==========

DANGERS HIDDEN IN THE TPP AGREEMENT

Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief (http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com)

The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement involves 12 countries from the Asia-Pacific region including Australia, Japan, Mexico and Canada. The deal is expected to cover about 40 percent of the global economy and is being sold as way to exchange goods more freely. But none of the so-called free trade agreements (GATT, NAFTA, etc.) have been about free trade even though they do reduce some trade barriers. In reality, free trade has been the promise that lures countries into accepting globalist agreements that guarantee access to markets for large international corporations, but not individuals, and the past agreements have dozens of restrictive provisions relative to labor, the environment, tariffs, and regulations that make markets anything but free. The TPP has similar problems but it also has dangerous, secret provisions that allow it to be self-expanding and to change core provisions without the permission of individual nations.

Secretary of State John Kerry tried to assuage concerns saying “The agreement will not take away any sovereign rights of our nation, of any nation, it is not going to allow anyone to change our laws other than the US Congress...” But the TPP deal does cede essential sovereignty to a regional body that has power to both add new binding provisions and allow other nations to join the partnership without going back to Congress for approval. This is more like a mini-EU than a free trade agreement. That is what sets this apart from any other agreement.

I believe this new type of autonomous provision is what has driven the move to make the text secret, as I wrote about in last week’s WAB. Michael Wessel is a cleared liaison to two statutory advisory committees and was a commissioner on the U.S. Trade Deficit Review Commission and was the international trade co-chair for the Kerry-Edwards Presidential Campaign. In short, he’s certified left/liberal and an insider, but as he writes here in Politico.com, even he isn’t allowed to see all of the secret text. If they are hiding things from the Left, as well as the Right, then you know this is something very dangerous to liberty. My comments in brackets.

He first addresses Obama’s complaint that critics need to be more specific about their criticism of the TPP. “You need to tell me what’s wrong with this trade agreement, not one that was passed 25 years ago,” claims Obama. “He’s right [in a perverse way]” says Wessel.

The public criticisms of the TPP have been vague. That’s by design—anyone who has read the text of the agreement could be jailed for disclosing its contents... The law prohibits us from talking about the specifics of what we’ve seen, allowing the president to criticize us for not being specific.

 

That’s completely bogus. This is just a proposal at this point. There is no law that makes such things secret. Everyone is running around repeating the same claim and no one backs it up with a citation nor do they challenge this. Jon Rappoport highlights this:

Pop quiz: who says the text of the TPP must remain secret? Under what authority?

Members of Congress are scuttling around like weasels, claiming they can’t disclose what’s in this far-reaching, 12-nation trade treaty. They can go into a sealed room and read a draft, but they can’t copy pages, and they can’t tell the public what they just read. Why not?

If there is a US law forbidding disclosure,name the law. Can you recall anything in the Constitution that establishes secret treaties? Is there a prior treaty that states the text of all treaties can be hidden from the people? I see no authority anywhere that justifies withholding the text of the TPP.

Government legislators in the other 11 nations: why can’t you reveal what’s in the TPP? [Good point. There is no way that each nation could have passed a uniform law making these negotiations secret. This is evidence of an extra-legal conspiracy.] Mass silence around the world. “Sorry, we can’t say what’s in the treaty. We’ll vote on it, but you the people have no input. You have to take what we do on faith.” Who says so? By what authority?

If a US Senator held a press conference today and explained everything he read in that sealed room about the TPP, what exactly would happen to him? Would he be arrested? Would he be charged with a federal crime? What crime?

US Congressman: “I’m sorry, my lips are sealed, I’m bound, I can’t reveal what’s in the treaty that will adversely affect the lives of hundreds of millions of people.”

“Wrong. You’re lying. You can reveal secret text. In fact, it’s your duty. Otherwise, you’re guilty of cooperating in a RICO criminal conspiracy. Now, let’s start at the beginning. Who told you that you had to remain silent? What US law did they cite? Take your time. We’ll stay here as long as it takes.”

 

He’s right. We’re dealing with a bunch of yes-men in Congress who have no courage to confront the establishment with these kinds of falsehoods. Wessel continues his criticism:

I can tell you that Elizabeth Warren is right about her criticism of the trade deal. We should be very concerned about what's hidden in this trade deal—and particularly how the Obama administration is keeping information secret even from those of us who are supposed to provide advice...

The text of the TPP, like all trade deals, is a closely guarded secret. That fact makes a genuine public debate impossible and should make robust debate behind closed doors all the more essential. But the ability of TPP critics like me to point out the deal’s many failings is limited by the government’s surprising and unprecedented refusal to make revisions to the language in the TPP fully available to cleared advisors.

Bill Clinton didn’t operate like this [but he would have were he told to do so by his handlers]. During the debate on NAFTA, as a cleared advisor for the Democratic leadership, I had a copy of the entire text in a safe next to my desk and regularly was briefed on the specifics of the negotiations, including counterproposals made by Mexico and Canada. During the TPP negotiations, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) has never shared proposals being advanced by other TPP partners. Today’s consultations are, in many ways, much more restrictive than those under past administrations.

All advisors, and any liaisons, are required to have security clearances, which entail extensive paperwork and background investigations, before they are able to review text and participate in briefings. But, despite clearances, and a statutory duty to provide advice, advisors do not have access to all the materials that a reasonable person would need to do the job.

For instance, rules of origin specify how much of a product must originate within the TPP countries for the resulting product to be eligible for duty-free treatment. These are complex rules that decide where a company will manufacture its products and where is will purchase raw materials. Under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), 62.5 percent of a car needed to originate within NAFTA countries. In the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement, it was lowered to 50 percent. It further dropped to 35 percent in the US-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS). In essence, under our agreement with Korea, 65 percent of a car from South Korea could be made from Chinese parts and still qualify for duty-free treatment when exported to the U.S. [These kinds of restrictions demonstrate that these agreements really aren’t free trade agreements at all.]

State-owned enterprisesmay, for the first time, be addressed in the TPP. But, once again, the details are not clear. Will exemptions be provided to countries like Vietnam, Malaysia and Singapore, [where most industries are state-owned] all of which could be heavily impacted by such a rule? What will be the test to determine what is or is not acceptable behavior?

Only portions of the text have been provided, to be read under the watchful eye of a USTR official. Access, up until recently, was provided on secure web sites. But the government-run website does not contain the most-up-to-date information for cleared advisors. To get that information, we have to travel to certain government facilities and sign in to read the materials. Even then, the administration determines what we can and cannot review...

Trade Advisory Committees (ITACS), which focus on individual sectors such as steel and aerospace. At last count, there were more than 600 cleared advisors. The vast majority of them represent business interests.

 

The very reason why fast track methods were invented was so that the specific provisions couldn’t be debated. There are so much industry-specific favoritism embedded in provisions in these deals that debate would go on forever. Governments don’t want legislators involved except to give final sanction to what they have done in secret. Despite the secrecy, many of the bad provisions about the TPP have leaked out. John Olen writes aboutthe most dangerous provisions of the TPP at Economy in Crisis:

...documents leaked from the secret negotiations show that foreign corporations will gain the right to challenge U.S. laws in secret tribunals. This is an affront to American sovereignty and the laws we choose to abide by as citizens... Under the proposed agreement, American laws regarding labor, environmental or financial issues would apply to companies based in America, but foreign companies operating in the U.S. could challenge these laws in a secret international tribunal if they felt these laws affected their ability to do business. If the tribunal rules in favor of the corporations, the U.S. could be forced to overturn the law or face sanctions or penalties from member countries.

President Obama specifically stated that he would not pass free trade agreements with these kinds of provisions while campaigning in 2008. “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;” Clearly that campaign promise has gone out the window.

 

As bad as all these things are, the worst aspect of the agreement is that it has wording allowing it to become a   “Living,” or “Evolving” agreement   that can be changed without coming back to Congress. William F. Jasper of the New American magazine has the exclusive story.

This mutational feature of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) should be of top concern to members of Congress — and their constituents. However, this critical aspect of the secretive agreements has received virtually no attention in the establishment media.

Modeled after the deceptive, open-ended process of the European Union, the (TPP) claims to be a “living agreement” with “a structure, institutions, and processes that allow the agreement to evolve.”

The TPP currently includes 12 Pacific Rim member states (Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam), but is expected to expand to include more nations, including Communist China. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) proposes to begin “deep and comprehensive” integration between the 28-member States of European Union and the United States.

On November 12, 2011, the leaders of the TPP nations endorsed the TPP “Trade Ministers’ Report to Leaders,” Section 5 of which spelled out this dangerous provision:

(5) Living Agreement

We have agreed to develop the TPP as a living agreement. While we are establishing a state-of-the-art agreement, we want to ensure that we have the ability to update the agreement as appropriate. Therefore, the TPP teams are establishing a structure, institutions, and processes that allow the agreement to evolve in response to developments in trade, technology or other emerging issues and challenges. We envision a continuing joint work program, including new commitments in areas of common interest or to enable us to quickly respond to developments in global trade or technology. At the same time, we remain cognizant of our goal toeventually expand the TPP to include other economies from across the Asia-Pacific region. [Emphasis added.]

The Congressional Research Service, in a study entitled, “The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Negotiations and Issues for Congress,” [confirmed this].“The TPP has been envisaged as a ‘living agreement,’ one that is both open to new members willing to sign up to its commitments and open to addressing new issues as they evolve.

 

This public Congressional document proves that Congress has known about this dangerous provision for years and has never complained. Jasper then correctly notes the parallel with the formation of the EU and how it too allowed for the same kind of self-expansion.

In the development of the European Union — from its origin as the European Coal and Steel Community to the Common Market to the European Community to, finally, the EU — this subversive mutational process has been referred to as “broadening and deepening.” [D]eepening refers to the constant creation of new supranational institutional structures and continuous expansion and usurpation by regional authorities of powers and jurisdiction that previously were exercised by national, state, and local governments.

 

While Congress is focusing on the TPP, there is a similar treaty waiting in the wings to merge the TPP nations with the EU. It’s called The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Jasper addresses this too:

They recognize the convenience of the “European model” and have used the EU as a pattern for the TPP/TTIP features and processes... For those who are familiar with the organization, it is not surprising that the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) is a chief proponent of the “living agreement” concept. The Berlin-based ECFR is a sister organization of the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the London-based Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA, more commonly known as Chatham House), two of the premier organizational champions of world government.

In February of this year, the ECFR issued a report entitled “A Fresh Start for TTIP”... In its online summary of the report, the ECFR website says: “The [TTIP] negotiators should agree on standard harmonization where it can be easily achieved (e.g. technical standards for cars) and should set up an inclusive process of regulatory convergence to allow TTIP to become a living agreement which harmonizes further standards later on [meaning: restrict your right to select food, and supplements, education, and natural medicine, of your choice],

The full report, “A Fresh Start for TTIP,” was co-authored by ECFR senior fellows Sebastian Dullien and Josef Janning, along with Adriana Garcia. Both Dullien and Garcia were former employees of the United Nations and Garcia also worked for the World Trade Organization. Janning is an academic and a longtime champion of European “integration.”

 

The Supreme Hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton: After boosting various trade pacts during her tenure as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has received millions in speaking fees from industries who benefitted from these deals. McClatchy Newshas the story:

Traveling the world as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton was a vocal booster of legislation to fast-track congressional action on global trade agreements. She also spoke in favor of the Trans-Pacific Partnership... Now, with the release last week of her latest financial disclosure statement, Clinton has revealed the flow of a different kind of trade dollars.

Companies and coalitions aligned with her past positions on the trade legislation ponied up more than $2 million of the nearly $12 million in speaking fees Clinton hauled in between January 2014 and this March, weeks before she declared her candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Lately, Clinton, who has swung to the left on numerous social issues, has gone silent on trade. She has been under pressure from liberals to side with the 44 Senate Democrats opposing those measures on grounds they would cost Americans jobs.

As recently as March 11, she picked up a $315,000 check for speaking at an event in San Jose, Calif., sponsored by Internet auctioneer eBay Inc., a member of the National Foreign Trade Council that’s pushing for passage of the trade bills.

“I suppose that those in favor of the free-trade agreements know that when push comes to shove, Hillary Clinton is going to be on their side anyway,” said Craig Holman, who lobbies Congress for the consumer watchdog group Public Citizen. “Providing her with a lot of money is one sure way to keep her in their camp. . . . That’s how you buy influence: Find ways to hand cold cash over to the Clinton family.”

Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, has made the speaking tour a cash cow for more than a decade, and separately he made about $13 million, bringing the former first couple’s total to $25 million from speeches in the 14 1/2-month period.

What is unusual about the latest statement, however, is that it reveals Hillary Clinton directly enriching herself from the treasuries of Fortune 500 companies that would hold major stakes in a variety of issues if she is elected the nation’s first female president.

Besides Hillary Clinton’s income, since January 2014, Bill Clinton has brought in $1.425 million from four other companies backing trade promotion authority, the fast-track legislation, and the National Association of Manufacturers. All signed a letter supporting the legislation by the Trade Benefits America coalition.

 

None of this is technically illegal, though it is corruption at its worst. This kind of corruption and insider dealing may be why several top staffers have left the Clinton foundation since Chelsea came on board as vice chairman in 2011. Much of that, of course, is because of the arrogant way in which Chelsea deals with others as the new “heir apparent.” According to Page Six,

“A lot of people left because she was there. A lot of people left because she didn't want them there," an insider told me. "She is very difficult." Onetime CEO Bruce Lindsey was pushed upstairs to the position of chairman of the board two years ago, so that Chelsea could bring in her McKinsey colleague Eric Braverman.

 

In summary, Sec. of State Kerry has to be outright lying to proclaim that the TPP doesn’t undermine US sovereignty. The PTB clearly aren’t going to take “no” for an answer when it comes to getting Congress to approve these organizational predecessors to global government. With almost all Republicans on board this juggernaut in the false name of free trade, conservatives will be confused and put to sleep by their own leaders (who actually work for the other side).