Trans-Pacific Partnership: How It Enters Into Force – WikiLeaks Leaks

I’ve found a few stories that cull down the vitals of the Trans-Pacific Partnership from the side of the opposition, and an article that shows how and why IT WILL HAPPEN. To begin, here’s how Republican presidential candidates stand on the Trans-Pacific Partnership:

TransPacificPartnership_1

Bush: For
Carson: Against, but . . .
Christie: “real concerns”
Cruz: Against
Fiorina: Uncomfortable
Graham: For
Huckabee: Against
Jindal: Against
Kasich: For
Paul: Against
Rubio: For
Trump: Against

HOW IT WILL HAPPEN: Here’s What Needs to Happen in Order for the Trans-Pacific Partnership to Become Binding (Ive omitted large swathes, please read it all here:

This week started with a bang with the news that the twelve states that have been party to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, over a process spanning months for some and years for others, had come to a final agreement on the text for the deal. Make no mistake: this is a big deal. The TPP states, between them, represent 40 percent of the global economy and a quarter of its trade. They are home to 800 million people, representing 12 percent of global population. Though the text of the agreement is finalized, the TPP still has a ways to go before it actually becomes binding on its members, i.e. before it “enters into force.” . .. .

This means if you care about the TPP at all, the two countries to watch now are Japan and the United States. . . .

Ultimately, the fate of the TPP is down to U.S. and Japanese domestic politics. All this said, it’s unlikely that the agreement will be shot down in either state’s legislature (yes, that includes the United States). This means that the TPP could potentially come into force before late-2017, provided the other ten members successfully ratify. If even one state that isn’t Japan or the United States fails to ratify the agreement, we’ll see the TPP’s entry into force in December 2017.

Grumpy Opinions – read it all here: [Non-allegiance to the Constitution] . . .it’s roots go back a long way.. and to some pretty big names in both United States and International Politics

Take a look at what David Rockefeller, former Vice President of the United States, under President Gerald Ford:

“We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” David Rockefeller, Baden-Baden, Germany 1991

***

“I think that his [Obama’s] task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period, when really a New World Order can be created.”
Henry Kissinger, CNBC 2008

***

The New World Order cannot happen without U.S. participation, as we are the single most significant component.  Yes, there will be a New World Order, and it will force the United States to change its perceptions.”
–Dr. Henry Kissinger,  World Action Council, April 19, 1994

TTP Treaty Full Text: WikiLeaks Releases Trans-Pacific Partnership Intellectual Property Rights Chapter – snippets, read the entire treaty here:

WIKILEAKS: Hundreds of representatives from large corporations had direct access to the negotiations whereas elected officials had limited or no access. . . .

In June the House of Representatives of the US Congress narrowly approved to “fast-track” the TPP, preventing the Congressmen from discussing or amending any parts of the treaty, only vote for or against it. 218 voted for the “fast-track” measure and 208 against. . . .

TPP is the first of a trinity of US backed economic treaties, the “Three Big T’s”, to be finalized. The other two being Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) which covers 52 countries and TTIP, the EU-US version of TPP.

Electronic Frontier Foundation – read much more here:

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a secretive, multinational trade agreement that threatens to extend restrictive intellectual property (IP) laws across the globe and rewrite international rules on its enforcement. The main problems are two-fold:

(1) Intellectual Property Chapter: Leaked draft texts of the agreement show that the IP chapter would have extensive negative ramifications for users’ freedom of expression, right to privacy and due process, and hinder peoples’ abilities to innovate.

(2) Lack of Transparency: The entire process has shut out multi-stakeholder participation and is shrouded in secrecy. . . .

The TPP Will Rewrite Global Rules on Intellectual Property Enforcement

All signatory countries will be required to conform their domestic laws and policies to the provisions of the Agreement. In the U.S., this is likely to further entrench controversial aspects of U.S. copyright law (such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act[DMCA]) and restrict the ability of Congress to engage in domestic law reform to meet the evolving IP needs of American citizens and the innovative technology sector. The recently leaked U.S.-proposed IP chapter also includes provisions that appear to go beyond current U.S. law.

Senator Ted Cruz (who many conservatives blame for changing his mind from supporting TTP to opposing TTP. The word “flip-flop” is often heard regarding Cruz, but remember, McConnell lied, so Cruz changed his vote:

Since the Senate first voted on TPA, there have been two material changes.

First, WikiLeaks subsequently revealed new troubling information regarding the Trade in Services Agreement, or TiSA, one of the trade deals being negotiated by Obama.

Despite the administration’s public assurances that it was not negotiating on immigration, several chapters of the TiSA draft posted online explicitly contained potential changes in federal immigration law. TPA would cover TiSA, and therefore these changes would presumably be subject to fast-track.

When TPA last came up for a vote, both Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and I introduced amendments that would have barred fast-track treatment for any trade agreement that attempted to impact immigration law. Two other Republican senators objected, and we were both denied votes on our amendments. Instead, the House inserted substantially weaker language in related legislation.

At the time that Sessions and I introduced our amendments, many said our fears were unfounded. But now we have far more reason to be concerned.

Second, TPA’s progress through the House and Senate appears to have been made possible by secret deals between Republican Leadership and the Democrats.

When TPA first came up for a vote in the Senate, it was blocked by a group of senators, led by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), both of whom were conditioning their support on the unrelated objective of reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank.

The Ex-Im Bank is a classic example of corporate welfare. It is cronyism at its worst, with U.S. taxpayers guaranteeing billions of dollars in loans for sketchy buyers in foreign nations. Ex-Im is scheduled to wind down on June 30. But powerful lobbyists in Washington want to keep the money flowing.

In the above article, Senator Cruz goes on to explain how Senator Mitch McConnell, Majority Leader of the Senate, lied to him three times about side agreements to the TTP.

GlobalResearch, July 2015 (choice snippets, read it all here:

“National security secrecy may be appropriate to protect us from our enemies; it should not be used to protect our politicians from us.” Margot E. Kaminski, NYT, April 14, 2015.

The US Treasury Department has come up with an astrological figure of increases in American exports to Asia by $123 billion. Other figures have been drawn out of hats, most of which will hardly cut muster when the deal is actually in place. Such deals have a habit of enriching unevenly, leaving a good deal of economic, and social pillage in their wake. . . .

There have been voices in the political spectrum lamenting the pathological secrecy behind the entire process. Such behaviour goes beyond the realms of simple diplomatic protocol, the closed-doors approach which sees the shuffling of papers and provisions beyond press scrutiny. The TPP, one part of a US-led reorientation of markets and strategies, affects citizens who have no voice, or shape, in discussions. . . .

As legal scholar Margot E. Kaminski would explain in April, “Even if current negotiations over the trade agreement end with no deal, the draft chapter will remain classified for four years as national security information.”. . .

Then come the dangers, in terms of use and price, to medicine and copyright. Weasel words are circulated – “digital governance” is a hot one, code for control, restriction and regulation. Embedded in the agreement is a form of copyright policing that seems both draconian and unrealistic. The US delegation still insists on copyright terms of 70 or more years with the necessary compensation for infringements.

Building Balanced Copyright in the TPP:

It’s hard to know the full extent of the harms the TPP’s copyright provisions may pose to the public interest, because the public has been kept in the dark. Based on a US draft that leaked in February 2011, Public Knowledge can identify a number of proposals that would have adverse consequences for consumers and should be removed from the TPP or modified. The actual text of the TPP may be far worse, but it is impossible to know until the text is released to the public.

Margot Kaminski (also mentioned up a few paragraphs): The Capture of International Intellectual Property Law through the U.S. Trade Regime

. . .Negotiators change unfavorable domestic rules into more pliable international standards,

Margot Kaminski

Margot Kaminski

codify favorable domestic judicial interpretations as international rules, and omit parts of domestic law that balance IP protection against other values. These distortions arise because the USTR engages in “regulatory paraphrasing”: it paraphrases the current state of U.S. law rather than exporting the words of U.S. statutes. ~ Margot Kaminski, Assistant Professor, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law

As Republicans and Conservatives always say, free trade is a good thing. As I say, nothing this administration negotiates is ever a good thing –– specifically when it involves U.S. sovereignty. If you read the article above from the Diplomat, there appears to be no way out. Congress has no real authority, and besides Mitch McConnell is a liar. When you are asked three times, right in front of your face, and in the Republican Caucus, if there are side deals, and you say there are none, when there are some, you are a liar.
h/t Theo Spark for the first article quoted above.

Linked at BadBlue, the baddest uncensored news on the planet, 24/7. Read it here.

Linked at Doug Ross and Larwyn’s Linx in A Libera’sl Ten Commandments – Find terrific stories here. 

If you have time, please vote in my presidential poll, top of this page on your right.

If you would like to receive Maggie’s Notebook daily posts direct to your inbox, no ads, no spam, EVER, enter your email address in the box below.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 957 other subscribers

15 Pingbacks/Trackbacks