chemical weapons at the end of the war as a means to continue in existence. George Merck both diagnosed biological weapons threats for the military and sold the military vaccines to handle them. War was business and business was going to be good for a long time to come.
But how big a change did the United States go through after World War II, and how much of it can be credited to Operation Paperclip? Isn’t a government that would give immunity to both Nazi and Japanese war criminals in order to learn their criminal ways already in a bad place? As one of the defendants argued in trial at Nuremberg, the U.S. had already engaged in its own experiments on humans using almost identical justifications to those offered by the Nazis. If that defendant had been aware, he could have pointed out that the U.S. was in that very moment engaged in such experiments in Guatemala. The Nazis had learned some of their eugenics and other nasty inclinations from Americans. Some of the Paperclip scientists had worked in the U.S. before the war, as many Americans had worked in Germany. These were not isolated worlds.
Looking beyond the secondary, scandalous, and sadistic crimes of war, what about the crime of war itself? We picture the United States as less guilty because it maneuvered the Japanese into the first attack, and because it did prosecute some of the war’s losers. But an impartial trial would have prosecuted Americans too. Bombs dropped on civilians killed and injured and destroyed more than any concentration camps — camps that in Germany had been modeled in part after U.S. camps for native Americans. Is it possible that Nazi scientists blended into the U.S. military so well because an institution that had already done what it had done to the Philippines was not in all that much need of nazification?
Yet, somehow, we think of the firebombing of Japanese cities and the complete leveling of German cities as less offensive that the hiring of Nazi scientists. But what is it that offends us about Nazi scientists? I don’t think it should be that they engaged in mass-murder for the wrong side, an error balanced out in some minds but their later work for mass-murder by the right side. And I don’t think it should be entirely that they engaged in sick human experimentation and forced labor. I do think those actions should offend us. But so should the construction of rockets that take thousands of lives. And it should offend us whomever it’s done for.
It’s curious to imagine a civilized society somewhere on earth some years from now. Would an immigrant with a past in the U.S. military be able to find a job? Would a review be needed? Had they tortured prisoners? Had they drone-struck children? Had they leveled houses or shot up civilians in any number of countries? Had they used cluster bombs? Depleted uranium? White phosphorous? Had they ever worked in the U.S. prison system? Immigrant detention system? Death row? How thorough a review would be needed? Would there be some level of just-following-orders behavior that would be deemed acceptable? Would it matter, not just what the person had done, but how they thought about the world?
If you don’t know what it is yet – that means it’s working. The secrecy, that is. But once Pandora’s Box is opened, there’s no putting anything back. It will go down in history as one of the worst, oppressive plagues to saturate the planet.
Like Spider Man trying to stop a train from going over with nothing but his strength and shooting threads; we are going to need all the Web we can get to stop the fast-tracking Trans-Pacific Partnership from running over us. Perhaps more aptly, it is a tangled web we’ll be left trapped in as prey if we do nothing.
Here’s a crash-course and the easiest approach – all guesswork removed. But first, here’s a sampling of what you can kiss goodbye if this mammoth piece of legislation goes through…
What’s left of our jobs, food safety, Internet freedom, natural medicine, small farming, choice in medicine, financial regulation, privacy and more. Basically, all your rights. It permeates every area of your life, it’s been ramrodded through the Senate, and the media is not saying anything. It grants the likes of Monsanto, Wall Street and other huge entities full reign with immunity.
Kiss any last American sovereignty goodbye and say hello to your new global crypto-corpocracy complete with international tribunals and the end of domestic law – from your newly refurbished prison cell, of course. After all, you clicked on the wrong Internet link! And your ISP was watching and reported you. In the near future, this article could be enough to jail me, ban my whole family from the Internet, have computers seized and delete the website. No more videos that piece other clips together, or anything that hints at “infringement,” no more fair use, so no more non-corporate news.
It’s been shrouded in secrecy, especially from the People and Congress, planned behind closed doors for years, and proponents are searching for sponsors to have the President push it through now that Congress is back from recess.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership n. 1. A “free trade” agreement that would set rules on non-trade matters such as food safety, internet freedom, medicine costs, financial regulation, and the environment. 2. A binding international governance system that would require the United States, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and any other country that signs on to conform their domestic policies to its rules. 3. A secret trade negotiation that has included over 600 official corporate “trade advisors” while hiding the text from Members of Congress, governors, state legislators, the press, civil society, and the public.
Here’s your crash course link on the TPP. You’ll be ready for take-off in no time. They’ve made it that simple:
After being mind-blown and catching your breath, you can do the absolute easiest thing there is to do by using Twitter with the hashtag #NOFastTrackTPP (but wait, there’s more).
Don’t use social media? No problem, scroll down. For social media users, here are the easiest things you can do, besides sharing memes and links on Facebook. Share things to Reddit andStumbleUpon. Everyone should call their reps (below).
See the Twitter storm event – still going. Pull any memes – share. Only use this hashtag for social media: #NOFastTrackTPP. Using other hashtags and adding more will split the trends.
Next, Tweet your little heart out to your reps and others. Easily find them by clicking the “Discover” button and typing “congressman” in the search. All their Twitter names appear. Find celebrities, they often re-tweet. Example: @repfitzpatrick or @RepBera
@RepBera NO to Fast Track Authority and TPP, or we will not re-elect!! #NoFastTrackTPP
Here’s another: “Do NOT sponsor FastTrack! Vote NO on TPP! #NoFastTrackTPP”
Some reps have stood against the TPP, so first you might want to see this:
– OR –
Use a general message for everyone: “I will NEVER support the Trans-Pacific Partnership#NOFastTrackTPP”
Want to jump into the Twitter storm? Easy. Sign up at Twitter, it runs you through a few-second tour and you can figure out the rest, see Help, or ask friends. Use the hashtag #NOFastTrackTPP on Facebook statuses.
Non-Social Media Users:
Find all your representatives’ info/forms in one-click. Just click on your state:
Contacting the Congress
Or use this:
Call President Obama: 202-456-6213
Call your Representative: 202-225-3121
or Toll Free (877) 762-8762
(Breathe and talk slowly. You will do just fine. Be polite and confident.)
“Hi, this is (your full name). I am a constituent of Rep/Senator (name). I live in (name of city). I am calling to request that Rep/Sen (name) vote NO on Fast Track Authority. It is important to me that Congress follows the Constitutional directive to negotiate international trade and that all trade agreements are given full consideration, debate and amendments as needed.
Do you know Rep/Sen (name) position on Fast Track Authority? Will he/she vote Yes or No? (wait for an answer)
Do you know Rep/Sen (name) position on the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement? Will he/she vote Yes or No? (wait for an answer)
(regardless of their response, just continue)
Once again, I am requesting that Rep/Sen (name) vote NO on Fast Track Authority and NO on the TPP! Please be sure he/she gets my message. Thank you.”
Go to the Crash-Course site and print off PDFs to share. Actually, that whole website is designed to help you take action, online and off. You can still share the hashtag in any way you choose – it gets the point across fast.
If you can target these two reps, you could stop the fast-track today:
1) MIKE QUIGLY (IL-05)
District: (773) 267-5926
2) GREG MEEKS (NY-05)
D.C. (202) 225-3461
District: 347-230-4032 & 718-725-6000
Twitter: Gregory Meeks
Lastly, if you have done something, no matter how small to derail the TPP fast track – THANK YOU!!
Special thanks also to Andrew Pontbriand, Emily Laincz and Nick Bernabe for their tireless organizing, efforts and information – and to all those who joined them. Without them, this article wouldn’t be – nor will it with the TPP!
Recent posts by Heather Callaghan: