Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
Tue Apr 22, 2014, 05:22 PM Apr 2014

NY Times Changes Its Tune On TPP; Highlights Cronyism, Lack Of Transparency As Problems


from the getting-it-right-second-time-around dept
Last fall, many folks who follow these issues were somewhat dismayed by a weird NY Times editorial that appeared to endorse the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, while basically ignoring the many complaints about it. It wasn't exactly a ringing endorsement, but it did clearly support the agreement, concluding with:

A good agreement would lower duties and trade barriers on most products and services, strengthen labor and environmental protections, limit the ability of governments to tilt the playing field in favor of state-owned firms and balance the interests of consumers and creators of intellectual property. Such a deal will not only help individual countries but set an example for global trade talks.


The endorsement resulted in the Times being rightly mocked for endorsing a secretive agreement that the NY Times editorial writers had not seen (indeed, could not see). Apparently, some folks on the editorial staff took at least some of this criticism to heart, and have now released a new editorial that is much more critical of the TPP -- in particular, the process around it.

That is, while the editorial still (rightly, in our opinion) supports the idea of lowering key trade barriers, it finally acknowledges that a lot of what the TPP is doing has little to do with removing trade barriers, and plenty to do with helping corporations push through global regulations that it could not get adopted domestically. Furthermore, it directly takes on the fact that the USTR is ridiculously secretive on the negotiation with everyone except big businesses that have direct access:

The Obama administration has revealed so few details about the negotiations, even to members of Congress and their staffs, that it is impossible to fully analyze the Pacific partnership. Negotiators have argued that it’s impossible to conduct trade talks in public because opponents to the deal would try to derail them.

But the administration’s rationale for secrecy seems to apply only to the public. Big corporations are playing an active role in shaping the American position because they are on industry advisory committees to the United States trade representative, Michael Froman. By contrast, public interest groups have seats on only a handful of committees that negotiators do not consult closely.

That lopsided influence is dangerous, because companies are using trade agreements to get special benefits that they would find much more difficult to get through the standard legislative process. For example, draft chapters from the Pacific agreement that have been leaked in recent months reveal that most countries involved in the talks, except the United States, do not want the agreement to include enforceable environmental standards. Business interests in the United States, which would benefit from weaker rules by placing their operations in countries with lower protections, have aligned themselves with the position of foreign governments. Another chapter, on intellectual property, is said to contain language favorable to the pharmaceutical industry that could make it harder for poor people in countries like Peru to get generic medicines.[i/]

The editorial further notes the problematic "corporate sovereignty" provisions that allow companies the ability to sue countries for regulations they dislike, noting how it could be abused by banks to block financial regulations (as an example). It further questions some of the predictions of economic benefits from these agreements.

Much More...Good Read at.....

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140421/13592426980/ny-times-changes-its-tune-tpp-highlights-cronyism-lack-transparency-as-problems.shtml
3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NY Times Changes Its Tune On TPP; Highlights Cronyism, Lack Of Transparency As Problems (Original Post) KoKo Apr 2014 OP
The original editorial was the weird as hell MannyGoldstein Apr 2014 #1
glad to see they don't like Obama's gift to world corporate control nt msongs Apr 2014 #2
Good or bad, it will have to get Congressional approval, and will unlikely be "fast-tracked." Hoyt Apr 2014 #3
 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
1. The original editorial was the weird as hell
Tue Apr 22, 2014, 05:29 PM
Apr 2014

As I noted at the time:

The NY Times has been infiltrated by insane people

(Pats self on back.)

There's probably an interesting story behind this.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
3. Good or bad, it will have to get Congressional approval, and will unlikely be "fast-tracked."
Tue Apr 22, 2014, 07:00 PM
Apr 2014

I'm betting it does not pass if it is as bad as some folks fear.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Progressive Media Resources Group»NY Times Changes Its Tune...