Disad links
China link
Stronger TPP leadership locks out Chinese influence
Sabatani 13 - senior director of policy at the Americas Society and Council of the Americas (AS/COA) and
founder and editor-in-chief of the hemispheric policy magazine Americas Quarterly (Christopher, “In
Latin America, Creative Focus Could Pay Off,” World Politics Review, January 8, 2013,
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/12609/in-latin-america-creative-focus-could-pay-off)//AC
Double Down on the Trans-Pacific Partnership
Though little-known, the negotiations to create the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) could be one of the
most important institution-building initiatives since the Cold War.
Economically, it is the first effort to weave together cross-hemispheric bilateral and multilateral free
trade agreements into a broad market. When completed, the TPP will include Australia, Brunei, Canada,
Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam -- with Japan and
South Korea also expressing interest in joining. Combined, the current 11 countries constitute $21
trillion in GDP, with $4.4 trillion in trade in goods and services (.pdf). With South Korea and Japan, this
new trade zone would total 40 percent of world GDP.
With 29 sectors under discussion for the lowering of trade barriers and the updating of trade rules among the diverse nations, the TPP
would create the potential for a powerful, modern free trade zone. Such a broad, diverse modern
market would create tremendous opportunities for productivity and competitiveness among all member
countries and in their economic relations outside the bloc.
Diplomatically, the TPP is the economic, soft-power adjunct to Washington’s Asia pivot to check
potential Chinese ambitions in its neighborhood. In the Western Hemisphere, the TPP will provide an
attractive alternative to the sort of distorted, dependency-oriented bilateral trade that Beijing is
currently offering the region, by which China buys primary products and sells back value-added goods
made with the same materials.
Moreover, the U.S. and its economic allies in the region will create a powerful, progressive point of
attraction for other willing and economically serious countries in the hemisphere. Previous efforts to build a free
trade area of the Americas (FTAA) after 1993 ran aground on pre-existing trade agreements, such as Mercosur, and friction between the U.S.
and Brazil’s trade agendas and domestic policies.
As Mercosur and other regional trade arrangements continue to flounder, the attraction of the TPP will only rise. Already, Colombia has
expressed interest in joining.
Economic integration of Latin America is inevitable but the US will be locked out
without an effective TPP conclusion
Valencia 13 - political analyst and is a contributing writer for Global Voices Online (Robert, “U.S. and
Latin America: Economic Cooperation without Militarization?,” World Policy Blog, 5/20/13,
http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2013/05/20/us-and-latin-america-economic-cooperation-withoutmilitarization ) //JG
The new emphasis on economic initiatives between the United States and Latin American countries
represents a welcome break in stale policies. As President Obama pointed out, “the stronger the
economies and the institutions for individuals seeking legitimate careers, the less powerful those narcotrafficking organizations are going to be.” Furthermore, economic initiatives need not eclipse security
strategies, but rather work in tandem. The White House must take steps to implement economic
cooperation as swiftly as possible, including the addition of including additional Latin American
countries into the Trans-Pacific Partnership --a 2005 free trade agreement that includes more Asian
countries--and encouraging more student exchange programs between the U.S. and Latin America. At
present, only 40,000 Latin Americans are studying in the U.S., a far cry from the 100,000 slots Obama
promised to open this year. Since the George W. Bush administration, the U.S. has seen its clout wane
on the realms of diplomacy and Latin America’s decision-making as the leftist wave rose among several
Latin American countries, while the region sought to integrate more and more by way of economic and
diplomatic blocs like UNASUR and CELAC. If Obama’s words are not consequent with immediate actions
in the next couple of months or years and does not take Latin America as a serious trade partner (which
hasn’t been the case in previous administrations due to the Latin America-is-our-backyard mentality),
the U.S. will continue to lose leverage on important issues that concern Latin America, and in turn Latin
American countries will forge ahead with economic and security integration amongst themselves.
The current US negotiating stance in the TPP will cede Latin America to China – if the
plan makes the TPP more credible, they’ll regrow US influence
Ray Mallén 6/28 – covers Latin America for the International Business Times (Patricia, “Latin America
Increases Relations With China: What Does That Mean For The US?” 6/28/13,
http://www.ibtimes.com/latin-america-increases-relations-china-what-does-mean-us-1317981)//SJF
As if to confirm the declining hegemony of the United States as the ruling global superpower, China is
gaining influence in its hemispheric "backyard," Secretary of State John Kerry's unintentionally insulting
designation for Latin America.
China has had its sights on Latin America for the past decade and is now positioning itself as a
competitive trade partner in the region. The populous, rapidly developing Asian nation covets oil,
soybeans and gold, of which Latin America has plenty, and has been slowly but steadily increasing its
presence and its trade with several countries there.
The U.S., whose history of blocking outside political influence in Latin America going back to the Monroe
Doctrine, has been directing its attention elsewhere, as Michael Cerna of the China Research Center
observed. “[The U.S.'] attention of late has been focused on Iraq and Afghanistan, and Latin America fell
lower and lower on America’s list of priorities. China has been all too willing to fill any void,” Cerna said.
A Tale Of Two Trips: Latin America Reacts To Xi and Biden's Visits
Between 2000 and 2009, China increased its two-way trade with Latin America by 660 percent, from $13
billion at the beginning of the 21st century to more than $120 billion nine years later. Latin American
exports to China reached $41.3 billion, almost 7 percent of the region's total exports. China’s share of
the region’s trade was less than 10 percent in 2000; by 2009, the number had jumped to 12 percent.
As impressive as that growth is, the numbers still pale in comparison to the U.S.' stats in its commercial
relationship with Latin America. The U.S. still holds more than half of the total trade, adding up to $560
billion in 2008. Notably, though, America’s trade participation in Latin America has remained static,
while China is closing the gap more and more each year -- having already surpassed the U.S. in some
countries, including powerhouse Brazil.
Concomitant with this burgeoning interest from the Far East, Latin America is undergoing an economic
rebirth. After decades of devastating economic crises, the region is experiencing unprecedented growth:
On average, annual GDP growth for Latin American countries will be 3.7 percent this year, according to
United Nations estimates, almost double the average for the rest of the world. That has prompted
several countries to form quasi-governmental entities to further promote the progress of the region.
One such entity is the recently formed Pacific Alliance. Born with the specific goal of increasing relations
with Asia, its members include Mexico, Colombia, Chile and Peru, which together represent half of the
region’s total exports and 35 percent of its GDP. In a meeting in Colombian capital Bogotá last month,
the Pacific Alliance signed an agreement to open its member countries' economies to Asian markets; the
U.S., despite an invitation, did not attend.
Though a recent trip to the region by Vice President Joe Biden seems to run counter to the Pacific
Alliance snub, China’s President Xi Jinping has also visited recently, and likewise met with Latin American
leaders, illustrating how the two global powers are going after the same prize.
Biden traveled to Colombia, Trinidad and Tobago and Brazil in May, with the last leg of his trip coinciding
with the beginning of Xi’s in Trinidad, before jumping to Costa Rica and Mexico. Both leaders met with
several Latin American presidents and discussed trade and cooperation. The outcomes of their trips
were very different, however.
Xi’s trip was the first visit from a Chinese official to the region in almost a decade. Trinidad and Tobago’s
main newspaper, Newsday, called the visit a “historic occasion” and a “visit from China to a good
friend.” Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar said she was committed to boosting relations with China
and accepted an invitation to Beijing for November of this year. In Costa Rica, Xi signed a $400 million
loan to build a cross-country road and reaffirmed relations with its main ally in the region. Costa Rica is
the only country in Latin America that sides with China in the mainland-Taiwanese dispute and does not
recognize the island as a nation.
Even more significant was Xi’s visit to Mexico. President Enrique Peña Nieto welcomed his Chinese
counterpart, whom he had visited in Beijing in April, and made his intentions clear: Mexico wants closer
trade relations with China, with whom it has a gap of $45 billion in export and import -- an important
development considering that Mexico is, for now, America's biggest trade partner in the world.
Biden’s visit was not as successful. His meeting in Trinidad and Tobago was called “brutal and tense” by
Persad-Bissessar, and Colombian journalist Andrés Oppenheimer deemed the trip a sympathy visit after
Secretary John Kerry called Latin America “Washington’s backyard” in a much-berated slip last April.
While Biden had pleasant meetings in Rio and Bogotá, no agreements were signed during his trip.
Perhaps the biggest development in China’s investment in the area is the recent decision by the
Nicaraguan congress to allow a Chinese company to build a canal through the country. Although still in
the proposal stages, the project would bring profound change to the geopolitics of the region -- and
even the world. If built, the canal could significantly affect commerce through the Panama Canal, which,
though it is now part of Panama's domain, was built by the U.S. and remains a symbol of the nation's
historical dominance in the region.
That dominance is in decline. After decades of uncontested U.S. influence in the region, some Latin
American leaders have started making decidedly anti-American policies. The most notable was the late
Venezuelan Comandante Hugo Chávez, who was very vocal about his disdain for the U.S., but he is far
from the only one. Bolivia's President Evo Morales, for instance, kicked out USAID after Kerry's verbal
slip, and has gone so far as to ban Coca-Cola from the country.
But now it's Ecuador bumping heads with its northern neighbor, mostly in regard to Ecuador granting
entry to NSA-secrets leaker Edward Snowden. President Rafael Correa openly said that they would
welcome the whistle-blower because he was a "free man," no matter what the U.S. said. Disagreements
between the governments have led to the cancellation of a special trade agreement, which Ecuador has
called "an instrument of blackmail."
Beyond the lack of understanding with its former main trade partner, why is Latin America so smitten
with China? Kevin Gallagher, a professor of international relations at Boston University, says China
speaks to the region’s newfound confidence. “China is offering attractive deals to Latin American
economies while the United States continues to lecture and dictate,” Gallagher wrote for The Globalist.
“For too long, the United States has relied on a rather imperial mechanism, just telling Latin America
what it needs,” he added. “Compare that to China’s approach: It offers Latin America what it wants.”
Gallagher argued that the U.S.’ biggest offer to Latin America is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which
offers access to the U.S. market on three conditions: deregulate financial markets, adopt intellectual
property provisions that give preferences to U.S. firms, and allow U.S. firms to sue governments for
violating any of its conditions.
China, on the other hand, has been providing more financing to Latin America than the World Bank, the
Inter-American Development Bank and the U.S. Export-Import Bank combined since 2003, with no
previous conditions and very few strings attached.
“Latin America is very sensitive to any notions of conditionality due to painful past experiences with the
IMF and the World Bank,” Gallagher said. “China makes sure that its policy is not based on
conditionalities.”
Gallagher said the U.S. should awake from its past slumber and stop taking Latin America for granted.
Shlomo Ben-Ami, vice president of the Toledo International Center for Peace and former Israeli foreign
minister, takes a different stance. He argues that China's advancement in the region does not
automatically equate with American loss of preeminence. U.S. exports to Latin America continue to rise
(by 94 percent over the past six years), as do imports (87 percent in the same period), and America
continues to be the biggest foreign investor in the area.
Perhaps even more crucial are America's cultural and historical ties to the region, Ben-Ami said. “Given
the extraordinary growth of Latinos’ influence in the U.S., it is almost inconceivable that America could
lose its unique status in the region to China,” he said.
Still, Gallagher and Ben-Ami agree that the U.S. needs to step up, both economically and diplomatically,
to compete with new influences in a part of the world that was until recently widely considered
America’s domain.
“Gone are the days when military muscle and the politics of subversion could secure U.S. influence -- in
Latin America or anywhere else,” Ben-Ami said.
“It is high time for the U.S. government to undertake a true rethink of its economic policy toward Latin
America,” Gallagher observed. “Very soon, it might be too late.”
Expanding US-Mexico TPP participation will be used to challenge Chinese influence
Peters et al 13 – Professor at the Graduate School of Economics, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (Enrique Dussel, Ariel C.
Armony: Director of the University of Miami’s Center for Latin American Studies, designated as a Title VI National Resource Center by the U.S.
Department of Education, is also the Weeks Professor in Latin American Studies and Professor of International Studies, Evan Ellis: associate
professor with the Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies in Washington DC with a research focus on Latin America’s relationships with China
and other external actors, Kevin P. Gallagher: an associate professor of international relations at Boston University, where he directs the Global
Economic Governance Initiative and the Global Development Policy Master’s Program, Adrian H. Hearn: Australian Research Council (ARC)
Future Fellow at the University of Sydney and Chair of the Latin American Studies Association (LASA) Section for Asia and the Americas, Harley
Shaiken: a Class of 1930 Professor of Letters and Science, Graduate School of Education and the Department of Geography and Chair of the
Center for Latin American Studies, UC Berkeley; Professor of Social and Cultural Studies at the Graduate School of Education, Hongbo Sun:
Associate Professor at the Institute of Latin American Studies (ILAS), Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Ping Wang: the Director of the Center
for Latin American Studies at Nankai University, Tianjin, China. She is also the vice president of the China Association of Latin American
Historical Studies, and senior research fellow of the Institute of Global Studies of Hong Kong and the Chinese Foreign Economic and Trade
University, Ralph Watkins: international trade analyst at the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) for 37 years, Chunsi Wu: executive
director of the Institute of International Strategy Studies and research fellow at the Center for American Studies, Shanghai Institutes for
International Studies, “China and the New Triangular Relationships in the Americas. China and the Future of US-Mexico Relations,” May 2013,
http://dusselpeters.com/62.pdf#page=95)//SJF//AC
If Mexico and China reorient their strategies, it is likely that there will be an adjustment in the triangle’s
dynamic, which may result in a closer relationship between these two countries. Transformations in the
regional and global context and their impact on TR dynamics: probably the most significant factor is the
creation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which introduces geopolitical rivalries in the triangle. TPP does
not include China and it is likely to affect China’s interests in Latin America and its existing trade
relations with several countries in the region, including Mexico. If Beijing’s suspicion materializes that
TPP is a US-led strategy to resist China’s regional hegemony in the Asia-Pacific, then the question is whether
this major initiative may have an impact on China’s relationship with Mexico. Mutual perceptions: the potential
for tripartite cooperation resulting from choice is largely dependent on the US and Mexican perceptions
of China. For these two countries, China represents some type of threat, but the meaning of “threat” is very different
for each of them. For Mexico, China entails a threat as an economic power, primarily because it has emerged as a serious
challenger for Mexico in the US import market. For the United States, the threat posed by China in Latin America is more symbolic than
real. China behaves with great care in the region and has tried not to alienate the United States. However, China’s appeal has gained
ground in Latin America. For instance, a 2012 survey conducted in 26 Latin American and Caribbean countries shows that, in many of
these countries, the United States is barely ahead of China as a “development model” in the eyes of the average citizen (Zechmeister et al.
2013). This type of evidence suggests, at least in terms of perceptions, that China
may be gaining a more solid foothold in
Latin America in an environment of decreasing US influence and, possibly, increasing anti-Americanism
(Seligson and Zechmeister 2013).
Politics link
Strong political opposition to the plan
Wilson 13 - Associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
(Christopher, “A U.S.-Mexico Economic Alliance: Policy Options for a Competitive Region,” New Ideas for
a New Era: Policy Options for the Next Stage in U.S.-Mexico Relations, May 2013
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/new_ideas_new_era.pdf )
Improving policy requires surmounting political opposition. Past advances in U.S.- Mexico economic
relations such as the passage of NAFTA were won not only by the political leadership in both countries,
but also by the coalition of business groups and other non-governmental actors. The business
communities of the United States and Mexico are natural allies for any effort to implement the type of
competitiveness enhancing policies described above, but the networks forged during the passage of
NAFTA virtually disappeared. Efforts should be made to strengthen the networks of U.S. and Mexican
businesses and civil society groups working to support a positive and productive U.S.- Mexico
partnership.
looking forwArd
In the end it is about vision. Popular opinion on NAFTA and free trade is still mired in the same tired
debates of twenty years ago. Modern day refrains of Ross Perot’s “giant sucking sound” still echo.
Opponents of trade agreements still measure job loss by subtracting imports from exports, while free
traders still retort that a bigger trade pie means more to eat for everyone. The debates are the same,
but the world is not. Globalization has changed the very nature of trade, and if our perception does not
catch up with reality, there is little doubt that we will be left with a strategy from yesterday in the world
of tomorrow, and one of the best opportunities to reinvigorate the region may be squandered. If
instead, the United States, Mexico, and Canada see themselves as the partners that they are, and
capitalize on the major advances underway in manufacturing and energy by pursuing a robust agenda to
cooperatively strengthen the competiveness of the region, then the likelihood is strong that North
America will continue to be among the most dynamic and wealthy in the world.
Economic integration with Mexico triggers trade union opposition
Goforth 13 - teaches international political economy at Coastal Carolina University (Sean, “Mexico’s
Pena Nieto Faces Tough Choices on Trade,” World Politics Review, 2/27/13,
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/12745/mexico-s-pena-nieto-faces-tough-choices-ontrade)//AC
But Mexico’s
attempts to pursue further integration with the U.S. have met lukewarm receptions north
of the border. And now the Obama administration is signaling that its trade priorities lie in negotiating a deal
with the European Union, which would neatly skirt the trade union opposition that has historically
sapped Washington’s enthusiasm for closer economic integration with Mexico.
Trade promotion authority links to politics
Tandon 13 - Shaun Tandon has worked at Agence France-Presse, studied at Georgetown
University for foreign policy, (Obama base voices concern on Pacific trade pact, June 11, 2013,
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gWDxKm5d-iUWExTZXTwuBVHYBCA?docId=CNG.b972a6177ab8474e09319ee67e5fb6c0.111)//sawyer
The lawmakers vowed to resist efforts to give Obama "fast-track" trade promotion
authority -- which would let his team negotiate a deal, with Congress then voting up or down
without the opportunity to make changes. "Congress needs to work together to get American
trade policy back on track -- not give away its authority to do so," said the letter spearheaded by
Representative Mark Pocan of Wisconsin. "Reducing our authority to ensure our trade
agreements serve the public interest will undermine our efforts to create American jobs and to
reform a misguided trade policy that has devastated our manufacturing base through the
offshoring of American production and American jobs," the letter said.
The TPP is unpopular
Capling and Ravenhill 11 - Ann Capling went to the University of Melbourne, John
Ravenhill went to the Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University,
(“Multilateralising regionalism: what role for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement?,
December 12, 2011
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09512748.2011.634078)//sawyer
Of particular note here has been the capacity of protectionist forces in the US Congress to deny
the President a renewal of trade promotion authority, and to signal that their opposition to
agreements is so deep seated that the Administration refrains from placing them before the
Senate for ratification (seen with the Korean and Colombian agreements under both the Bush
and Obama administrations). Substantial opposition to the TPP was expressed in the
US Congress even before the negotiations began. In particular, the US trade deficit with
China has increased domestic protectionist pressures and has led many to question the benefit
of free trade with developing countries more generally (Aggarwal 2010). The TPP has become
caught up in a more general tide of skepticism towards bilateral trade agreements, and in a push
by trade unionists and civil society groups, more generally, to see these agreements include
provisions on labour rights and environmental protection. And it also attracted opposition
specific to the proposed agreement itself, in particular from dairy interests concerned at the
potential competition from NZ’s efficient exporters (Fergusson and Vaughn 2010). The National
Milk Producer’s Federation has sought to exclude the dairy industry in any trade agreement with
NZ – in March 2010, 30 US Senators wrote to the US Trade Representative, Ron Kirk, warning
that opening the US market to NZ dairy products would pose a major threat to the US industry.
But opposition to the proposed agreement was not confined to the dairy industry: in May 2010,
20 groups representing agricultural producers wrote to the Obama administration requesting
that market access schedules and accompanying ROOs in existing US PTAs not be changed as
part of the TPP negotiations (TPP Digest 2010). Some sectors of US manufacturing have also
opposed the TPP, most notably the National Council of Textile Organizations, which argues that
Vietnam should be excluded from the negotiations.
Brazil link
The TPP would challenge Brazilian leadership
Santos 13 – Tamara has earned a BA in International Relations from La Salle University, Rio
de Janeiro and a MA in Conflict Resolution in Divided Societies from King’s College, London.
She is an independent researcher, international relations enthusiast and interested in topics
related to politics, economics, sustainable development and diplomacy, (“Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP): Bad news for Brazil and China?”, April 6, 2013,
http://theworldoutline.com/2013/04/trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-bad-news-for-brazil-andchina/)//sawyer
On the Latin American side of the TPP, since the last decade, Brazil has been investing massively
toward infrastructure programs designed to integrate the region and to facilitate the transport of
goods and services among its neighbours. Regional integration is a priority in Brazilian
foreign policy agenda. By providing promising trade alternatives in a wider Financial Trade
Agreement (FTA), the TPP could also represent a challenge for Brazil, as its
neighbours still receive a considerable portion of Brazilian exports, which represent an
important tool for economic growth. Furthermore, having other partners to assist in the
regional development could also diminish Brazil’s role as the regional paymaster.
Neoliberalism links
The TPP is a neoliberal wish that empowers corporations
Bowie 13 - Nile Bowie is a political analyst and photographer currently residing in
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, (“Trans-Pacific partnership: Neoliberal arm of Obama’s Asiapivot”, June 14, 2013, http://rt.com/op-edge/trans-pacific-partnership-obama704/)//sawyer
Everything that the public knows about the TPP so far has come from various leaks, and if the
final agreement looks anything like the negotiating text, the implications would be far reaching,
affecting everything from the cost of medicines to internet freedoms by broadening international
copyright and intellectual property rights legislation in line with US law. Make no mistake –
the TPP is a neoliberal wish list that would empower corporations to skirt
national laws and courts, while directly challenging health, environmental and
other public interest policies. What makes the TPP so alarming is that it aims to create
judicial authorities higher than national governments, in the form of extra-judicial tribunals
overseen by the World Bank and UN. If multinationals feel that existing government policy has
hindered their expected future profits, national governments would be obliged to dole out
compensation with taxpayer dollars. If the TPP were to be passed into law, it would:
create incentives for corporations to offshore millions of jobs & encourage
bottom-of-the-barrel low wage conditions in participating countries prohibit bans
on risky financial instruments, speculation, and derivatives; countries would be banned from
enacting capital controls and banks would enjoy significantly less regulatory oversight impose
strict intellectual property legislation that would undermine access to the internet and digital
file-sharing, as well as stymie the product of generic medicines that may violate US patents
lower food safety regulations and flood markets with those products, empowering corporations
to decrease environmental and health safeguards make signatory countries accountable to
international tribunals, giving corporations the ability to demand compensation for any
expected future profits that are hindered by existing national laws. Like NAFTA, which
dismantled the US manufacturing base and led to thousands of job losses, the TPP promotes
offshoring through incentives for corporations, leading to wages being driven
down and heightened inequality. Pharmaceutical giants would be allowed to increase drug
prices and limit consumers’ access to cheaper generic drugs, which is bad news for many of the
developing countries taking part. On the digital front, ISPs could be required to scrutinize user
activity, while the creation and sharing of user-generated content would be stifled by drastic
extensions of copyright protection. In the financial department, the TPP imposes extreme
deregulation policies that have contributed to the global economic crisis, while
prohibiting countries from enacting capital controls, an essential policy tool to counter
destabilizing speculative cash flows. While Chuck Hagel and the gang over at the Pentagon are
busy repositioning US military muscle to the Asia-Pacific, the Obama administration realizes
that it must offer Pacific nations – who would otherwise have greater incentives in deepening
economic ties with China – an attractive stake in the ailing US economy. The countries involved
in the negotiations – Australia, Brunei, Chile, Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru,
Singapore, Vietnam, and now Japan – include major economic players in Southeast Asia. The
TPP is clearly the economic arm of the ‘pivot to Asia’ policy, roping strategic
economies into a legally binding corporate-governance regime, lured in by the
promise of unfettered access to US markets. Many believe that the underlying purpose of
Washington’s renewed interest in the Asia Pacific region is to counter the influence of China,
which will soon overtake the US as the world’s largest economy. Examining the Beijing-aphobia
conjecture of US foreign policy theoreticians like Robert Kagan can provide a clearer
understanding of the TPP.
The TPP puts corporations on a pedestal giving them the ability to ignore key aspects
of society
Stamoulis 13 - Arthur Stamoulis is executive director of Citizens Trade Campaign
citizenstrade.org and a contributor to the CIP Americas Program www.cipamericas.org, (“Seven
Reasons to Fight the TPP”, 04/12/13, http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/9349)//sawyer
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a massive new trade and investment pact being pushed
by the U.S. government at the behest of transnational corporations, threatening the
economy, environment and public health both at home and abroad. The TPP is
currently being negotiated behind closed doors by the United States, Australia, Brunei
Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam —
but it is also specifically intended as a “docking agreement” that other Pacific Rim countries will
join over time, with Japan, the Philippines, Thailand, South Korea and others already expressing
some interest in doing so. Negotiations are scheduled to conclude in October 2013.
International campaigners are fighting hard to prevent the deal from going through. The TPP is
said to contain 29 separate chapters, covering everything from food safety standards to banking
regulations. Here are some of the many reasons activists are fighting the current direction of the
TPP: 1. To stop big rollbacks in wages and working conditions. Many corporations
are looking for ways to reduce labor costs and undercut worker power — not only in
the United States, but in countries like Mexico, China and beyond. The TPP would grant
corporations cheaper and more secure access to labor markets in countries such as Vietnam
where workers are paid just a fraction of what Chinese sweatshop workers are paid. Whether or
not corporations decide to move their production to these lower-paid countries, the threat of
moving there (or of being undercut by competitors who have already done so) can be used to
suppress employee demands for compensation and other benefits virtually
anywhere in the world. 2. To head off attacks on environmental protections. A wide range
of transnational corporations, including those in extractive industries, have pushed for
investment provisions in the TPP that would enable them to challenge virtually any new law,
regulation or even court decision that adversely affects their expectation of profits as an
“indirect expropriation” or “regulatory taking” through international tribunals that circumvent
domestic judicial systems. Similar provisions under past trade pacts have already been used to
weaken portions of the Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection
Act in the United States, as well as the environmental and consumer safety protections of
developing countries throughout the world. The TPP would vastly expand what is
effectively an alternative court for the exclusive use of transnational corporations.
3. To maintain access to affordable medications. The leaked U.S. proposal for an intellectual
property chapter within the TPP would have the effect of extending monopoly drug patents for
big pharmaceutical companies, making it harder for countries to produce or procure
low-cost generic medications for people with HIV, tuberculosis, cancer and other
life-threatening diseases. The TPP threatens to increase healthcare costs in developed
countries, effectively denying access to life-saving medicines for the poor. 4. To avoid further
financial deregulation. Wall Street banks, insurance companies and hedge funds want the
financial services provisions of the Trans-Pacific Partnership to handcuff the steps governments
can take to protect against “too big to fail,” regulate trade in toxic assets, erect firewalls between
different financial service firms and control the flow of short-term capital into and out of
national economies. 5. To prevent new caps on food safety protections. The so-called “life
sciences” corporations that produce pesticides, food additives and genetically-modified
organisms have a history of using trade pacts like the TPP to erect barriers making it harder for
countries to adopt and maintain strong food safety regulations based on the precautionary
principle. Even consumer right-to-know rules requiring product labeling have been attacked
and dismantled. 6. To deter concentration of global food supplies. Big agribusiness middlemen
want the TPP to enable them to “buy low” and “sell high” throughout the Pacific Rim, a practice
that would help concentrate global food supplies in their hands, undercutting family farmers,
forcing new waves of migration away from rural areas and potentially leading to wild
fluctuations in food prices for consumers. 7. To protect local development policies. A range of
corporations want the TPP’s procurement provisions to prevent governments from instituting
public purchasing preferences designed to keep taxpayer funds circulating in and supporting
local economies. They also want to prevent government contracts from being used to advance a
variety of other environmental, social and human rights goals.
The TPP will allow for corporate takeover
Rochon 13 –Nicolas Rochon is a writer for The International, (“In the Dark, the Trans-Pacific
Partnership Advances to the Next Round of Negotiation”, April 18, 2013,
http://www.theinternational.org/articles/399-in-the-dark-the-trans-pacificpartnership)//sawyer
Prior to her arrest, Kilcher argued, “The Trans Pacific Partnership would be devastating for
people around the world and it is being negotiated in complete secrecy to hide the content…
While hundreds of corporate advisors have access to the information contained within these
documents, the American public, the media and even members of Congress do not.”
Three months later, as another private meeting was underway, hundreds of New Zealanders
rallied outside the Sky City Convention Center in downtown Aukland, New Zealand. The crowds
set fires to petition boxes, representing nearly a million signatures worldwide, to demonstrate
their opposition to the TPP agreement. But as the demonstration escalated, protestors were
confronted by an equally impressive police force ready to subdue the scene. Specializing in
international economic regulation, the University of Auckland’s Jane Kelsey proclaimed to
government: “We say to our prime minister, whose theories of democracy are that you should
ignore the people when they are telling you that they don’t want what you are doing in secret in
their names, we say, shame, shame, shame.” Seemingly unaffected by public outcry, the TPP’s
authors – corporate lobbyists and national leaders – continue to work in the dark.
A 21st century ideal? Described on the US Trade Representative’s website, the TPP is
considered to be “an ambitious, next-generation, Asia-Pacific trade agreement that reflects US
economic priorities and values.” The department goes further to say that one of the main
reasons for US involvement is for it to become fully integrated into the Asia-Pacific economic
market. Authors of the TPP highlight five distinct features that they argue make it a “landmark,
21st century trade agreement” set to “boost the competitiveness of TPP countries in the global
economy.” First, the TPP provides comprehensive market access to create opportunities for
employees, employers and consumers by eliminating tariffs and other barriers on goods and
services. Next, the TPP employs a fully regional agreement, so that participating country
members can better development production and supply chains to promote sustainable growth
into the future. It also incorporates four “cross-cutting” trade issues that are designed to
improve trade and investment efficiency to allow for a more cohesive union between TPP
members and their local enterprises. Furthermore, the TPP will work to tackle the new trade
challenges of the modern age, as innovative digital and green technologies become the building
blocks of future economies. Lastly, the TPP will remain as a “living agreement,” allowing for
updates to be made as challenges emerge. Or a corporate coup? Arguing against those in favor
of the TPP, Andrew Marshall cites that of the twenty-six chapters constructing the body of the
agreement, only two chapters actually discuss trade. Instead, the majority of the chapters focus
on intellectual property rights, environmental standards, government procurement and a
deregulation of various international industries. In fact, a letter from the US Congress to US
Trade Representative Ron Kirk affirms that the agreement indeed goes far beyond trade: "[The
TPP] will create binding policies on future Congresses in numerous areas,” like “those related to
labor, patent and copyright, land use, food, agriculture and product standards, natural
resources, the environment, professional licensing, state-owned enterprises and government
procurement policies, as well as financial, health care, energy, telecommunications and other
service sector regulations.” One of the most vocal groups opposed to the TPP, Public Citizen,
leaked internal documents which concluded that the Obama administration "intends to bestow
radical new political powers upon multinational corporations… [with] policies that
environmental activists, financial reform advocates and labor unions have long rejected for
eroding key protections currently in domestic laws.” In reference to transnational corporations,
the TPP would protect multinational corporations from the national laws and regulations of
foreign countries, transcending any rights given to domestic companies or even citizens. In
addition, these transnational corporations could legally sue governments for any loss of
potential profit that stemmed from such laws and regulations. On this point, Marshall writes,
“[L]et’s be clear: for corporations, such regulations and concerns over health, safety and
environmental issues are perceived solely as ‘barriers’ to investment and profit. Thus their
‘government’ would sue the foreign government on behalf of the corporation, on the premise
that such regulations led to potential lost profits, for which the corporation should be
compensated.” Another characteristic of the TPP is its potential stronghold on medicine.
Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), a French secular humanitarian-aid non-governmental
organization, worries over the “evergreening” effect that TPP members are working to
implement. Defined by MSF, ‘“evergreening’ allows pharmaceutical companies to obtain or
extend monopoly protection for old drugs simply by making minor modifications to existing
formulas," even if the modifications do not serve to increase efficacy. Furthermore, negotiators
of the TPP hope to eliminate the ability of third parties to challenge the granting of unjustified
patents of drugs, which many consider as public health safeguards. As written in their “Dangers
for Access to Medicines in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement,” authors Burcu Kiliç and
Peter Maybarduk assert that such “opposition [to unjustified patents] is a safeguard against
patent abuse, improvidently granted patents and unwarranted pharmaceutical monopolies,”
while “[t]he absence of pre-grant opposition would make patent examination less informed and
would be likely to increase… costs associated with the patent opposition system… and lead to
low-quality patents and unjustified drug monopolies…” But the most potentially harmful tool of
the TPP is “the setting up of a three attorney tribunal, with no checks on conflicts of interest, to
judge foreign corporate complaints regarding government regulations in the countries they are
setting up operations in,” as reported by Mark Vorpahl on truth-out.org. The danger posed by
such a corporate tribunal is the potential for offers transnational corporations the ability to
essentially govern themselves in a court of law, except, in this case, the law is themselves.
Speaking with The Real News Network’s Paul Jay, co-director of It’s Our Economy.org, Activist
Kevin Zeese describes the backwardness of such a court: “By individual corporations in a trade
tribunal… Most of the judges will be corporate lawyers on leave from their corporate job, putting
on their robe and being a judge, deciding in favor of the corporation, no doubt, and then going
back to their corporate job.” Besides these possible implications, the TPP would also affect food
staples, internet privacy, the environment, and many other such resources that we appreciate in
today’s world.
TPP and free trade place corporations above human beings
DuRand 13 - Cliff DuRand is a Research Associate at the Center for Global Justice and a
contributor to the CIP Americas Program www.cipamericas.org. He is co-author and co-editor of
Recreating Democracy in a Globalized State, (“Trans-Pacific Partnership: Free Trade vs.
Democracy, 04/12/13, http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/9355)//sawyer
As closed-door negotiations concluded in Singapore on the Trans-Pacific Partnership,
opposition begins to build in many countries. At the urging of the United States, Canada and
Mexico have joined the nine countries in the talks and now Japan has announced it too wants to
be part of this new free trade pact of Pacific rim countries, described by its critics as “NAFTA on
steroids” Going into its 17th round of negotiations, the Obama administration aims to wrap up
an agreement by October, hoping to push ratification through the Senate on a fast- track basis.
Called Trade Promotion Authority, fast track would mean an up or down vote without
amendments or even hearings on the agreement presented to it. It is a profoundly antidemocratic procedure because it shuts down debate. But from start to end, TPP has
been thoroughly anti-democratic. On the first day of the Singapore talks a broad range of civil
society organizations issued an open letter to Congress calling for greater transparency in the
proceedings. The agreement is being hammered out in secret discussions among
trade ministers. Even Senators have been denied a look at its draft provisions.
However, some 600 transnational corporations are in the inner circle. They are writing the rules
for trade in their own interests without any democratic input from the people whose lives will be
profoundly affected. If adopted, TPP will deny citizens their democratic rights to shape public
policies on a host of domestic issues, conceding those decisions to the large corporations. Some
sections have been leaked. They reveal “ an agreement that actually formalizes the
priority of corporate power over government ,” according to Lori Wallach of Public
Citizen’s Global Trade Watch. Only 5 of the 29 chapters have to do with trade. Wallach says the
rest of the draft “include[s] new rights for the big pharmaceutical companies to expand, to raise
medical prices, expand monopoly patents, limits on Internet freedom, penalties for inadvertent
noncommercial copying, sending something to a friend. There are the same rules that promote
off-shoring of jobs that were in NAFTA that are more robust that literally give privileges and
protections if you leave. There is a ban on ‘buy American’ and ‘buy local’ or ‘green’ or sweat-free
procurement. There are limits on domestic financial stability regulations. There are limits on
imported food safety standards and product standards. There are limits on how we can regulate
energy towards a more green future – all of these things are what they call ‘Behind the Borders’
agenda. And the operating clause of TPP is: ‘Each country shall ensure the conformity of its
domestic laws, regulations and administrative procedures with these agreements.’” Global Class
War Free trade is about more than trade. It is about favoring corporations over the
democratic rights of citizens and the sovereignty of nations . As the former DirectorGeneral of the WTO, Renato Ruggiero, said in 1995, “We are no longer writing the rules of
interaction among separate national economies. We are writing the constitution of a single
global economy.”# What is being created is a global governance order in which corporation are
the citizens, not flesh and blood humans like you and me. With free trade, corporations are
making an end run around democracy. TPP is the latest offensive in a global class war .
For nearly 40 years now, since the mid 1970s, corporations have been rolling back the popular
gains of the New Deal era and the 1960s. Democracy has been the target of a class war to restore
the class power of capital. And there has been weak resistance, at best, by the popular classes.
But the stakes have become increasingly clear to more and more. Indeed, on the issue of free
trade, there is now a broad public sentiment against this aspect of the corporate offensive. The
US has become the world advocate of “free trade,” promoting it through trade agreements like
NAFTA and other bi-lateral agreements as well as through global governance institutions it has
sponsored such as IMF, World Bank and WTO. The US has promoted free trade for much the
same reason Great Britain promoted it in the 19th century, viz. the economically strongest
country in the world benefits from free trade. It is the weaker countries that seek tariff
protection for their infant industries, protection from competition with cheaper and higher
quality imports. That protection is what enabled the US to industrialize in the last half of the
19th century. But then when the US became economically strong enough to compete regionally
and eventually globally, it became an advocate of free trade and demanded that others abandon
protectionism. The justification for free trade rests on the theory of comparative advantage. This
is the view that if countries trade free of government impediments, the market will tend to direct
each to export that which they can produce most efficiently and import what can be produced
more efficiently and thus more cheaply elsewhere. The invisible hand of the market will guide
each to specialize in producing what they have a comparative advantage in. Thus a rational
production and trading system will emerge that maximizes efficiency. Free trade agreements
like NAFTA were sold to the US public by appealing to consumer’s interest in having access to
cheaper goods imported from Mexico. What was deliberately soft-pedaled was their interest as
workers in having jobs. Organized labor opposed NAFTA, fearing it would pit US workers in
competition with low wage Mexican workers. Independent presidential candidate Ross Perot
warned of “a giant sucking sound” as jobs would be off-shored to Mexico. But the Clinton
administration said US exports to Mexico would create new jobs. And so, ignoring opposition
from its traditional base in the unions, new Democrat Clinton pushed ratification of NAFTA
through the Senate as his first priority. Perot proved to be correct as US companies shifted
production to low wage Mexico – until even lower wage Chinese workers were brought into
play when China joined WTO. But Clinton was also right as cheaper consumer goods from
abroad filled the shelves of Wal-Mart with bargains welcomed by US workers who found their
wages reduced. Free trade proved to be a mixed blessing. Capital Becomes Global One
important point about free trade that is often overlooked is that it is not only about the free,
frictionless movement of goods and services across borders, unrestricted by tariffs, quotas and
regulations. It assures the free movement of capital, as corporations are freed to
invest abroad. The mobility of investment capital is of utmost importance, with
profound economic consequences and consequences for democracy. Unable to find
sufficiently profitable venues for investment in the overdeveloped US economy, large
corporations have increasingly moved abroad. They sought not just new outlets to
sell their commodities, but low wage workforces that would decrease their
production costs and thus boost their profits. Frequently that would involve locating
different stages of the productive process in different countries so as to take optimal advantage
of local conditions. The assembly lines of US industry were disaggregated and disbursed across
the globe. Global assembly lines emerged. These global production chains have become a
signature feature of contemporary capitalism. Components may be manufactured in Singapore,
transported to China for subassembly and then shipped to Mexico for final assembly before sale
in the United States. Although global assembly lines are geographically dispersed, they
overcome the limitations of the fixed assembly lines of the Fordist era in that they no longer
have to rely on a fixed labor force that can organize itself to effectively claim a share of the
surplus they create. Instead, the global assembly line gives capital the flexibility to seek out the
lowest wage workforce and friendliest business environment available anywhere in the world.
This has been made possible by the development of a global computerized network of instant
communications via satellite. That and the computerization of banking have made money
transfers and the movement of capital both easy and instantaneous. The communications
network also allows the decentralization of technological development and design. Technicians
can work at points distant from the processes of production to which they address themselves.
And the entire process can be coordinated by management located anywhere on the globe. The
limitations of space and time have been overcome by digital communications and cheap energy
for transporting goods to their ultimate consumers. For such globalized production to be
possible, capital must be able to flow freely across national borders and products have to be able
to move with minimum friction across those borders, unhampered by tariffs or quotas or nonuniform standards. In other words, there must be free trade for transnational capital to optimize
accumulation.# But transnational corporations also need legal protection of their investments.
They need protection from expropriation of their assets, laws and governments that can ensure
their property is secure. A crucial part of free trade agreements is protection of what are called
investor rights. This involves more than just protection from expropriation, as happens with
revolutions. It also involves protection from governmental actions that might reduce the value of
their property or potential profits by environmental and health regulations, labor laws or other
such measures even though they might be for the public good. What in US law is called
“regulatory takings” are seen as tantamount to expropriation. When such governmental actions
do occur, free trade treaties give the foreign corporation the recourse to sue. The suit is not
adjudicated in a national court, but by a transnational body of experts operating in secret. States
are expected to enforce its decisions on their own nation’s taxpayers and consumers. This favors
investor rights (i.e. the interests of transnational corporations) over the democratic rights
of a nation.
-
The TPP will empower corporate control – specifically in Mexico
Paley 13 -Dawn Paley is a freelance journalist and independent researcher, (“Tremendous
Pharmaceutical Profits or Totally Protected Plunder, 4/17/13,
http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/9369)//sawyer
What the TPP really means for Latin America Quieter is better. That seems to be the motto
driving the negotiations of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The trade deal was initially called the
P2, and it was a two-way affair between New Zealand and Singapore. Chile and Brunei joined
the negotiations, which were renamed the P4. Then the US joined, and the deal was re-branded
as the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPP). Today, negotiating
countries are splayed across the globe like a constellation only a highly trained astronomer could
recognize. In addition to the first five, the TPP now includes Australia, Malaysia, Peru, and
Vietnam. Canada and Mexico recently joined the talks and Japan is vying to participate in the
negotiations The next round of negotiations will take place in Lima, Peru, and proponents are
pushing for a final agreement by fall. But the language of TPP promoters rings hollow for those
who have tracked the progress of other trade agreements, like NAFTA. “They’re saying that it’s
going to open up opportunities for exporting more Mexican goods to other countries, like to
Asia… That Mexico will become more competitive in other markets,” said Manuel Pérez-Rocha,
associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, and member of the Mexican Action Network
on Free Trade (RMALC). Pérez-Rocha pointed out there’s little concrete evidence that
Mexican exports to Asia will increase as an outcome of the agreement. “Mexico has
actually signed many Free Trade Agreements with other countries, and its
dependency to the US market hasn’t changed a bit,” he told the Americas Program.
Since the US got on board, the TPP has taken shape as a second generation of geographicallydistributed multilateral negotiations after the collapse of the World Trade Organization (WTO)
talks and the Free Trade Area of the Americas proposal. According to the Office of the US Trade
Representative, “This agreement will advance U.S. economic interests with some of the fastestgrowing economies in the world; expand U.S. exports, which are critical to the creation and
retention of jobs in the United States; and serve as a potential platform for economic integration
across the Asia-Pacific region.” During the negotiations, concerns have been raised that the TPP
will limit access to generic medications, impact Internet access, and affect local markets for
textiles, shoes, milk, and grains in negotiating countries. “[The TPP] is a way to isolate
China, it’s a way to do an end run around the WTO and to kind of pursue the US
agenda, which was not getting very far with countries that are willing to
participate… it’s just an expansion of the general free trade architecture that was being
contested to some extent,” said Stuart Trew, trade campaigner with the Council of Canadians.
With the TPP, secrecy is the name of the game. So far, “there’s been no text released, the only
text that’s come out is through leaks,” said Trew. One of the key areas of concern is with the
investment protection segment of the TPP, which was leaked in June 2012 to the US rights
group Public Citizen. The TPP would bring in an augmented version of NAFTA’s controversial
Chapter 11, an investment protection agreement by which companies can sue governments for
imposing health and environmental legislation, among other things, applied across all countries
involved. “The leaked text reveals a two-track legal system, with foreign firms
empowered to skirt domestic courts and laws to directly sue TPP governments in
foreign tribunals,” according to an analysis prepared by Public Citizen. “They can demand
compensation for domestic financial, health, environmental, land use laws and other laws they
claim undermine their new TPP privileges.” The fact that the TPP is being negotiated between
countries that have already signed various Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and multilateral trade
agreements has shifted the nature of the concerns among activists in negotiating countries away
from strictly market based concerns and towards issues of Intellectual Property (IP) and
investment protection. Intellectual Property (IP) represents another area where the US is
pursuing an aggressive agenda in TPP negotiations. “While the TPP has some similarities with
the free trade agreement that Chile signed with the United States in 2004, but from what has
come out through leaks of the negotiating text, the TPP has intellectual property standards that
are much higher than [the US-Chile FTA], which in the Chilean case could imply changes to laws
which protect innovation and internet users,” according to Francisco Javier Vera Hott, project
director of Derechos Digitales, an internet rights group based in Santiago de Chile. “Chile has
commercial agreements with all parties of the TPP, so this agreement doesn’t represent any
economic or employment gains or [changes to] market access, instead it represents losses as we
are required to implement stricter norms with regards to intellectual property, without any
retribution.” IP is similarly a major concern in Peru and in Canada. “In the case of the TPP in
Peru, for example, it’s not just another agreement with countries with which we already have
[Free Trade Agreements], the threats go beyond commercial exchange strictly speaking…
They’re more in the area of deepening institutional reforms in sensitive sectors like intellectual
property,” Alejandra Alayza, executive coordinator of the Peruvian Network for Globalization
with Equity (redGE Perú), told the Americas Program from her office in Lima. “The US
proposal [regarding intellectual property] has been on the table for more than a year and a half,
and regardless of the fact that the other countries have rejected the proposal, the US is insisting
on raising the standards and they haven’t pulled their proposal, at the same time, they’re
seeking to wrap up negotiations in the next few months,” said Alayza. “This shows a clear
intention to press for new intellectual property regulations on behalf of the pharmaceutical
sector, which would strengthen the transnational monopoly of the pharmaceutical companies,
weakening access to medicines and competition of internal markets and generic drugs.”
Pharmaceutical drugs and the IP chapter in the TPP could also have an impact on the
availability of generic drugs of other negotiating countries, including Canada, according to Trew,
who says drug prices in Canada will likely rise if the TPP is passed. “Proposed by U.S.
negotiators, the IP rules enhance patent and data protections for pharmaceutical companies,
dismantle public health safeguards enshrined in international law, and obstruct price-lowering
generic competition for medicines,” reads a statement released last month by Doctors Without
Borders (MSF). The stakes are a little different in Mexico, which has an economy that is much
more dependent on the US than the other Latin American nations involved. If anything, the
TPP will deepen Mexico’s dependence, according to IPS’s Pérez-Rocha. Compared to
Peru, for example, “Mexico is much more dependent on the United States, more dependent to
NAFTA, in general Mexican producers are very concerned that the privileges Mexico has with
the United States will be diluted, that Asian companies will be able to come and assemble in
Mexico and export to the United States, affecting very strongly Mexican producers,” he said,
noting that the Mexican textile and shoemaking sector have shown opposition to
the pact. “For example textiles, they could import from Vietnam, to name a country, and they
wouldn’t pay tariffs on the imports, and then they could produce clothes to export to the United
States from here in Mexico, so basically that’s one of the gravest concerns of the textile
associations.” In addition to the textile and shoemaking sectors, Pérez-Rocha pointed out that
Mexico’s milk, coffee and basic grains sectors could all be negatively impacted through the
passage of the TPP. Canada’s dairy sector could also take a hit if the TPP is passed. “Really its
just another race to the bottom, but no one wants to get left out, no one wants their
economy to be somehow damaged if they’re not part of the negotiations,” said
Trew. Though Alayza said she isn’t expecting mass mobilizations in Peru during TPP
negotiations there, events are being organized in Peru and elsewhere to coincide with the talks.
The TPPxBorder group has started compiling a list of events being organized against the TPP,
beginning with a day of action on May 11th.
The TPP gives corporations domination – specifically the TPP is a death sentence for
Mexico
Nadal 13 -Alejandro Nada is a Mexican economist, professor of economics, and researcher at
the Centro de Estudios Economicos, (“Threat of the Trans-Pacific Agreement”, 04/23/13,
http://xwww.cipamericas.org/archives/9416)//sawyer
This week negotiations begin again in Singapore on the Transpacific agreement, a project hailed
by its promoters as the biggest, most ambitious trade agreement ever. Eleven countries
participate: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, United States, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zeeland,
Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. It’s billed as a tool for growth, employment and
prosperity, but the reality will be quite different. The world economy has seen three
decades of neoliberal trade agreements along with strong financial liberalization, both
domestically and in transborder flows. They have been accompanied by new rules on
intellectual property, government procurement, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, labor
relations and the prohibition of performance requirements on international corporations.
These agreements radically redefine any nation’s development strategy, delivering it into the
hands of transnationals and the “free market”. What has the result been? A semi-stagnant world
economy, high unemployment, rapid environmental deterioration and the worst crisis in 80
years. One might think that with these “achievements” we would have stopped negotiating new
trade agreements. But it’s exactly the opposite. The transnational corporations need to
open up new terrain for making profits, even if it goes against the rules of social
and environmental ethics. And since these transnational corporations have taken
control of the regulatory realm, their servants in government are working
overtime to invent new trade pacts. Mexico agreed to join negotiations on the TPP last
year. By doing so, it accepted two harmful conditions. The first, to renounce any attempt to
reopen negotiations on the terms already agreed on by the countries in the TPP–that is, it
agreed in principle that what was already agreed on should be accepted by any new partner
seeking to join the process. The second is that it cannot request the inclusion of new issues on
the agenda. So Mexico went into negotiations as always: on its knees and giving up
everything before even entering into talks. One might think that with the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) our country already handed over everything and
there isn’t much left to lose. That is partially wrong. Mexico gave up everything to Mexico and
Canada, not to the other eight countries of Asia and Latin America. That’s why the TPP
poses a new threat to Mexico. One of the characteristic traits of the TPP is that a foreign
company can sue the governments when the company feels that its expected earnings have been
affected. This part of the TPP is inspired by Chapter 11 of NAFTA, which poses a particularly
dangerous threat to public health, consumer protection and the environment. In fact, this
instrument was already used by Metalclad in 1996. Now Monsanto could cite Ch. 11 of NAFTA to
force the federal government to completely open the Mexican countryside to its harmful
genetically modified corn. Will the Peña Nieto cabinet dare to reject with a clear NO the
dangerous plans of the transationals or will it agree to play the role of subordinate?
The TPP gives corporations the ability to dominate citizens
Stadius et al 12 - Eric Stadius and Elizabeth Briggs, Research Associates at Council on
Hemispheric Affairs, (“THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP: FREE TRADE AT WHAT
COSTS?”, August 20, 2012, http://www.coha.org/the-trans-pacific-partnership-free-trade-atwhat-costs/)//sawyer
Because the TPP removes the host state of the foreign investors from litigation, investors would
be capable of exploiting loopholes such as Most Favored Nation (MFN) status or utilizing the
broad definition of indirect expropriation to pick advantageous standards and dispute
settlement mechanisms.[22] These investor-to-state negotiations will enable transnational
corporations to reap profits from foreign citizens over policy in the countries where the
corporations operate, even when no international state-to-state disputes exist. Intellectual
Property Chapter[23] The intellectual property chapter appears to carry with it the most
substantive changes to international law to be found in the entire TPP. A leaked text, available
via House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), details a harsh copyright law,
mirroring that of the United States, which has the potential to alter domestic laws throughout
the region. This chapter, driven primarily by the U.S., if adopted in its current state, would enact
the strongest intellectual property protection and enforcement standards in any FTA to date.
The proposed document embraces the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement
(ACTA) and recalls the rejected Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), pushed by the powerful
pharmaceutical and Hollywood-funded lobbying firms in Washington, by altering the ability to
access information and vital resources for developing countries. The primary issues in the
intellectual property chapter surround the extension of copyright, restriction of parallel
importation, the enforcement of new laws, and the ramifications for such products as textbooks
and medicine. The intellectual property chapter best exemplifies the maximalist stance
Washington has taken in these negotiations, which contradicts the development agenda
proposed in more transparent, multilateral agreements such as the 1994 WTO Trade Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS). In terms of copyright, the TPP will
dramatically expand its minimum international standards in scope and length, many of which
do not even reflect settled U.S. law. The treaty proposes to lengthen copyrights on published
works; under the treaty they would expire 70 years after the death of the author or no less than
95 years from the first authorized publication. This would extend the length of copyright in a
significant portion of signatory countries as well as annul the TRIPS standard of 50 years after
death or 50 years after publication. Although this copyright period mirrors U.S. law, the U.S. law
sets 70 years post-mortem as a ceiling, while the TPP denotes this as a minimum length. These
extended laws go against economic rationality, as the government cannot incentivize the
creation of work that already exists under copyright, thus it draws no additional economic
benefits. Rather, the extended laws would cut supply in the creative goods sector, particularly in
developing countries where the public domain plays an increasingly important role in
information dissemination.[24] The intellectual property chapter further enables the patent or
copyright holder to block parallel importation of copyrighted works. Parallel importation is the
practice of importing a legitimate copyrighted good, not an illegal reproduction, at lower prices
than what is available domestically without the permission of the copyright holder.[25] Many of
the smaller TPP countries benefit from this practice because they lack the sufficient population
or demand to attract a low market entry price. For example, with the TPP in effect, a school in
Malaysia or Peru would be forced to purchase textbooks at higher domestic prices rather than
contracting with a buyer who could purchase the textbooks at a lower price in a market such as
the United States and then sell them to the school at the lower price. The restrictions on parallel
imports remain unsettled or unenforced in every TPP signatory nation, including the United
States. The current international laws surrounding this practice, denoted in TRIPS, leave
countries free to adopt their own policies based on their domestic intellectual property
laws.[26]Another area where the proposed TPP text threatens domestic laws and the preexisting international intellectual property framework involves the easing and expansion of
patentability standards. The TRIPS provision only allows for additional patents on a product or
process if the addition has industrial applicability or alters the function of the product.[27] The
TPP, however, would allow additional patents for any new form, use, or method of utilizing an
existing product, even if no applicability or efficiency measure exists.[28] Where this technique,
known as evergreening, is most applicable is within the competing pharmaceutical and generic
medicine industries. As Doctors Without Borders argued, evergreening allows major
pharmaceutical companies to extend monopoly protection by making slight alterations to
existing formulas, delaying the arrival of a more affordable generic version.[29] The first
generation of HIV antiretroviral drugs, in 2000 shortly before the patent expired, cost an
average of $10,000 to $15,000 USD per person per year—far outside the means of an average
person living in a developing country. However, by 2011, the price of a similar generic drug
combination had fallen to merely $60 USD per person annually.[30] Under the current
intellectual property chapter of the TPP, such a devaluation process would take far longer,
keeping these important innovations in health care out of developing countries in exchange for
greater profits for the major pharmaceutical companies. This provision further contradicts
President Obama’s position on refusing to negotiate trade agreements that “prevent developing
country governments from adopting humanitarian licensing policies to improve access to
lifesaving medications.”[31] The final area of concern in the proposed intellectual property
chapter is the enforcement aspect of copyright infringement. The U.S. has proposed a multifaceted scheme for patent violations that allows for prosecution based upon pre-existing or
statutory damages, a provision that appears in U.S. law, but not in that of any other signatory
nation. This part of the TPP proposal takes the ability to punish infringers one step further by
allowing for the prosecution of every infringer, rather than only willful ones.[32] This provision
encourages a rent-seeking behavior on patent filing and deters innovation, both of which could
prevent advances beneficial to social and economic development. Environmental Regulations
and Ramifications Many U.S. environmental groups, in particular the Sierra Club, have
expressed both concerns and hopes over the potential ramifications of the TPP.[33] U.S.
negotiators have allegedly been pushing for stronger environmental regulations in the
agreement, particularly regarding illegal logging, wildlife protection, and overfishing. But many
other aspects of the TPP have the potential to damage the environment due to increased rights
of corporations as well as the sweeping definition of investment. The TPP would likely allow for
increased exports of liquid natural gas with fewer regulations. This would undoubtedly result in
an increase in hydraulic fracturing, a process that results in substantial environmental
degradation, in order to obtain more natural gas. Hydraulic fracking threatens the environment
and human health through water and air contamination, the migration of poisonous gases and
chemicals to the surface, and the mismanagement of hazardous waste.[34] Moreover, the
aforementioned investment chapter stipulates that under the TPP, corporations will have the
ability to sue governments over any piece of legislation or regulation that they perceive as
damaging to their future profits. Many worry that this will allow corporations to challenge
domestic laws protecting the environment. Under the U.S.-Peru FTA, U.S. mining company
Renco was able to sue the Peruvian government for $800 million USD in damages following the
denial of their request for a third extension for their obligated chemical clean up.[35] Under the
TPP, lawsuits such as this one would likely become more common and would be resolved by
foreign tribunals with rotating judges. The TPP may also allow for corporations to challenge
“preferential” labeling because such stringent standards on labels could result in favoritism
towards a certain country’s product, therefore violating the FTA. This provision could result in
more cases like the WTO ruling that forbid the U.S. from labeling tuna fished in a
manner that prevented harm to marine mammals as “dolphin safe,” because it
“unfairly discriminated” against Mexican tuna that was not required to feature
this label.[36] In May 2007, due to concerns that FTAs were opening up the potential for
multinational corporations to damage to the environment, Congress arrived at a bipartisan
consensus that all future trade agreements would include enforceable environmental
chapters.[37] The TPP will undoubtedly include such a chapter. In FTAs with countries that are
participating in the TPP, the U.S. already has shown some commitment to strengthened
environmental standards. For instance, the U.S.-Peru FTA aimed to reduce illegal logging, a
leading cause of deforestation.[38] Although there is the potential to help the environment
through free trade agreements such at the TPP, profits often outweigh environmental concerns.
Case answers
Solvency 1nc
TPP negotiations are likely to collapse because of US leadership
Paramonov, 13 – Dr. Igor M. Paramonov, Southern Alberta Institute of Technology, Calgary (“The Rise of
Asia and North American Economic Integration: A Canadian Perspective” The Business Review,
Cambridge21.1 (Summer 2013): 67-73. Proquest)
Despite obvious benefits and opportunities, the TPP is not a sure thing yet, and unlikely a panacea for all
Canadian problems. Despite a commitment to progress across all areas and consistency in the objectives
of negotiations, the TPP by its nature is "an unbalanced composition" (Ibbitson, 2012). In addition to the
world's largest economy (the U.S.), the TPP includes poor, communist-run Vietnam; small oil-rich
Sultanate of Brunei; two smallish Andean nations of Chile and Peru; two developed economies (Australia
and New Zealand), emerging Malaysia, and rich but small city-state of Singapore in the South Pacific;
and two newcomers from North America - Canada and Mexico. Taking into consideration differences in
size, sources of income, living standards, and political orientations of these nations, it can be difficult for
them to find common ground. The Americans are setting the terms for the deal, and many countries
don't like these terms. Negotiations could be stalled in a limbo-type situation analogous to the
promising but overly-complex deal to complete the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas.
The absence of India, Japan, South Korea, and especially China, which is now at the very center of the
global manufacturing supply chain, makes the TPP incomplete and less attractive for businesses. Iwan
Aziz, head of the Asian Development Bank's regional integration office, concludes that any agreement
that does not include China will lose relevance (as cited in Pilling, 201 1). Most experts have serious
doubts that China will join talks any time soon. Proposed provisions placing limits on state-owned
enterprises make China's presence unlikely. The Chinese local media often portrays the TPP as an
"aggressive" US-led ploy to marginalize China (Ibid, 201 1).
From Canada's perspective, the absence of China is not the only pitfall of the new partnership. There are
other big implications, including pressure on protected industries in Canada to accept more foreign
competition. Americans are trying to take advantage of the TPP talks to push Canada and Mexico toward
giving up their traditional protectionism not just in agriculture, but in government procurement, culture
and financial services. Canada is expected to make concessions on copyright reform and intellectual
property. Copyright reform has taken over 15 years to fulfill and critics argue that new trade demands
sought by powerful U.S. pharmaceutical, technology, and entertainment industries could have
potentially disastrous consequences for Canadians (Brown, 2012).
All of these potential implications could cost Canadian businesses and consumers heavily, while
projected economic benefits look rather modest. Independent authors calculate that membership in the
TPP could increase the size of Canada's economy by US$9.9 billion by 2025 with 0.5% annual growth of
gross domestic product (Petri, Plummer, 2012).
Existing US protectionism will collapse TPP negotiations
Barfield 3/14 – former consultant to the office of the US Trade Representative and a resident scholar
at the American Enterprise Institute (Claude, “Mexican tomatoes and the US TPP negotiations,” 3/14/13,
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/03/14/mexican-tomatoes-and-the-us-tpp-negotiations/)//SJF
This is a huge, complex negotiating agenda — and to achieve its goals, the United States will have to
make concessions to accommodate the equally urgent priorities of its 10 TPP negotiating partners. Thus,
in some cases for the first time ever, the United States will have to tackle its own long-standing
protectionist practices and rules. This means liberalising high tariffs (and low quotas) on textiles, apparel
and footwear. It will also mean loosening market-distorting rules of origin that drastically curtail supply
chains by excluding parts and components from non-TPP members. Then there are the highly restrictive
quotas and tariffs in key agricultural sectors, such as sugar, dairy products and cotton.
On sugar, the United States has adamantly opposed curbing a protectionist regime that uses price
supports, combined with quotas and sky-high tariffs, to keep out competitors and force US consumers
to pay on average twice the world price for the commodity. Similarly, for dairy products, a combination
of subsidies, quotas and tariffs ‘milk’ US consumers and keep out foreign competitors. But cotton is the
real mindblower: currently US taxpayers are shelling out US$147 million per year to buy off Brazilian
cotton magnates who quite rightly won a case against US subsidy programs in the WTO.
With the presidential election out of the way, there was hope that the president’s trade team would
reveal a braver face on trade policy. Alas, in January the administration delivered a backhanded,
protectionist slap to its NAFTA and TPP partner, Mexico. As anyone who has suffered through rock-hard,
unripe Florida winter tomatoes knows full well, the arrival over the past decade of riper, juicier Mexican
winter tomatoes has been a godsend. When the Obama administration signalled last year that it would
go along with Florida tomato growers’ demands for more protection, the thought was that it was
bowing to election pressure. Well, Barack Obama won decisively. But a few weeks ago the government
mandated a steep price rise for Mexican tomatoes and cut the amount of the fruit that could be
imported — one can only assume out of conviction that US producers must be protected no matter the
cost or quality considerations for the consumer.
If this craven attitude and stance prevails in the TPP negotiations, they will surely fail. This would be a
double blow to the US and the world trading systems. First, on most of the 21st-century TPP issues, the
president and his team are spot on — these are the central issues to ensure more open future markets.
Beyond economics, however, TPP failure would be disastrous for US strategic leadership in East Asia
where the regional pact has become the central symbol of the US ‘pivot’ and rebalancing.
In coming months, it will be imperative for President Obama to use his hard-won political capital to
challenge entrenched protectionist interest groups and policies. After all, on his own word a central
element of his legacy is wrapped up in getting the TPP over the finish line. More parochially, during
these grey days of February it would be a boon to enjoy an edible Mexican tomato again.
TPP negotiations are stalling – five issues
Japan Times 7/17/13 (Japanese News, “TPP talks stall over tariff axing,” 7/17/13,
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/07/17/business/tpp-talks-stall-over-tariffaxing/#.UfAiEY21Fsk)//AC
The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations remain stalled over five topics — including the key issue
of market access and tariff elimination, sources said. One market-access proposal under discussion calls for
all parties to agree on the removal of tariffs on all products before moratoriums are set up on the
removal of tariffs for certain products of special concern to TPP participants, they said Tuesday. One of the sources
said it was likely that some of the decisions would be subjected to political decisions in the final phase. The other four problematic
issues are intellectual property rights, environmental problems, labor and electronic commerce, the
sources said. The 11 TPP negotiation participants, including the United States, Australia and Malaysia,
hope to reach broad agreement on the free-trade deal by October and sign the pact by year’s end. But
the stalemate over the five topics and Japan’s imminent participation in the talks are expected to
make it difficult for the negotiating parties to meet the schedule, the sources said. Negotiations have ended on five of
the 29 planned chapters — trade facilitation, standard unification, telecommunications, development, small and medium-size enterprises —
and have effectively been completed on nine others, one of the sources said.
--XT – US influence derails it
US dominance makes the TPP ineffective --- alternative trade regimes without the US
are sufficient to solve
Palit, ’12 – Head (Partnership & Programme) and Visiting Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of
South Asian Studies (Amanda, “TPP may drive BRICS into action”, 10/16/12, National University of
Singapore. http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2012/10/16/tpp-may-drive-brics-into-action/)//SP
Second, the TPP is attempting to create a major trade bloc without some of the biggest emerging
economies. None from the BRICS group — Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa — are part of the
TPP. And while the countries negotiating the TPP are all members of APEC, some major APEC economies
— in particular the Chinese mainland, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Indonesia, Russia and Thailand — are not
included in the negotiations.
China’s exclusion is strange given its huge economic presence in the Asia Pacific. This has given rise to
views that the US is driving the TPP with the strategic objective of marginalising China.
Another concern with the TPP is its impact on Asian integration. Various models of economic integration
are being pursued in Asia. For example, APEC is pursuing a Free Trade Area for the Asia Pacific, the East
Asia Summit is developing a Comprehensive Economic Partnership for East Asia, and ASEAN, China,
Japan and the ROK are pursuing the East Asia Free Trade Area (EAFTA). All these efforts will be
hampered by the advent of the TPP, which will add a strong ‘non-Asian’ flavour to economic integration
efforts in Asia and force Asian economies to develop different strategies for regional integration.
The complications created by the TPP are becoming visible in Asia. Japan and the ROK, while expressing
interest in the TPP, are also negotiating the EAFTA. The dilemma of choosing between the TPP and other
Asian trade frameworks will affect more Asian economies.
Emerging markets like China, Brazil and India will find it difficult to join the TPP, given its rigid rules and
the US dominance. But to ensure that the TPP does not divert global trade from them, they will need to
act together. The best thing for them to do would be to expedite BRICS’ development so that it can
provide an alternative trade framework to the TPP by creating rules that emerging market industries
find easier to implement and follow. A strong BRICS structure will also strategically balance global trade,
which could otherwise be dominated by the TPP.
--XT – Negotiations dead
TPP negotiations stalling – medical patent protection
BSB 7/23/13 - BioSpectrum Bureau (News about Biology, “Trans-Pacific trade talks reach stalemate over
IP rights,” 7/23/13, http://www.biospectrumasia.com/biospectrum/news/192040/trans-pacific-tradetalks-reach-stalemate-ip-rights/page/1#.UfApVY21Fsk)//AC
Singapore: What started as an effort to lower trade barriers across 12 Pacific Rim nations, from the US and Canada to
Vietnam and Chile, the Trans Pacific Partnership negotiations has brought together various drug companies
and development groups. However, the ongoing trade talks in Malaysia have reached a stalemate as drug
development groups and companies have got into a clash over intellectual property provisions. While
the US has been pushing for expansion of patent protection, there has been loud resistance against this
from emerging economies that fear losing access to affordable medicines. The issue came about as the biggest
sticking points at the 18th round of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations that started on July 15 will go on till July 24. Although
the main initiative was to reach an agreement by the end of the year, the issue of patent protection
for pharmaceuticals is proving to be a big roadblock . Releasing an open letter to TPP countries, international charity
organization Doctors without Borders has expressed serious concern about what could emerge in a deal. "It threatens to restrict
access to affordable medicines for millions of people, especially in low and middle-income countries.
Unless certain damaging provisions are removed, the TPP has the potential to become the most harmful
pact ever for access to medicines," the group said. They further added that the other issue of worry was that
the deal could become a ‘global standard with worldwide damaging repercussions.' PhRMA, that represents
large global pharma companies in Washington on the other hand countered this strongly. "Strong intellectual property
protections in the TPP to bolster biopharmaceutical innovation will help ensure that unmet patient
needs are addressed," the group said. The group explained that they wanted the US to use TPP negotiations to bring IP standards up to
American levels, including at least 12 years of protection for biologies. It argues that intellectual property protections are
not a barrier to access, when compared with the much bigger problem of scarce infrastructure in
doctors and hospitals. It also says strong patent protections offer an ‘incentive' for investments in areas
such as drug delivery systems suited to conditions of high humidity and temperatures. Only two years back, the
US tried to bridge the gap in the pharmaceutical debate with a plan that sought to establish a ‘TPP access window', which would give greater
legal certainty for generic manufacturers, and reduce customs obstacles and duties on medicines. But other TPP countries rebuffed the plan,
with the poorest such as Vietnam seen to be most adversely affected.
The TPP fails – currency clause
Solis 13 - Mireya Solís is the Philip Knight Chair in Japan Studies and senior fellow at the
Brookings Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies, and associate professor at American
University. An expert in Japan’s foreign economic policies, Dr. Solís earned a PhD in
government and an MA in East Asian Studies from Harvard University, and a BA in
international relations from El Colegio de México. Her main research interests include Japanese
politics, political economy, and foreign policy; international and comparative political economy;
international relations; and government-business relations. She also has interests in broader
issues in U.S.-Japan relations and East Asian multilateralism, (“A Currency Clause in the TransPacific Partnership is Unworkable, Unsuitable, and Counterproductive”, July 8, 2013,
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/07/08-tpp-currency-clause-solis)//sawyer
Curiously, the repeated calls for including a currency clause in the TPP fail to tell us the most
important thing: what kind of clause? What behavior is to be proscribed? Who will be in charge
of monitoring for transgressions? What types of sanctions would constitute a fair remedy? The
silence of pundits on these crucial matters reflects the lack of consensus on what constitutes
systematic currency manipulation. When countries maintain fixed exchange rates below their
market value, impose extensive controls on capital inflows, and directly intervene in the market
to defend a target exchange rate, it is easier to sustain charges of currency manipulation. But
beyond these textbook cases we enter a wide grey area. Take the argument that the
buildup of excessive foreign exchange reserves constitutes currency manipulation. Where do we
draw the line on what constitutes excessive, and how can we determine that the objective is to
obtain unfair competitive advantage and not the accomplishment of legitimate policy goals?
Many Asian countries concluded from the havoc wrought by the Asian Financial Crisis that they
needed to boost their forex reserves as an insurance mechanism. And many oil producing
countries have channeled their foreign reserves into sovereign investment funds to diversify
their economic portfolio. Recently, Japan has been accused of unfairly cheapening the yen
through its quantitative easing program, but the actions of the Bank of Japan mimic what the
Fed has done to combat the post 2008-recession. The important lesson here is that currency
manipulation is largely in the eyes of the beholder. Critics read into these policies an attempt at
competitive devaluation, while proponents note their merit in terms of prudential financial
management, economic diversification, and deflation abatement. Until we have a widelyaccepted definition of what constitutes currency manipulation, we don’t know what behavior to
outlaw in a trade agreement. Unsuitable The TPP is not the right platform to embark on the
quest for definitional clarity. Currency misalignment is a global issue, one that falls
largely outside the purview of this 12 member grouping. The country that generates the
most concern in the United States for currency intervention―China―is not participating in the
TPP, and among current members only two (Malaysia and Singapore) are on the list of
manipulators that according to a recent Peterson Institute study (using the foreign reserve
criteria) merit a U.S. response. The problem is not that the TPP net will catch few currency
manipulators, but rather the folly of attempting to legislate in a trade agreement rules on crucial
international financial matters such as currency intervention, without developing first within
the IMF a set of specific guidelines on proscribed behavior. The risk of incompatible rules is not
minor, if we keep in mind the recent worry that provisions on FTAs may disallow prudential
capital controls that the IMF now deems can be useful to maintain global financial stability. In
the rush to avail themselves of the trade sanction mechanism, proponents of a currency clause in
the TPP have not learnt this lesson and they insist on putting the cart ahead of the horse. These
advocates should also be careful about what they wish for. The United States may introduce the
issue of currency manipulation to the TPP talks, but the final clause will be a negotiated
outcome reflecting the views of the other parties to the agreement. And some of the ad hoc
arguments made these days by pundits―that the Bank of Japan’s quantitative easing program
counts as currency manipulation, but not the actions by the Fed―will certainly not fly in the TPP
deliberations. Trade penalties are a double-edged sword: while the United States may go after
currency manipulators (and again we don’t know what actions would count as unfair
intervention, what the trigger points would be), its own actions will also be subject to legal
challenge if target nations challenge the evidence that the United States uses in building its
currency manipulation case. Counterproductive A currency clause in the TPP can do much
harm and little good. For starters, it will introduce a very divisive issue on already heated
negotiations that are now reaching a delicate final stage. The deadline for completing the
agreement has been postponed before, and by overloading the negotiation agenda we risk
negotiation drift. Moreover, it can dim the possibilities of constructing an Asia-Pacific wide
platform of high level economic integration. If a currency clause discourages China from joining
the TPP in the future, it will be a major lost opportunity as many of the disciplines on
intellectual property protection and state-owned enterprises, to name a few examples, could
provide impetus for the reform of Chinese trading practices. While the costs are high, the
benefits are in question. Currency realignment is not a magic pill to eliminate trade deficits. As
several economists have pointed out, shifts in the value of the Chinese yuan have had a marginal
effect in the American trade deficit with China. Nor did the sizable depreciation of the dollar visà-vis the yen during the 2000s had any impact in reducing the bilateral trade deficit. This point
is important because the auto caucus has used the argument of currency manipulation to oppose
Japan’s admission to the TPP. The impact of said clause in the auto trade balance will be modest
given that the majority of Japanese brand cars sold in the American market are manufactured
on U.S. soil. Even before Japan sits at the TPP negotiation table, American trade negotiators
have substantially advanced the offensive and defensive interests of the Big Three car
companies. The Japanese government has agreed to negotiate on non-tariff measures that
hinder market access for foreign brands (such as emission standards and preferential tax
schemes) and to accept a long phase out of American auto tariffs, a snap back mechanism to
reimpose higher duties if disputes arise, and a special safeguard to prevent sudden surges in
American imports of Japanese cars. The U.S. auto industry has been well served by the nation’s
trade negotiators. It is now time to contemplate how their demand for a currency manipulation
clause will be a disservice to American objectives in the TPP.
Inherency
High-Level Economic Dialogue now and TPP coordination occuring
Meacham and Graybeal 5/9 – *director of the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, **program coordinator with the Americas Program at CSIS, provided research
assistance (Carl, Michael, “President Obama’s Trip to Mexico and Costa Rica: What was the Outcome?”,
5/9/13, http://csis.org/publication/president-obamas-trip-mexico-and-costa-rica-what-wasoutcome)//SJF
Q1: How did President Obama’s stop in Mexico highlight the growing importance of a broad U.S.-Mexico
relationship?
A1: The president’s bilateral meeting with the Mexican government and speech to Mexican students
highlighted the important role that Mexico plays in the U.S. economy, with Mexico the second largest
importer of U.S. goods after Canada. One of the chief outcomes of the meetings was the creation of the
high-level economic dialogue. The first meeting will likely take place this fall with cabinet-level
participation from both governments, including Vice President Biden.
As Ricardo Zuñiga, President Obama’s chief adviser on the region, stated at a recent CSIS discussion, the
connections between the U.S. and Mexican economies, and size of bilateral trade, means that dozens of
U.S. agencies are involved in various capacities. There are numerous opportunities to streamline the
activities of both governments and make regional trade more efficient. At the same time, the dialogue
will help both countries better coordinate positions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations.
The trip’s outcome shows that the United States increasingly sees Mexico as one of its most important
economic partners globally, not just in the Americas.
AT: Economy advantage
TPP won’t boost the economy – it just replicates the economic inequality of NAFTA
Pérez-Rocha and Trew 12 – *helps to coordinate the Networking for Justice on Global Investment
project, as part of the IPS Global Economy Project, **Trade campaigner for the Council of Canadians
(Manu, Stuart, “Don't Expand NAFTA,” 7/26/12, http://www.ipsdc.org/articles/dont_expand_nafta)//SJF
The United States recently announced that Canada and Mexico will join negotiations for the TransPacific Partnership (TPP)—a secretive U.S.-led multinational trade and investment agreement currently
being negotiated with eight other countries in the Pacific Rim region.
On the other side of the Pacific, Japanese legislators are defecting in droves to try to stop the country’s
entry into the negotiations. But the situation is much different in Canada and Mexico, which were
admitted to the table with much fanfare during the G20 summit in June. The Japanese response is
justifiable, and a recent statement of solidarity against the TPP by North American unions offers a good
building block for resisting an agreement that for Mexicans and Canadians amounts to a neoliberal
expansion of NAFTA on U.S. President Barack Obama’s terms.
Mexico and Canada had been trying to secure a spot at the TPP table for months prior to the G20, and it
became a leading story in both countries. Their anxiety played nicely into Obama’s hands, allowing the
U.S. trade representative to put humiliating entry conditions on both countries — essentially giving
these NAFTA neighbors a second-rate status, or what in Spanish is called convidados de palo (to be
invited but without a say). Neither Canada nor Mexico will be able to see any TPP text until they finally
join the negotiations in December, following the required 90-day U.S. congressional approval process.
Once at the table, they will not be able to make any changes to the finished text or propose any new
text in the finished chapters. There is a very real possibility that the existing TPP countries, the United
States in particular, will use the following months to fashion a trap for the TPP latecomers.
North American Labor Solidarity
While most media outlets welcomed the NAFTA partners to the TPP table, national labor federations
from the United States, Mexico, and Canada were cautious for very good reasons, and it wasn’t just the
obviously imbalanced negotiating dynamic. On July 11, the AFL-CIO, the Canadian Labour Congress, and
the National Union of Workers (UNT) of Mexico outlined some of those reasons in an important
statement of solidarity, which included a vision of what they believe a 21st-centry trade agreement
should look like.
The labor unions state that although they “would welcome a TPP that creates good jobs, strengthens
protection for fundamental labor rights—such as freedom of association and authentic collective
bargaining—protects the environment, and boosts global economic growth and development for all,
American, Canadian, and Mexican workers cannot afford another corporate-directed trade agreement.”
The joint statement explains that to have any positive effect on the region, “the TPP must break from
NAFTA, which imposed a destructive economic model that expands the rights and privileges of
multinational corporations at the expense of working families, communities, and the environment.”
The unions conclude that if “the TPP follows the neoliberal model and substitutes corporate interests for
national interests, workers in all three countries will continue to pay a high price in the form of
suppressed wages, a more difficult organizing environment, and general regulatory erosion, even as
large corporations will continue to benefit.” Unfortunately, by all accounts, including leaked TPP
chapters andstatements from the U.S. trade representative, this is exactly what the Obama
administration hopes to achieve through these negotiations.
Expanding Investor Rights
Instead of breaking with NAFTA, the TPP expands it in almost every chapter, from intellectual property
rights to “regulatory coherence,” and from rules for increased “competition” in state-owned enterprises
to opening government purchases to foreign bidders.
Particularly worrying to Canadians and Mexicans, and not mentioned in the joint statement from North
American unions, are the extreme investors’ rights foreseen in the TPP. Under NAFTA, Mexico and
Canada continue to be pummelled by investor-state lawsuits from U.S. and Canadian companies, or
international firms using their U.S. registration to challenge government measures that can be shown to
interfere with profits, even if that interference is not intended. These investment disputes, launched
under NAFTA’s Chapter 11 protections, have resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in fines or
settlements to be paid out from public funds. Two recent cases against Mexico and Canada help
describe the problem.
In 2009, two separate NAFTA investment panels established through the International Center for
Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) ruled in favour of U.S. companies Cargill and Corn Products
International in their nearly identical cases against a Mexican tax on drinks containing high fructose corn
syrup (HFCS), a sugar alternative. The tax was a means of levelling the playing field for Mexican cane
sugar producers, who were having no luck accessing the U.S. market on equal terms to U.S. sugar
producers despite NAFTA’s promises of open borders.
Cargill and CPI argued in part that the Mexican tax made soft drinks sweetened with HFCS less
competitive on the Mexican market, depriving them of their national treatment rights in NAFTA. The
ICSID panels did not agree that the HFCS tax amounted to a form of regulatory expropriation or
performance requirement as the firms had also argued, but did agree on the national treatment claim.
Cargill was awarded more than $77 million and CPI more than $58 million in damages. In the CPI case,
the ICSID panel deprived Mexico of any countermeasures to defend against a one-way inflow of cheap
sugar supplements from the United States.
Canada also just lost an important investor-state dispute with Exxon Mobil, which could cost the
Canadian government as much as $65 million. At issue were measures requiring offshore oil and gas
producers in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador to turn over a portion of their profits to
research and development or education and training programs. A NAFTA investment panel ruled in
favor of the company, which claimed that the measures were an illegal performance requirement on the
firm. Three Canadian courts had previously upheld the legality of the measures, and the Canadian
government had excluded the legislation enforcing the measures from national treatment and other
investment protections in NAFTA, making the investment panel ruling extremely perplexing. The
frustration is worsened by the fact that Exxon Mobil was the richest company in the world in 2011.
Under NAFTA and the TPP, investors have rights but no enforceable responsibilities to the countries in
which they are operating.
These are just two local cases amid a myriad of investor lawsuits against countries all over the world.
Though the Obama administration recently released a new model Bilateral Investment Treaty, it is
almost identical to NAFTA, with only modest safeguards for regulation in the public interest —
safeguards that closed-door tribunals are under little obligation to take into account. In fact, the trend
globally is for these secret tribunals to rule expansively in the interest of corporations, perhaps as a
means of perpetuating the system by making it more attractive to investors. There is simply no
justification for reproducing the investor-state dispute regime in the TPP. In fact, NAFTA should be
renegotiated to remove investor-state dispute settlement from Chapter 11.
This outcome—removing extreme investment protections from the TPP—is not out of the question. In
June of this year, before a negotiating round in San Diego, California, 130 state legislators from all 50
states and Puerto Rico signed a letter to President Obama’s senior trade official warning that they will
oppose the deal unless the administration alters its current approach. In the letter they say that “Our
experience with NAFTA and other trade deals shows that investor-state dispute settlement is used by
large corporations to undermine state and federal laws they don’t like – laws that are fully
constitutional, that do not discriminate, and that are needed to protect public health and safety.”
There is also the question of Australia, the one TPP partner refusing to abide by these investment rules.
In April 2011, the Australian government released a new trade policy that discontinues the inclusion of
investor-state dispute settlement in bilateral or regional trade agreements. Despite their second-rate
status at the TPP table, Canada and Mexico could eventually help the United States put pressure on
Australia and others who doubt the value of these extreme corporate rights. But public pressure might
prove strong enough to foil these efforts, as it did when the Multilateral Agreement on Investment was
ditched in 1999, followed by the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) in 2005.
A New FTAA, A New Struggle
With Canada and Mexico joining the TPP, the agreement is looking more and more like a substitute for
the FTAA. So it is not surprising that opposition to the TPP is growing as quickly as it did against that
former attempt to expand the neoliberal model throughout the Western hemisphere.
The intense secrecy of the TPP negotiations is not helping the Obama administration make its case. In
their statement, North American unions “call on our governments to work with us to include in the TPP
provisions to ensure strong worker protections, a healthy environment, safe food and products, and the
ability to regulate financial and other markets to avoid future global economic crises.” But the truth is
that only big business is partaking in consultations, with 600 lobbyists having exclusive passwords to
online versions of the negotiating text.
A majority of Democratic representatives (132 out of 191) have expressed that they are “troubled that
important policy decisions are being made without full input from Congress.” They have written to U.S.
Trade Representative Ron Kirk to urge him and his staff to “engage in broader and deeper consultations
with members of the full range of committees of Congress whose jurisdiction touches on the wideranging issues involved, and to ensure there is ample opportunity for Congress to have input on critical
policies that will have broad ramifications for years to come.” In their letter, the representatives also
challenge “the lack of transparency of the treaty negotiation process, and the failure of negotiators to
meaningfully consult with states on the far-reaching impact of trade agreements on state and local laws,
even when binding on our states, is of grave concern to us.” U.S. Senators, for their part,have also sent a
letter complaining of the lack of congressional access to the negotiations. What openness and
transparency can we in Canada and Mexico expect when the decision to join the TPP, under humiliating
conditions, was made without any public consultation?
NAFTA turns 20 years old in 2014. Instead of expanding it through the TPP we must learn from NAFTA’s
shortcomings, starting with the historic lack of consultation with unions and producers in the three
member countries. It is necessary to correct the imbalances in NAFTA, which as the North American
union statement explains enhanced corporate power at the expense of workers and the environment. In
particular, we need to categorically reject the investor-state dispute settlement process that has proven
so costly, in real terms and with respect to our democratic options in Canada and Mexico. The unions’
statement of solidarity provides a strong foundation for the growing trinational opposition to the TPP in
Leesburg, Virginia, and beyond.
No impact to debt – empirically proven, assumes all their warrants and specifically
indicts their authors
Krugman 12 - Professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University (Paul, “Nobody
Understands Debt,” New York Times, Jan 1 2012,
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html ) //JG
In 2011, as in 2010, America was in a technical recovery but continued to suffer from disastrously high
unemployment. And through most of 2011, as in 2010, almost all the conversation in Washington was
about something else: the allegedly urgent issue of reducing the budget deficit. This misplaced focus
said a lot about our political culture, in particular about how disconnected Congress is from the suffering
of ordinary Americans. But it also revealed something else: when people in D.C. talk about deficits and
debt, by and large they have no idea what they’re talking about — and the people who talk the most
understand the least. Perhaps most obviously, the economic “experts” on whom much of Congress relies
have been repeatedly, utterly wrong about the short-run effects of budget deficits. People who get their
economic analysis from the likes of the Heritage Foundation have been waiting ever since President
Obama took office for budget deficits to send interest rates soaring. Any day now! And while they’ve
been waiting, those rates have dropped to historical lows. You might think that this would make
politicians question their choice of experts — that is, you might think that if you didn’t know anything
about our postmodern, fact-free politics. But Washington isn’t just confused about the short run; it’s
also confused about the long run. For while debt can be a problem, the way our politicians and pundits
think about debt is all wrong, and exaggerates the problem’s size. Deficit-worriers portray a future in
which we’re impoverished by the need to pay back money we’ve been borrowing. They see America as
being like a family that took out too large a mortgage, and will have a hard time making the monthly
payments. This is, however, a really bad analogy in at least two ways. First, families have to pay back
their debt. Governments don’t — all they need to do is ensure that debt grows more slowly than their
tax base. The debt from World War II was never repaid; it just became increasingly irrelevant as the U.S.
economy grew, and with it the income subject to taxation. Second — and this is the point almost nobody
seems to get — an over-borrowed family owes money to someone else; U.S. debt is, to a large extent,
money we owe to ourselves. This was clearly true of the debt incurred to win World War II. Taxpayers
were on the hook for a debt that was significantly bigger, as a percentage of G.D.P., than debt today; but
that debt was also owned by taxpayers, such as all the people who bought savings bonds. So the debt
didn’t make postwar America poorer. In particular, the debt didn’t prevent the postwar generation from
experiencing the biggest rise in incomes and living standards in our nation’s history. But isn’t this time
different? Not as much as you think. It’s true that foreigners now hold large claims on the United States,
including a fair amount of government debt. But every dollar’s worth of foreign claims on America is
matched by 89 cents’ worth of U.S. claims on foreigners. And because foreigners tend to put their U.S.
investments into safe, low-yield assets, America actually earns more from its assets abroad than it pays
to foreign investors. If your image is of a nation that’s already deep in hock to the Chinese, you’ve
been misinformed . Nor are we heading rapidly in that direction. Now, the fact that federal debt isn’t at
all like a mortgage on America’s future doesn’t mean that the debt is harmless. Taxes must be levied to
pay the interest, and you don’t have to be a right-wing ideologue to concede that taxes impose some
cost on the economy, if nothing else by causing a diversion of resources away from productive activities
into tax avoidance and evasion. But these costs are a lot less dramatic than the analogy with an
overindebted family might suggest. And that’s why nations with stable, responsible governments — that
is, governments that are willing to impose modestly higher taxes when the situation warrants it — have
historically been able to live with much higher levels of debt than today’s conventional wisdom would
lead you to believe. Britain, in particular, has had debt exceeding 100 percent of G.D.P. for 81 of the last
170 years. When Keynes was writing about the need to spend your way out of a depression, Britain was
deeper in debt than any advanced nation today, with the exception of Japan. Of course, America, with
its rabidly antitax conservative movement, may not have a government that is responsible in this sense.
But in that case the fault lies not in our debt, but in ourselves. So yes, debt matters. But right now, other
things matter more. We need more, not less, government spending to get us out of our unemployment
trap. And the wrongheaded, ill-informed obsession with debt is standing in the way.
--A2: China Debt Scenario
Nope
Rapoza 13 – Contributor for Forbes (Kenneth, “Is China's Ownership Of U.S. Debt A National Security
Threat?,” Forbes, January 23 2013, http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2013/01/23/is-chinasownership-of-u-s-debt-a-national-security-threat/ ) //JG
Is China‘s ownership of nearly $1 trillion in U.S. Treasury debt a threat to our national security? I’ll start
with the short answer in case you want to go on to LOL Catz…no, it is not a threat. Such is the
assessment of the U.S. China Business Council (USBC), a lobby for U.S. multinationals doing business in
China. Oh, you jest, you might say. What do you expect a pro-China lobby to say? Consider this, the U.S.
has around $16 trillion in outstanding debt and most of it is held by us, and the bulge bracket banks here
at home: Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citibank, Bank of America. Around 7.5 percent is held by China, the
biggest foreign holder of U.S. debt. One of the reasons why China has so much Treasury holdings is
because of trade. Companies put money in short term Treasury notes and bills to settle trade payments.
China’s government could also call all of its own holdings and demand full payment of the money it lent
us in principal plus interest, but under what circumstance would they do such a thing? It would be a
national security risk if China held a position where they could dictate U.S. policy on fiscal and monetary
matters. They cannot. If the economy was crashing and China got terrified and wanted their money
back, unless the U.S. defaulted, it would hand it over and there would be nothing China would get in
return. Moreover, when the U.S. economy was collapsing in 2008 all the way to the 666 low on March 6
in the S&P 500, China never retreated from Treasurys, or demand Congress get its finances in order or
else it would choose to buy euros, or gold instead. The Pentagon did an evaluation on the risks posed by
China’s ownership of U.S. debt in July and came to the same conclusion: “Attempting to use U.S.
Treasury securities as a coercive tool would have limited effect and likely would do more harm to China
than to the United States.” The report was sent to congressional committees by Defense Secretary Leon
Panetta, who called China’s ownership of U.S. debt non-problematic and non-threatening. The USBC’s
take is that China wants its holdings of Treasury debt to gain value, not lose value. And just because
interest rates are going down, that doesn’t mean China is losing value on those holdings. Lower interest
rates might be bad for income generation, but they mean more demand for bonds, which means higher
bond prices. China wants the U.S. economy to prosper because that means China will be able to
continue exporting here. As it is, exports from China to the European Union are all down. Exports to the
U.S. are up. China is not in a position to threaten the U.S. with financial “terrorism” of any kind. A
decision by China to sell off massive positions of U.S. debt would send the American economy into a
downward spiral, harming not only the value of China’s investments, but also China’s export-driven
economy. The bigger issue for the U.S., says John Frisbie, director of the USBC in Washington is the size
of our fiscal deficit and the long term implications for the economy, not the level of China’s debt
holdings. USBC’s leadership unveiled their trade agenda for Congress on Tuesday in a report available on
their website. “The US-China relationship is fast becoming the most important bilateral relationship for
both countries, if it isn’t already,” Frisbie said in a statement on Wednesday. “Its importance is only
going to grow. We need to expand our engagement. Importantly, we need to get smarter about China.”
Congressmen Charles Boustany (R-LA) and Rick Larsen (D-WA), co-chairs of the Congressional US-China
Working Group, each gave brief remarks. “There is much to be gained in both economic and strategic
terms if we get the relationship right, but economic and strategic difficulties lie ahead if we do not,”
Larsen said.
China won’t dump US debt – would hurt them more than us
USCBC 13 – US China Business Council (“Is China's Ownership of US Debt a National Security Risk?,” US
China Business Council, 2013, https://www.uschina.org/info/trade-agenda/2013/debt-ownership.html )
//JG
If you believe what you hear from political campaigns, China's government owns so much of the United
States' government debt that it has leverage over us—and is waiting for the right moment to sell it and
undermine the US economy. Relax . China doesn't own as much of our debt as you might think. To the
extent that it does, the problem is China's, not ours. The bigger issue for America is the size of our fiscal
deficit and its long term implications for our economy, not the level of China's debt holdings. Consider
the facts: as of September 2012, the United States had over $16 trillion in debt—that is, how much the
United States owes to creditors for overspending in budgets over the years. US government debt is
financed in a variety of ways, including through the sale of Treasury bills, notes and bonds, US savings
bonds, and other government-backed securities. All of these are essentially promissory notes with predetermined payment due dates. Who buys these promissory notes? A wide variety of people and
entities. About two-thirds of US debt is owned by Americans—local and state governments, institutional
investors like banks and mutual funds, and individual investors. The remaining debt—about one third—
is owned by foreign governments and investors. China is the largest foreign debt holder, with about 21
percent of the foreign-owned debt. However, this amounts to only about 7.2 percent of total US debt,
worth around $1 trillion. What does all of this mean? Most importantly, it means the United States has a
large fiscal deficit that continues to contribute to our debt. This is an issue that affects the US economy
in a variety of ways, few of them positively, and it is something that we as a nation must address.
Beyond that, it also means that China is a stakeholder in the economic success of the United States. Like
any investor, China wants its assets to gain value, not lose it. In other words, it wants the US economy to
get stronger and continue to prosper, because that means China will be guaranteed a good return on its
investments here. A decision by China to sell off its shares of US debt would do just the opposite: send
the American economy into a downward spiral, harming not only the value of China's investments, but
also China's sales of products to the United States as the economy faltered. The Pentagon did its own
evaluation of the risks posed by China's ownership of US debt and came to the same conclusion:
"Attempting to use US Treasury securities as a coercive tool would have limited effect and likely would
do more harm to China than to the United States ." Ultimately, China has become proof of an old
adage: When you owe your bank thousands of dollars, it's your problem, but when you owe your bank
millions of dollars, it's your bank's problem. We owe China around $1 trillion dollars, so until we come to
terms with balancing the US budget and paying down our debt, China will continue to have a vested
interest in America's prosperity.
AT: Trade advantage
The bicycle theory of trade protectionism is empirically false
Alden 13 - Bernard L. Schwartz senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and was project
director for the CFR Independent Task Force on U.S. Trade and Investment Policy (Edward, “Opportunity
Knocks for Obama on Trade,” World Politics Review, January 8, 2013,
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/12604/opportunity-knocks-for-obama-on-trade)//AC
That 2013 should matter so much in trade policy is rather surprising. What
has come to be known as the “bicycle theory” of
trade liberalization holds that if countries are not moving forward to lower trade barriers, they will tip
over into protectionism. If so, the past decade should have produced at least some painful bruises. The
collapse of the WTO’s Doha Round of negotiations, which are effectively dead if not formally buried, was
the first failed round of world trade talks since the creation of the post-World War II trading system. The
global financial crisis of 2008 and the recession that followed produced the first steep decline in world
trade since the Great Depression. Yet rather than falling down, the United States and other countries
have managed to swerve and keep going.
Success in the TPP will collapse Doha and destroy multilateral trade
Bhagwati 13 – American economist and professor of economics and law at Columbia University
(Jagdish, “Why the TPP is undermining the Doha Round”, East Asia Forum, 1/14/2013,
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/01/14/why-the-tpp-is-undermining-the-doha-round/)//JL
Under regional FTAs like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), far fewer countries are involved compared
to multilateral trade negotiations like the Doha Round. The potential trade-offs in negotiations are more manageable and
participant states may be more likely to make offers and examine concessions. But apart from this possible advantage, the TPP process
has many downsides, and is undermining successful multilateral free trade. Stronger countries often
‘divert’ trade from cheaper non-member sources to more expensive member sources, bringing harm
rather than good. Also, the enormous growth of such FTAs, now more than 350 and still growing, has led
to a systemic effect: creating a ‘spaghetti bowl’ of preferences and chaos in the world trading system …
The American doctrine of inducing multilateral trade liberalisation by signing on FTAs has proven to be a chimera’. For example, to liberalise
agricultural trade, both production subsidies and export subsidies need to be eliminated. The Hong Kong Declaration in 2005 set out an
agreement to abolish export subsidies. But to get rid of production subsidies a multilateral agreement (through the Doha Round), and not a
bilateral one, is absolutely critical. This is because unlike with export subsidies, it is technically impossible to reduce or relax a production
subsidy so that it applies bilaterally to only one country. Under a regional agreement like the TPP, this problem is only slightly reduced, because
there are still not enough countries to effectively reduce production subsidies. The Republicans in Congress are now fiercely committed to
protecting US agriculture. Their continued control of the US House of Representatives will make it more difficult to reach an agricultural deal
under the TPP. US business lobbies also have little interest in liberalising agriculture — they want concessions in manufacturing and services.
Although it is not yet clear whether these can be achieved either, they certainly cannot be done with Doha. Many aspects of the TPP reflect the
demands of US business lobbies and are actually calculated to reduce the openness of the trade system for new members. Smaller countries,
like Vietnam and Singapore, are therefore being pressured to have ‘WTO Plus’ kinds of copyright protection. The same problem occurs with
respect to labour standards under the TPP. India could never agree to these aspects. Membership of the TPP should be open to countries
willing to make trade concessions, and members should not be required to sign onto all of the TPP’s provisions. For example, countries should
be allowed to sign onto the ‘WTO Plus’ rules on intellectual property, or sign onto different labour standards, but meeting the demands made
by US lobbyists should not be a pre-condition to joining the TPP. ASEAN+1 and ASEAN+3, which preceded ASEAN+6, deliberately excluded the
United States. But China’s aggressiveness on the external front pushed smaller Asian countries, such as Vietnam, Malaysia and Singapore, to
support the TPP. The TPP thus became the United States’ way of getting back into the Asian region. Yet
US policy — wittingly or
unwittingly — is moving to fragment Asia in the same way that it fragmented South America. This is where the
ASEAN+6 grouping could play a role, by demonstrating to the United States that it is welcome, but only within a genuine trade grouping.
ASEAN+6’s Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) can only work if it is stripped of trade-unrelated demands, but it presents an
alternative to the TPP, one where other countries — even countries such as Canada and France — could be included. If ASEAN+6 has India and
China joining it, they can present the RCEP as a template where no comparable side conditions will apply. However, this may mean that the
United States will not join it. Finally, the investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms being advocated as part of the TPP
will invariably involve surrendering some sovereignty in order to gain other benefits. This is the case when a country joins any international
agreement. The
problem with the TPP dispute settlement mechanisms is that there is already an incredibly
successful and wide-reaching dispute settlement mechanism at the WTO, a multilateral institution. But
regional agreements like the TPP and bilateral agreements automatically generate more dispute settlements and so-called
arbitration within those groups. The bigger powers within those groupings, such as the United States or
the European Union, have greater clout and will therefore have more influence over those arbitration panels
and their outcomes, and that will in turn eventually undermine the WTO dispute settlement process.
The WTO multilateral trade system and WTO dispute settlement system are likely to be undermined by
the TPP. Smaller powers have to ensure that the WTO dispute system remains paramount. Unless these
complexities are better understood, they are going to miss the boat on better multilateral free trade.
TPP will fail – FTA in the status quo, there are barriers to free trade, and gains will be
limited
James 10 -Sallie James is a policy analyst with Cato’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy
Studies. James writes and speaks on a variety of trade topics, with a research emphasis on the
subject of agricultural trade policy, James received her Bachelor of Economics and Master of
Economics degrees from the University of Adelaide, and her Ph.D. in Agricultural Economics
from the University of Western Australia, (“Is the Trans-Pacific Partnership Worth the Fuss?”,
March 15, 2010, http://www.cato.org/publications/free-trade-bulletin/is-transpacificpartnership-worth-fuss)//sawyer
First, four of the seven TPP negotiators—the most important export markets for the United
States in the group— already have bilateral free trade agreements (FTA) with the United States.
And as Table 1 shows, the non-FTA partners (Brunei, New Zealand and Vietnam) are not
currently big markets for U.S. exporters: Vietnam—the most important of them—ranked 50th.
Of course, one could argue that high trade barriers might be behind the poor performance, and
that the TPP would thus improve U.S. standings in those countries. But the non-FTA markets
are small. Even the generally protrade Peterson Institute for International Economics, in a
submission to the USTR in January in support of the TPP, admits that “the U.S. payoff …
depends on extending the TPP to other major economies of the Asia-Pacific region.”5 Second,
the potential to fully realize gains from free trade with the remaining TPP partners with which
the United States does not already have an FTA is questionable. For example, they all
present political problems. Although not necessarily a serious irritant, especially under the new
administration, New Zealand’s long-standing refusal to admit nuclear-powered ships
into its harbors or join the Iraq war effort was seen as an obstacle to a previously
proposed bilateral trade deal.6 Human-rights concerns in Vietnam and Brunei
are in the sights of trade skeptics.7 Third, and assuming the political obstacles can be
overcome, the gains to American consumers from lowering tariffs on imports from
the non-FTA TPP partners are by no means certain. Brunei, for example, exports mainly
oil and petroleum products, which accounted for more than 96 percent of its total exports in
2008.8 The U.S. tariff on petroleum products is relatively low, and Brunei is not a significant
source of oil for the United States. According to the U.S. International Trade Commission, the
United States did not import any oil or related products from Brunei in 2009; indeed, total
imports of all products from Brunei in 2009 came to just $41.6 million.9 The ability of American
consumers to benefit from lower prices and greater product variety is by no means assured,
especially compared to the benefits offered by other, bigger deals that the administration could
promote. Vietnam provides an instructive example of the significant distance between potential
and success. While Vietnam has potential to be an important export market for U.S. businesses
because of its rapid growth and anticipated future need for high value-added imports of goods
and services, its experience with United States trade politics does not augur well for a truly
liberalizing agreement this time around. Two of its main export products, shrimp and catfish,
are subject to extra tariffs under U.S. “unfair trade” laws. Separate to the TPP negotiations, news
reports indicate that ongoing skirmishes over catfish inspections continue to complicate the
trading relationship and threaten to spill over into U.S. beef exports to Vietnam.10 Textile and
apparel imports, which would offer significant benefits to American consumers if they were
allowed to come in freely, are politically sensitive and would likely be subject to long phase-ins
and carve-outs, if they are covered at all. Indeed, the U.S. textile lobby successfully convinced
the Bush administration to subject Vietnamese textiles to formal monitoring by the U.S.
Department of Commerce when Vietnam joined the WTO in 2007, and has called for
textiles to be excluded from the TPP negotiations.11 Negotiators can expect strong
lobbying efforts from special interests eager to protect their turf. Similarly, the bruising
experience with the sugar lobby during the negotiations for the FTA with Australia serves as a
warning for those that hope a TPP might, through freer trade with New Zealand, bring U.S.
consumers long-overdue access to competitive dairy products. Dairy would likely be subject to
significant carve-outs and delayed liberalization, especially if, as Ambassador Kirk threatens,
members of Congress are intimately involved with proceedings. Hopes that a TPP would yield an
opportunity to reopen the sugar provisions of the FTA with Australia look equally dashed. The
Office of the USTR has already hinted that sugar would not be on the table for
further liberalization, even though it would bring significant gains for U.S.
consumers.12 An Unconvincing Sales Pitch The language the administration used to promote
the deal should give cause for concern to every proponent of genuinely liberalizing trade
agreements. First, but not unusually, this deal was pitched overwhelmingly in terms of its
potential to increase exports, thus reinforcing the damaging myth that promoting exports is the
true end of trade policy and imports are, at best, a necessary evil. This is a recurrent theme with
the Obama administration which, in its recently-released 2010 trade policy agenda, mentioned
imports only 5 times.13 During his appearance at the 2010 USDA Outlook Forum—an event that
partly aims to talk up agriculture, one of America’s key export sectors—Ambassador Kirk said
that members of Congress “are more open and receptive” to the idea of creating a trans-Pacific
agreement because they could start the agreement from scratch.14 Congress, in other words,
would be free to insert potentially deal-breaking labor and environmental standards and
generally assert their will. That is not good news. As a general matter, members of Congress take
a more parochial view of trade agreements than do administrations, being naturally concerned
about the effect of any trade deal on politically powerful constituents rather than the national
interest. Deferring to the current Congress in particular is unlikely to lead to more tradefriendly
agreements: most of the Democratic majority has signed on to a bill sponsored by Rep. Michael
Michaud (DME) that calls for a new trade policy that includes a long list of environmental,
labor, investment and consumer protection standards.15 Although the bill has little chance of
becoming law, support for it demonstrates the extent of trade skepticism in the 111th Congress.
A newly introduced bill that would withdraw the United States from NAFTA is a similar
indication of congressional mood. Far from upgrading trade agreements to “platinum” status, as
some commentators have insisted that they would, adding extraneous social and intellectual
property standards may tarnish the sheen of otherwise promising opportunities to expand
economic liberty. That assumes, of course, that the inclusion of such standards and conditions
does not preclude a deal entirely: developing countries strongly resist such standards as a rule,
and it’s likely that even the bilateral agreements within the TPP would need to be renegotiated to
fit the new administration’s vision. In a truly disappointing display of political timidity,
Ambassador Kirk gave depressing reasons for why the administration sees the TPP as higher
priority than other agreements that have already been signed. Negotiations would, he
said, be less of a political burden for Congress because they would likely take 18 to
24 months to develop and the agreement would not come up in Congress for
approval until after the 2010 elections. Congress, he said, would look on these features
favorably.16 That should worry our TPP partners. When the main ambassador for U.S. trade is
selling the slow pace and likely complications as a feature of the agreement rather than a bug,
you know to put the champagne back on ice. All of this calls into question the administration’s
true commitment to freer trade. Why, for example, given their insistence about the importance
of the Asia-Pacific region for America’s economic prosperity, is the administration not being
more proactive in promoting the completed agreement with South Korea? The TPP is less
politically controversial, to be sure, but that is an indication that it is less ambitious.
--XT – TPP kills multilat trade
No multilateral trade deal – US only wants bilateral negotiations and past talks prove
Elms and Lim 12 – *Head, Temasek Foundation Centre for Trade & Negotiations and Senior
Fellow of International Political Economy at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies AND
**Ph.D, Specialist in international economic law and a former trade negotiator. Professor of Law at the
University of Hong Kong where he chairs the East Asian International Economic Law & Policy
Programme (Deborah and C.L., “The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) Negotiations: Overview
and Prospects”, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, 2/21/2012,
http://www.rsis.edu.sg/publications/WorkingPapers/WP232.pdf)//JL
As a result of the problems of replacing existing PTAs, by the beginning of 2011, the
United States began to argue against
‘reopening’ existing agreements.42 For the United States, the best outcome for narrow individual objectives was
likely obtained by bilateral negotiations. As the most powerful country in the talks with a market size
that dominates the rest of the group, the United States can largely get what it wants in bilateral settings.
(It may, of course, also dominate in larger group settings, although this is likely to be more difficult, especially if the
remaining eight members remain united in opposition.) It has demonstrated this ability repeatedly vis-à-vis this group of
countries and can be seen by examining the existing PTA arrangements. Because the U.S.-Peru agreement was negotiated most recently, it
contains some of the strongest rule provisions to date - some of which intrude deep into Peruvian domestic arenas. Even Australia, regarded as
the second most powerful state at the TPP table, was unable to prevail over the U.S. in bilateral negotiations. We have already discussed the
sugar issue. Of greater importance to Australia, however, was the set of new rules governing intellectual property rights and the abilities of
public health authorities in Australia to regulate pharmaceutical products. 43 In
the TPP, therefore, the United States
proposed that it conduct negotiations by opening bilateral talks with countries with which it does not
already have a PTA. It would then attempt to get an agreement that includes the most critical items on its agenda. At the end of the
day, the eight different bilateral deals with the Americans will be put onto the table. Anything not already covered in these bilateral
agreements could be addressed multilaterally among the nine. The final document, then, would include a partial ‘common’ agreement that
In
practice, this means that the TPP will simply be another PTA added to the mix of potential rules
governing trade with members. The second round of TPP talks in San Francisco in June 2010 failed to settle
the issue of how the TPP would sit in relation to other PTAs. The United States came out as a strong supporter of
applied to all nine countries as well as some separate annexes and schedules with specific commitments for individual countries.
keeping existing market access agreements from bilateral PTAs. Singapore, Australia and New Zealand argued hard for a comprehensive
agreement in the TPP that would supersede existing PTA agreements.44 The
issue is most stark in market access for goods,
since all of the existing PTAs contain various provisions for reducing barriers to trade in goods. (This is
different from services, for example, since not all existing PTAs have rules covering services or offer the same comprehensive approach to
liberalizing trade in services between partners.) The lead negotiators and heads of trade departments dealing with goods met formally three
times between March and August 2010 in an attempt to deal with the vexing issue of how to negotiate. At the end of the third ‘inter-sessional’
meeting in Peru, the group essentially decided not to decide.45 Instead of agreeing to negotiate bilaterally or multilaterally, officials reached an
interim ‘agreement’ to avoid discussing it any longer. They agreed to ‘skip over’ the issue and focus instead on offering specific market access
deals to various members.46
A preferential TPP would damage the global trade system and encourage further
discrimination
Armstrong, ’11 – research fellow at the Crawford School of Economics and Government at the
Australian National University and co-editor of the East Asia Forum (Shiro, Australia and the Future of
the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement”, 12/09/11, EABER Working Paper No. 71,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1970129)//SP
There is a real danger that an inward looking TPP, which extends benefits only to initial members at the
expense of non-members, including some in East Asia, would damage the already weakened global
multilateral system. The region’s interest lies in protecting the global system which has benefitted it
greatly. A stalled Doha round was a widely used excuse for pushing FTAs with political allies but a
weakened WTO after the Doha failure is reason to be extremely wary of damaging the global trading
system with regionally divisive discriminatory trade arrangements.
The East Asia region’s interests lie in the strength of the global system and the final form of the TPP
should relate to protecting that system, not serve to undermine it.
One of the main stated aims of the TPP is to tidy up overlapping rules of origin. The obvious way forward
for that is a common market-access schedule for all TPP members — an approach favoured by Australia,
Brunei and New Zealand — but that is at risk because of a US-led compromise made in Brunei in 2009
that allows market access offers on a bilateral basis or to the TPP as a whole (Barfield, 2011). This
feature is systemically important as it affects accession. As of April 2011, the United States was making
bilateral market access offers to TPP members which did not already have an FTA with the United
States, while Australia, Singapore and New Zealand were offering uniform offers to all TPP members
(Barfield, 2011). Bilateral market access offers may be multilateralised down the track, but that is by no
means assured.
The United States is pushing for existing bilateral market access schedules to remain in place (Barfield,
2011). There are two reasons for this: to maintain strong IPR and services provisions in its current FTAs
and not have them reduced to a lowest common denominator TPP-wide schedule; and to avoid
exclusions in current FTAs coming under negotiation (Barfield, 2011)12. That flies in the face of one of
the reasons Australian advocates wanted to prosecute the TPP, namely, so that it could gain greater
market access in the United States than it was able to obtain in the AUSFTA. To avoid creating a noodle
bowl of overlapping agreements within the TPP would need clear, strong and preferably short schedules
written in so as to multilateralise all bilateral market openings.
TPP crushes multilateral trade
Armstrong, ’11 – a research fellow at the Crawford School of Economics and Government at the
Australian National University and co-editor of the East Asia Forum (Shiro, “Australia and the Future of
the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement”, 12/09/11, EABER Working Paper No. 71,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1970129)//SP
Progress with the TPP, and how it is managed, is important to the global trading system, especially postDoha. A major regional agreement such as this now needs to be tied to buttressing the global trading
system and supporting multilateral outcomes. A clear agreement on multilateralisation of preferences,
both in tariffs and non-tariff areas such as services, as an eventual goal and commitments to open the
region would be significant positives for the multilateral system.
--XT – no trade benefits
TPP can’t solve multilateralism or regionalism – not genuine and structural issues
Capling and Ravenhill 11 - Ann Capling went to the University of Melbourne, John
Ravenhill went to the Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University,
(“Multilateralising regionalism: what role for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement?,
December 12, 2011
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09512748.2011.634078)//sawyer
A genuine regional trade agreement? A second and related issue is whether the TPP will be a
genuine regional trade agreement in which each party will have a single tariff schedule that will
apply equally to all other parties, or whether TPP parties will have different tariff schedules for
different members. Again, there was a difference of opinion between Australia, Singapore and
NZ on the one hand, which wanted a genuinely regional trade agreement, and the US, on the
other hand, which did not want to re-open the issue of its existing market access commitments
with TPP partners. At the time of writing, this question was still undecided; it remains to be seen
whether the TPP will emulate the P4 in being a genuine regional PTA, or whether it will
resemble the ASEAN FTA’s complex web of bilateral agreements. Should the latter modality
prevail, it is likely to make the TPP a less attractive proposition for future entrants (M. K. Lewis
2011). Rules of origin Much of the literature on the multilateralisation of regionalism has
focused on measures to minimise the systemic harm caused by preferential ROOs and rules of
cumulation (ROCs), which are the criteria that determine whether goods are eligible for
preferential treatment under the terms of a PTA. ROOs determine the proportion of nonoriginating inputs allowed in a good in order for it to qualify for preferential access. ROCs
determine the list of countries whose inputs can be considered to have originating status for the
purpose of a PTA. Restrictive ROOs and ROCs increase trade costs by increasing barriers to
trade between members and non-members of a PTA, by inhibiting access to competitively priced
inputs from outside the PTA and by increasing transaction costs for business that deal with
more than one PTA. The welfare damage caused by these rules is exacerbated by the
divergence of ROOs regimes around the world, which have the potential to
balkanise the global trade system and promote the rise of ‘hub and spoke’ systems
that disadvantage the smaller economies relegated to spoke status (Estevadeordal,
Harris and Suominen 2009). The problem of divergence is especially acute in the Asia-Pacific
region due to the difference of approaches in East Asian and US ROOs regimes. The prevailing
practice in East Asia, which has a relatively liberal approach to ROOs, is the use of a fixed
general rule requiring for most products that a specific percentage of the value of a product be
added locally. By contrast, the US approach uses product-specific rules, which means that there
is more variability in the ROOs. This divergence in approaches is a problem for customs
authorities (due to the administrative costs involved in identifying the correct rules) and for
companies that trade across different types of ROOs regimes. And, the more restrictive the
ROOs regime is, the more that divergence matters (Estevadeordal, Harris and Suominen 2009).
To the extent that competition between the East Asian and US approach to ROOs is likely to
pose obstacles to the efforts to merge PTAs in the Asia-Pacific region (APEC 2008b), PTAs that
seek to address these diverging approaches to ROOs could be considered to be advancing the
cause of multilateralisation (Scollay and Trewin 2006). The P4 was among the first of the AsiaPacific PTAs to introduce the US model and these rules will also be used in the TPP. The
willingness of ASEAN members of the TPP – Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam – to move away
from the East Asian approach to ROOs in favour of the US approach suggests some convergence
in the Asia-Pacific. On the downside, the US model is generally more restrictive and complex
than ROOs regimes in Southeast Asia and Latin America. This relatively illiberal approach is
evident in the P4, which, compared with other PTAs around the world, is at the higher end of the
scale for both complexity and restrictiveness (Estevadeordal, Harris and Suominen 2009: 287–
91). Non-tariff measures Most of the literature on multilateralising regionalism has focused on
market access provisions for trade in goods and the related issues of ROOs and ROCs in
qualifying for tariff preferences. However, recent work (e.g. Baldwin et al. 2009; Estevadeordal,
Suominen and Teh 2009) also gives consideration to the way in which the treatment of NTMs in
PTAs may help to promote trade cooperation on a non-discriminatory basis. This objective may
be realised through the inclusion of most-favoured-nation (MFN) provisions for particular rules
or policies, either by design or because it is unfeasible to apply them on a discriminatory basis;
the use of third-party MFN clauses that enable PTA partners to benefit automatically from any
more favourable treatment given to others in subsequent PTAs; and/or provisions that prevent
actions allowable under WTO rules from being applied in a discriminatory manner. The draft
text of the TPP draws heavily on the P4, which in turn was strongly supportive of multilateral
rules and norms in its treatment of NTMs. For example, market access commitments in the P4
regarding trade in services are made on an MFN basis; they include an upward ratcheting of
policy bindings which helps to lock in future liberalisation; and they provide for third-party
MFN such that each party receives as of right the benefits of any additional services
liberalisation that any party commits to in future PTAs with other countries. In relation to rules
regarding Technical Barriers to Trade and Trade Remedies, the P4 reaffirms existing WTO
agreements. Thus, it seems reasonable to assume that the TPP’s treatment of NTMs will help to
advance the multilateralisation of regionalism in the Asia-Pacific. Overall, however, the design
features of the TPP constrain its potential to contribute to multilateralisation. While the
approach to NTMs is positive, those on ROOs and the efforts to replace existing bilateral
agreements witha genuinely regional arrangement are far less so. To account for the limited
multilateralising potential of the TPP, we turn, in the final section of this article, to the political
economy forces shaping it.
AT: China advantage
China says no
Pastor 8 – professor and director of the Center for North American Studies at American University
(Robert A, “North America or Asia? The 21st Century Choice for the United States,” 1/23/12,
http://www.canambusco.org/resources/UofMiamiPerspectives-Pastor-NA_or_Asia-FINAL.pdf)//SJF
If the TPP’s purpose is to put pressure on China to open its market, that won’t work for four reasons.
Some of the TPP provisions pressed by the United States, e.g., on government procurement and
neutralizing state-owned enterprises, are aimed at China, which will not accommodate Washington.
Second, the United States is already open to Chinese goods, and so why would China change these
policies in exchange for what it already has? Third, the other eight countries are very small and also
open to China.
And fourth, one week after the APEC Summit, China joined Japan and South Korea to announce steps to
expedite a free-trade agreement among themselves and with the ASEAN countries. In brief, China
already trumped the United States.
They can’t access China – they don’t reach out and relations cannot be solved – the
security dilemma
Manning 13 - Robert A. Manning is a senior fellow of the Brent Scowcroft Center for
International Security at the Atlantic Council. He served as a senior counselor to the
undersecretary of state for global affairs from 2001 to 2004 and a member of the US
Department of State Policy Planning Staff from 2004 to 2008. This piece first appeared on The
National Interest., (“US, China Drift Toward Zero Sum”, July 25, 2013,
http://www.acus.org/new_atlanticist/us-china-drift-toward-zero-sum)//sawyer
Cybersecurity is too critical an issue to languish in an SED Working Group. If we are serious,
why not have the U.S. cyber chief meet with their Chinese counterpart? Similarly, on the
respective U.S. and Chinese postures in East Asia, new understandings need to be reached as to
what each side can live with. And it would be helpful—if only to counter Chinese paranoia and
conspiracy theories—if the administration would clearly articulate that China would
be welcome to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). A major regional trade accord
without the world’s largest trading power would be of dubious virtue. As China institutes its next
wave of economic reforms, meeting TPP’s high standards will be in its own interest to be
competitive. There is a compelling, rational case for Washington and Beijing to move toward a
more cooperative relationship for mutual benefit. It is difficult to see global prosperity and a
stable international system endure—let alone address global problems like climate change—with
the United States and China drifting toward zero-sum competition. But history is littered
with conflicts sparked by irrational actors. It will require leadership and vision
from both sides to get past the current “security dilemma” behavior and worstcase fears. But absent that, muddle-through management of the relationship may
run out of fingers to put in the dikes over time
The TPP shuts out China and doesn’t help trade
Solis 13 - Mireya Solís is the Philip Knight Chair in Japan Studies and senior fellow at the
Brookings Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies, and associate professor at American
University. An expert in Japan’s foreign economic policies, Dr. Solís earned a PhD in
government and an MA in East Asian Studies from Harvard University, and a BA in
international relations from El Colegio de México. Her main research interests include Japanese
politics, political economy, and foreign policy; international and comparative political economy;
international relations; and government-business relations. She also has interests in broader
issues in U.S.-Japan relations and East Asian multilateralism, (“The Containment Fallacy: China
and the TPP”, May 24, 2013, http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2013/05/24china-transpacific-partnership-solis)//sawyer
In recent commentary for the Financial Times, David Pilling argues that the central
objective of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations is the exclusion of
China . In his view, the desire to build an “anyone but China” club is due both to the
perception that China got an easy pass when it joined the WTO and has continued to flaunt
international trade and investment rules; and to the articulation of a larger political strategy to
marginalize this emerging superpower. Pilling goes on to predict that the TPP will fail to
deliver major liberalization as the traditional pattern of shielding sensitive sectors
will emerge, and admonishes that only a much diluted trade agreement faces a
realistic chance of ratification given the fractured consensus on the new proposed
rules. In this rendition, the TPP appears politically myopic and economically
irrelevant.
The TPP will be used to isolate China – causes global nuclear war
Billington 11 – Michael Billington is the Asia editor for the Executive Intelligence Review, and
author of Reflections of an American Political Prisoner: the Repression and Promise of the
LaRouche Movement, and graduated from Trinity University, (“Obama’s Asia Trip Had Only
One Purpose: War on China”, November 25, 2011
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2011/eirv38n46-20111125/37-40_3846.pdf)//sawyer
Nov. 20—The self-imagined Emperor of America Barack Obama, while planning new wars
against Syria and Iran, which are recognized by a growing number of international leaders to
be a certain spark for global nuclear war against Russia and China, has completed a
nine-day tour of Asia which served one and only one purpose: to launch a new
strategic confrontation with China, intended to prepare the world for the coming
war. The so-called “justifications” for this global confrontation are as vacuous and deceitful as
those used to launch the wars on Iraq and Libya, or for the proposed wars on Syria and Iran. It
is the British Empire, through its puppet Obama, which is out to destroy any possible
opposition to the world dictatorship of the bankrupt financial oligarchy, and to carry out the
demands of the British monarchy to rid the world of its “excess population.” The huge
population of China, and Asia generally, are a primary target for their genocide. The Obama tour
included both military and economic confrontation with China; deploying new strategic U.S.
forces in Australia and the Philippines to solidify a strategic “ring around China”; coercing
Southeast Asian nations to join in a U.S.-guided confrontation with China over territorial
disputes in the South China Sea; threatening China over the sovereign control of its currency;
and forging an anti-China “free trade pact” among a “coalition of the willing” in the Asia-Pacific
region. In the course of three summits of Asia-Pacific nations over the nine-day period, Obama
succeeded in hijacking the proposed agenda of the majority of the Asian nations—which
focused on the disastrous global financial-economic crisis in the trans-Atlantic region and its
impact on Asia—imposing instead the imperial stamp of the lunatic emperor on his
subject nations. Multiple source reports from people who attended the various meetings
indicate that Obama’s imperial demeanor and delusional belief in his own infallibility were
even more frightening than the content of his threats of war. ‘Grow Up and Play by Our Rules’
The first of the three conferences, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting, was
hosted this year by the United States, in Hawaii. Obama, in several speeches to the heads of
state and to business leaders, portrayed China as a primary cause of the economic crisis in the
West, ranting that China must “grow up” and “play by the rules.” In a private meeting with
Chinese President Hu Jintao, Obama “made it very clear that the American people and the U.S.
business community were growing increasingly impatient and frustrated with the state of
change in China’s economic policy and the evolution of the U.S.-China economic relationship,”
according to senior White House aide Michael Froman. Hu responded that in a time of massive
economic crisis, confrontation was not wise, but that the U.S. and China must “increase their
communication and coordination.” Pang Sen, the Deputy General of the Chinese Foreign
Ministry, was more direct: “Whose rules are we talking about? If the rules are made by the
international community through agreement and China is part of it, China will definitely abide
by them. If rules are decided by one or even several countries, China does not have the
obligation to abide by that.” Obama also used the APEC Summit to push U.S. allies to join the
proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free-trade pact, gloating that Japan (as well as
Mexico and Canada) had agreed to discuss participation in the TPP during the APEC Summit.
Making clear that Obama intends the TPP to be part of a strategic confrontation with
China (which is not “qualified” tojoin it, according to U.S. officials), Japan’s Prime Minister
Yoshihiko Noda told the Upper House of parliament upon his return to Japan that the TPP,
supposedly a trade pact, would “stabilize the security situation” in the region. Obama
concluded the Summit by instructing China to revalue its currency by 20-25%, stating that the
(substantial) revaluation carried out by Beijing over the past years was only due to “U.S.
pressure,” but that it “hasn’t been enough,” and that “the U.S. and other countries feel that
enough is enough.” He even pointed to the lunatic bill passed by the U.S. Senate in October to
launch a full-scale trade war with China if it fails to revalue its currency to the Emperor’s liking,
as proving that China’s policy is “out of kilter.” The Emperor, of course, made no response to the
constant cry from China and others that the U.S. bailout of the worthless trillions of
dollars in gambling debts in the Western banking system is degrading the dollar,
driving global hyperinflation, and threatening the economies of every nation on
Earth. Australia and the Ring Around China Obama’s next stop was Australia, where he
demonstrated that the new U.S. strategic posture known as “Air-Sea Battle” is in fact aimed at
confronting China. The “Air-Sea Battle,” designed by the China-phobic Andy Marshall at the
Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessments, is based on the concept that China’s strategic policy is to
deny the U.S. access to the strategic regions surrounding China, especially the South China Sea,
through the development of anti-ship missiles and quiet submarines (i.e., modernization of
their military capacities). Obama announced that the U.S. will establish a massive military
presence in northern Australia, at the Bradshaw Field Training Area near Darwin, with 2,500
Marines, nuclear aircraft carriers and submarines, B-52 bombers, F-18 fighter aircraft,
Global Hawk drones, facilities for training exercises, pre-positioning of military supplies, and
more. Military officials and others pointed out that the permanent presence in Australia (which
is not being called a “base” for political reasons) will be out of reach of Chinese strategic
missiles, unlike the U.S. bases in Japan, Korea, and Guam. U.S. officials do not attempt to hide
the fact that the purpose of the base is to prepare for military confrontation with
China. Obama, in announcing the new facility, said, “The notion that we fear China is
mistaken,” and repeated his warning that China must “play by the rules of the world.” “My
world,” he could have added. The new “non-base” in Australia will give the U.S. a straight shot
through the Indonesian islands, only 500 miles away, into the South China Sea and the Indian
Ocean. The Australian Citizens Electoral Council associates of Lyndon LaRouche, issued a
statement warning their countrymen that their governments had participated in “every neo-con
venture that the British trap America into, from Vietnam to Afghanistan, but now that involves
painting a target on itself also, just as Obama is provoking a nuclear showdown. ” China
agreed. The People’s Daily, official paper of the Chinese Communist Party, posted an editorial
Nov. 16 which said: “Apparently, Australia aspires to a situation where it maximizes political
and security benefits from its alliance with the U.S. while gaining the greatest economic
interests from China. However, [Australian Prime Minister Julia] Gillard may be ignoring
something—their economic cooperation with China does not pose any threat to the U.S.,
whereas the Australia-U.S. military alliance serves to counter China. Australia surely cannot
play China for a fool. It is impossible for China to remain detached no matter what Australia
does to undermine its security. But one thing is certain—if Australia uses its military bases to
help the U.S. harm Chinese interests, then Australia itself will be caught in the crossfire.
Australia should at least prevent things from growing out of control.” The Citizens Electoral
Council also succeeded in prominently displaying an “Impeach Obama” poster, with the nowfamous Hitler mustache on Obama, at a joint press conference held by the U.S. President and
the Australian Prime Minister, in Darwin. The Australian Associated Press, the country’s main
news agency, sent out a wire photo of the poster, coupling the image in split-screen format with
a picture of Obama and Gillard, which was then carried as the lead photo across Australia on
Yahoo.news.com.au. While making his announcement in Australia, Obama deployed
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to the Philippines to release the updated
Philippines-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty, which henceforth will function as a cover
for U.S. military targetting of China. Obama, in his speech to the Australian Parliament,
referenced the new arrangement with the Philippines as an expanded port for naval operations
to confront China’s supposed threats in the South China Sea (now called the West Philippine
Sea by the Aquino government in Manila). He also referenced expanded basing rights for U.S.
naval warships in Singapore and Vietnam. The Philippines shut down the U.S. bases there in
the 1990s, and added a ban on foreign bases to their Constitution. But the U.S. has had a
“permanent presence” of troops, drones, supplies, ships, and aircraft in the south of the country
since the early 2000s, to support operations against Islamic insurgents in the region. To
circumvent the Constitutional ban, the presence is not called a “base”—which is the model being
used for the non-base in Australia. Also, the U.S. has covertly used the Philippine Trench to
conceal the U.S. nuclear submarine fleet. The Philippine Trench, which lies within Philippine
territorial waters in the Pacific, is one of the only sea trenches in the world deep enough to
conceal submarines from detection. Now, the U.S. military presence in the
Philippines will shift from a focus on counter-insurgency to confrontation with
China. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared on the U.S. guided-missile destroyer
USS Fitzgerald Southeast and East Asian Summits Obama’s last stop on the Asia tour was Bali,
Indonesia, where two related conferences were held sequentially: the Association of Southeast
Asian Nations (ASEAN) Summit, including side meetings with the “Plus 3” (China, Japan, and
South Korea) and with India and the U.S.; and the East Asian Summit (EAS). Obama’s effort to
divert the ASEAN meeting to a brawl with China over the South China Sea was countered by
several of the ASEAN nations themselves, especially Indonesia, whose President Susilo
Bambang Yudhoyono said that, against the backdrop of world economic difficulties, “ASEAN is
not in favor of discussing detailed political and security issues at the Summit.”
--XT – China won’t join
China cannot join the TPP and the plan is perceived as isolating it
Kissinger 12 - HENRY A. KISSINGER is Chair of Kissinger Associates and a former U.S.
Secretary of State and National Security Adviser. This essay is adapted from the afterword to the
forthcoming paperback edition of his latest book, On China (Penguin, 2012), (“The Future of
U.S. - Chinese Relations
Conflict Is a Choice, Not a Necessity”, January 19, 2012,
http://www.henryakissinger.com/articles/fa0412.html)//SAWYER
Obama has invited China to join the TPP. However, the terms of accession as presented by
American briefers and commentators have sometimes seemed to require fundamental
changes in China's domestic structure. To the extent that is the case, the TPP could be
regarded in Beijing as part of a strategy to isolate China. For its part, China has put forward
comparable alternative arrangements. It has negotiated a trade pact with the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations and has broached a Northeast Asian trade pact with Japan and South
Korea. Important domestic political considerations are involved for all parties. But if China and
the United States come to regard each other's trade-pact efforts as elements in a strategy of
isolation, the Asia-Pacific region could devolve into competing adversarial power blocs. Ironically,
this would be a particular challenge if China meets frequent American calls to shift from an
export-led to a consumption-driven economy, as its most recent five-year plan contemplates.
Such a development could reduce China's stake in the United States as an export market even as it
encourages other Asian countries to further orient their economies toward China. The key decision
facing both Beijing and Washington is whether to move toward a genuine effort at cooperation
or fall into a new version of historic patterns of international rivalry. Both countries have
adopted the rhetoric of community. They have even established a high-level forum for it, the
Strategic and Economic Dialogue, which meets twice a year. It has been productive on
immediate issues, but it is still in the foothills of its ultimate assignment to produce a truly
global economic and political order. And if a global order does not emerge in the economic field,
barriers to progress on more emotional and less positive-sum issues, such as territory and
security, may grow insurmountable
The TPP is exclusive to China – they wont join
Glaser et al 12 - Bonnie Glaser, CSIS/Pacific Forum CSIS Brittany Billingsley, CSIS, (“USChina Relations: US Pivot to Asia Leaves China off Balance”, January 2012,
http://csis.org/files/publication/1103qus_china.pdf)//sawyer
Progress on the TPP trade agreement also ruffled some feathers. At the APEC Leaders Meeting,
President Obama announced that the US and eight other countries – Australia, Brunei, Chile,
Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam – had agreed to complete the TPP accord
within one year. China was noticeably absent from the negotiations, and several Chinese officials
commented that US expectations for the TPP were “too high” for other Asian countries . Chinese
Assistant Commerce Minister Yu Jianhua stated at a press briefing in Beijing that such new
trade mechanisms should be “open and inclusive” and called for members to find a balance
between TPP and pre-existing trade mechanisms, arguing that the latter should act as the major
channel while other regional mechanisms could be supplemental. Yu complained that China had
not received “any invitation from any TPP economy,” but that if it did, China would “seriously
study the invitation.” US Trade Representative Ron Kirk responded that the TPP is an open
architecture and it “is not designed to be a closed clubhouse.” Michael Froman
retorted that the TPP “is not something one gets invited to. It’s something one aspires to.”
Despite US reassurances, criticism of the TPP continued in Chinese media, where some argued
that the trade agreement was aimed at diminishing China’s role and ensuring US leadership in
regional economic integration. For instance, Li Hongmei argued in Xinhua that the US intention
behind the TPP was to play a “dominant role” in the Pacific by “handpicking its members and
systemizing and regulating” these other countries in accordance with US standards. While Li
recognized that the TPP was part of the US pivot to Asia, the trade pact could also become a
replacement for APEC and would thus “contain and counterbalance” China’s influence and
“strategic space” in the region.
China won’t join the TPP
Penghong 13 -Cai Penghong is a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Foreign Policy Studies and
Center for American Studies at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies., (“An
Inopportune Time for China to Join the TPP”, June 19, 2013,
http://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/an-inopportune-time-for-china-to-join-thetpp/)//sawyer First, the TPP is a core element of the American rebalancing strategy. As
President Obama’s security advisor, Tom Donilon indicated that the rebalancing strategy is a
comprehensive concept that includes “building regional economic architectures and the TPP
obviously is at the core of that.” China has already tried to play a critical role in the process of
East Asia integration but the U.S. has a very simple goal in utilizing the TPP to compete and
even to substitute the forming East Asia trade bloc led by China and cannot consider China as a
key role in building the economic architecture in the Asia Pacific. Therefore, the US cannot allow
China to appear at the negotiation table unless China changes its regional policies. More than
that, if President Obama shows any positive signal for China’s access, he will risk unfavorable
internal politics in the U.S. Just one month ago, he gave the clear signal that “the objective now
is to complete the negotiations” and not to add new members. Second, negotiating the TPP
agreement has too high of a quality level for China to participate . By the end of May
2013, the TPP negotiations will have seen 17 rounds of exchanges since early 2010. If concluded
successfully, the TPP will be a high standard free trade agreement (FTA) agreement for the 21st
century. However, the schedule for conclusion has been postponed for two consecutive years.
The crux of the problem comes as a result of the high threshold in horizontal and cross-cutting
issues such as regulatory coherence, supply chain competitiveness, state-owned enterprises
(SOEs), small-and medium-sized enterprises, E-commerce, labor issues and others. In the
context of the current TPP negotiations, the presence of SOEs in Vietnam—estimated to
represent 40% of output—warrants particular attention as it may hold effects on other regional
nations in the future, such as China. Another problem may arise with the issue of regulatory
coherence that was initiated by the U.S. to improve regulatory practices, reduce regional
divergence in standards and eliminate some unnecessary barriers. Negotiators have been
reluctant to this since the beginning of negotiations and certain countries remain unwilling to
change their attitudes. A special phenomenon such as the proliferation of regulatory and nontariff barriers has spread over the region and become a major hurdle for business trying to gain
access to markets. The effort, particularly by China, in aligning the standards, eliminating test
and certification redundancies and particularly facilitating customs efficiently should win
applause. But at this moment, it is hard for China, amidst an economic transition, to adjust and
fit the strict requirements made by the TPP. Third, the TPP negotiation process has been overweighted in closed-door discussions, but under-weighted in public transparency . This is the
reason that China cannot make an objective judgment on the TPP and its
implications on China’s own national interests . Although no one could blame any FTA
negotiation for its intimacy, countries such as China may have reason to ask for transparency,
particularly in the TPP process as it is under the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)
framework to which China belongs. President Xi gave a clear indication during his dialogue with
President Obama that China was interested in being briefed on the process as it went forward.
According to Donilon’s remarks to press afterwards, President Xi also suggested setting up a
more formal mechanism for the Chinese to get information on the TPP negotiation process. But
based on Donilon’s response, the U.S. seemed evasive and noncommittal.
China won’t join – US and ASAEN
Jie et al 13 -Woo Jun Jie is a PhD candidate at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy,
National University of Singapore. Suvi Dogra is a research officer for the Geo-economics and
Strategy Programme at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, New Delhi, (“TransPacific Partnership may do more harm than good for China”, June 10, 2013,
http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1257183/trans-pacific-partnershipmay-do-more-harm-good-china
Nonetheless, China also has good reason not to join the trade partnership. Being a
member would mean having to accept America's leading role. American leadership
and dominance is likely to be cemented should the partnership emerge as the dominant trade
order for the Asia-Pacific. This would not only pose threats to China's regional role, but would
also not go down well at home. Furthermore, China is also involved in the Regional
Comprehensive Economic Partnership that comprises all 10 members of the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations, plus Australia, India, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea.
Essentially China-led, this trade pact has been seen as a rival to the Trans-Pacific
Partnership.
China can’t and won’t join the TPP
Yang 13 – Yao Yang The writer is director of the China Center for Economic Research at Peking
University and editor of China Economic Quarterly, (“America’s pivot to Asia will provoke
China”, February 12, 2013, http://blogs.ft.com/the-a-list/2013/02/12/americas-pivot-to-asiawill-provoke-china/#axzz2aH4kur6B)//sawyer
The more constructive part of the pivot should have been the Trans-Pacific
Partnership . But even on this count, the US has caused more suspicion than
goodwill in China . The TPP was designed for like-minded countries to form, in President
Barack Obama’s words, “a platinum” free-trade agreement for the Asia-Pacific region. It was the
result of both America’s agony with the ineffectiveness of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum and the White House’s political strategy to please those on both the right and
the left – it expands free trade, so Republicans are happy; but it also requires member countries
to meet labour, environmental and even human rights standards, so Democrats are happy. To
most Chinese, however, the TPP is one of America’s intentional moves to exclude
China. For one thing, there is no way for China to meet its conditions in the medium
term. For another, the TPP will not bring significant gains to the US, precisely
because China, the US’s largest trading partner in the region, is not going to join.
More importantly, China was not part of the design process . To China, the TPP is a club
set up solely on American will; China can knock on the door, but can be rejected. Ten
years ago, when China applied to join the World Trade Organisation, this would not be a
problem. Today, China feels differently: it has become reluctant to accept
something if it does not feel ownership. In a sense, all Chinese history since the mid1800s has involved China trying to become as equal as other world powers. Today, China’s
leaders and the Chinese people are increasingly feeling that point is coming. Yet the existing
powers, noticeably, the US and EU, may have different ideas about equality. To them, China
will only be treated as “one of us” after China is fully transformed politically and
socially. This discrepancy of beliefs will be a major source of tension between China and
existing powers in the coming years.
--XT – China isolation causes war
The TPP is the linchpin of the Asia Pivot and will be used to completely isolate China
FAB 13 - The Foreign Affairs Branch of the Green Shadow Cabinet is comprised of Cmr.
Leah Bolger, Secretary of Defense; David Swanson, Secretary of Peace; Col. Ann Wright,
Secretary of State; George Paz Martin, Peace Ambassador; and David McReynolds,
Peace Advisor to the President, (“TPP, Pivot to Asia, raise war risks in Asia Pacific
region”, June 19, 2013, http://greenshadowcabinet.us/statements/tpp-pivot-asia-raisewar-risks-asia-pacific-region)//sawyer
There are many good foreign policy reasons to oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership
(TPP), a free-trade agreement currently being negotiated between the U.S. and ten other Pacific
rim countries: Australia, Brunei, Chile, Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru,
Singapore, and Vietnam. The participating nations have held 17 rounds of negotiations since
2010 in complete secrecy and without any input from civic, social, or other non-corporate entity.
Even the U.S. Congress has been kept in the dark: in May of 2012, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden
introduced a bill which would require the release of the TPP negotiating texts to the U.S.
Congress, yet at the same time, 600 U.S. “trade advisers,” including representatives of
Halliburton, Chevron, Phillip Morris and other multi-national corporations have complete
access to everything, and are in fact, writing the TPP to further their own interests. This is akin
to the American Legislative Executive Council (ALEC) writing legislation which would benefit its
members, or in more colloquial terms, the fox guarding the hen house. There is significant and
growing opposition to the TPP, even though what little is known about its specifics has arrived
through leaks. What we do know is that it seems to have little to do with actual trade issues, like
tariff reduction and trade promotion, but everything to do with granting unprecedented power
to multi-national corporations and quashing consumer, labor and environmental interests. We
agree with those who have called the TPP “…a wish list of the 1%--a worldwide
corporate grab of enormous proportions.” The TPP, like every other trade agreement
before it, pays short shrift to workers rights, but gives multi-national corporations the equal
power of sovereign nations who can be sued for loss of expected profits due to health,
environmental, zoning, labor or other policies. Investors can acquire land, natural resources,
factories and more. Chevron is asking a corporate tribunal to release them from their obligation
to clean up toxic contamination of the Amazon, and Phillip Morris is challenging Uruguay over
cigarette warning labels. The desire of the Bush and the Obama administrations to pass the TPP
is apparently an effort to create a coalition of nations to match China’s exploding economy and
increased military and political influence in the region. On Nov 12, 2011, Obama spoke before
the Summit of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum and stated that, “… we’ve turned
our attention back to the Asia Pacific region.” This is being accomplished through two vehicles:
the TPP and the “Pivot to Asia,” meaning a redeployment of American priorities and
military forces away from Europe and the Middle East to Asia. Also in the same
month, this time speaking before the Australian Parliament, Obama said: “As a Pacific nation,
the United States will play a larger and long-term role in shaping this region and its future.” The
United States now has 320,000 troops in the Pacific region, and the Pentagon has promised
there will be no reductions as troops are drawn down in Afghanistan and other parts of the
world. This turn of focus to the Asia-Pacific region militarily, along with the
promotion of the TPP sends signals to countries in the region, particularly smaller
countries like Malaysia and Singapore, that the U.S. is willing to play the role of
security guard for their interests, while sacrificing our own long-term interests in the way
of good jobs and manufacturing. In other words, we seem to be willing to gain short-term
geopolitical tactical gains for long-term strategic losses — a plan that is doomed to failure. We
will continue to hemorrhage jobs and our trade deficits will continue to increase. It makes little
sense to treat China as an enemy by holding provocative joint exercises with Australia, South
Korea and Japan, patrolling Chinese waters, and building new military facilities in Australia and
South Korea . The U.S. would be making a grievous mistake by getting into an arms
race with China. The decline of US influence in Asia is not due to lack of military power and
presence but rather to eroding competitiveness. Regaining economic strength has become a
matter of the highest geopolitical priority. We can no longer subordinate trade to national
security considerations, because trade IS national security. The Obama administration does not
realize that although the TPP will strengthen the interests of major corporations and investors, it
will directly harm our national interests with increased unemployment and a smaller tax base.
We cannot continue to try to solve every problem with our military. Any new trade agreements
must protect workers rights, refrain from giving corporations the same status and power as
sovereign nations, and protect natural resources. The U.S. must protect and create good jobs in
sustainable industries and we need to understand that corporate interests and government
interests are not one in the same. A much better foreign policy would respect human rights,
labor rights, and protect the environment. It would seek to uplift people out of poverty and
provide basic human needs like shelter, food, water and education. The TPP is a truly bad
idea that would only speed up the race to the bottom.
The “Asia Pivot” will lead to Chinese aggression
Blumenthal 12 -Dan Blumenthal is the director of Asian Studies at the American Enterprise
Institute, where he focuses on East Asian security issues and Sino-American relations. Mr.
Blumenthal has both served in and advised the U.S. government on China issues for over a
decade. From 2001 to 2004, he served as senior director for China, Taiwan, and Mongolia at the
Department of Defense. Additionally, he served as a commissioner on the congressionallymandated U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission since 2006-2012, and held
the position of vice chairman in 2007. He has also served on the Academic Advisory Board of
the congressional U.S.-China Working Group. Mr. Blumenthal is the co-author of "An Awkward
Embrace: The United States and China in the 21st Century" (AEI Press, November 2012).’,
(“Pivoting and rebalancing: The good, the bad, and the ugly”, July 3, 2012,
http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/07/03/pivoting_and_rebalancing_the_good_the
_bad_and_the_ugly)//sawyer
1) There is a danger of overpromising. The new defense guidelines were released in January
2012 at same time as talk of a "pivot" began. Concurrently, details of a new operational concept
called Air Sea Battle were released, that despite protestations to the contrary, is more or less
about how to defeat China in a conflict. This coincidence of events has regional allies believing
that the U.S. has carefully developed some new "secret sauce" to keep the peace in Asia. The
reality so far is two Littoral Combat Ships in Singapore, some good speeches in Vietnam, and
some marines in Australia. 2) The administration is making critical strategic choices that will
affect its posture in Asia. One choice is to slash the defense budget. It already did so in 2009 to
the tune of about $400 billion. This year the Budget Control Act will kick in lopping off
hundreds of billions more. The president has every right to choose the salvaging of and creation
of more social welfare programs over the defense that is needed in Asia, but it is dangerous to
misalign your stated strategic goals and your resources -- this is the famous "Lippman Gap." 3)
The defense cuts badly affect the forces we need in Asia. The stealthy F-35 program has taken a
big hit. The navy has said it needs anywhere from 500 to 313 ships in its fleet. It will end up with
around 285 total ships by the end of the next five year defense program. The much touted next
generation long-range bomber is underfunded -- by 2017 it is unlikely that we will have more
than an industrial competition to build it, which means years before it comes on line. The list
goes on: missile defense takes a hit, as does most certainly the workhorse of any Asian
contingency -- attack submarines. 4) India. There is simply no way to check China's power if
Afghanistan descends into chaos and India has to respond. In the rough and tumble of
international politics it is very difficult to get regions to conform with U.S. government flow
charts. India can only fully integrate into East Asia if there is some semblance of security along
its land borders. 5) It is also unrealistic to think we can spend less time on the Middle East in
order to spend more time in Asia for two reasons. First, the Chinese are competing with us in
that critical region to mostly bad effect. Second, our allies depend on the stability we provide in
the Middle East for oil. Now the ugly: 1) Things with China will get ugly . Our talk of
rebalancing is a response to Chinese power and provocations. The competition is
intensifying. We repeat the mantra that our efforts in Asia are not about China as if saying it
makes it true. In reality, politics, like physics, has an action-reaction cycle. While we are doing
the right thing, China certainly views our actions as hostile. We should expect China
to up its game militarily.
The Asia pivot will lead to a deterioration of relations with china and remove the only
barrier to Chinese agression
Zheng 13 – Henry Zheng is a writer for Policymic and is interested in human rights and
international politics, (“US-China Relations: Why Obama's 'Asia Pivot' Strategy Could Lead to
Disaster”, 2013, http://www.policymic.com/articles/20675/us-china-relations-why-obama-sasia-pivot-strategy-could-start-a-nuclear-war)//sawyer
An important plan that is receiving greater official attention and Chinese condemnation is "Air
Sea Battle," a comprehensive strategy developed by the Department of Defense in case "an
angry, aggressive and heavily armed China" should decide to attack American forces. This
counterattack by the Air Force and the Navy would involve conventional strike tactics. A graphic
depicting the strategy can be found here. Developed by Andrew Marshall and Andrew
Krepinevich, the Air Sea Battle concept involves the following: 1. Increasing bomb resistant
aircraft shelters and bring repair kits to fix damaged airstrips. 2. Using stealthy bombers and
quiet submarines to wage a "blinding campaign" in which long range Chinese surveillance and
precision missile systems are targeted to open up the area of denial, which includes the disputed
areas within the East and South China seas. 3. Dispersing aircraft to Tinian and Palau islands,
which are outside the range of Chinese land-based anti-ship missiles, in order to confuse the
enemy's targeting processes. Critics doubt the necessity of such a plan. MIT Security
Studies Program director Barry Posen says that instead of questioning whether there will be
security concerns or threats, the highly influential Office of Net Assessment in the Pentagon,
which Andrew Marshall heads, “convince[s] others to act as if the worst cases are inevitable.” In
fact, over two dozen war scenarios run by Krepinevich's defense think tank, the Center for
Budgetary and Strategic Assessments, cast China as an aggressive enemy. This potentially
alarmist thinking has lately attracted the attention of top military officials, suggesting that the
plan or something similar may come to fruition. However, to realize this plan, there would have
to be an increase in or reallocation of military spending, which is something that may not be
realized if the U.S. goes over the fiscal cliff this upcoming January. Undoubtedly, such
strategies have been a growing source of concern for Beijing . Colonel Fan Gaoyue
said, “If the U.S. military develops Air-Sea Battle to deal with the [People’s Liberation Army],
the PLA will be forced to develop anti-Air-Sea Battle." The back-and-forth defense
escalation bespeaks the suspicious nature of security agencies in general that could contribute to
the deterioration of bilateral relations. With things as they are now, tensions are quickly
rising on both sides because they are both approaching each other with a zerosum mentality. Even with their almost inextricable economic and trade
interdependence, the politics of Chinese containment and American repulsion
could become a military conflict before long. As shown by the Chinese-Japanese dispute
over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands, Chinese citizens are willing to boycott foreign goods and
services in a surge of patriotic fervor. Therefore, even economic interdependence may
not deter war if the strategic interests of both the U.S. and China are
compromised. The two leaders must engage in an open discussion which addresses these
problems honestly, and come up with practical solutions that move beyond their ideological and
cultural differences. If not done soon, we will all suffer.
Their impact defense makes no sense – The asia pivot takes away the one thing
holding China back – economic interdependence and it makes conflict more likely
Glaser 13 -John Glaser is Editor of Antiwar.com. He has been published at The Huffington
Post, Al Jazeera English, The American Conservative, and The Daily Caller, among other outlets,
(“Obama’s Asia-Pivot Makes Conflict More Likely: Philippines Edition”, July 25, 2013,
http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/07/25/obamas-asia-pivot-makes-conflict-more-likelyphilippines-edition/)//sawyer
One of the predictable consequences of Obama’s Asia-Pivot is that, by boosting support to all of
China’s U.S.-allied neighbors, those countries are emboldened to stand up to China as
an enemy and China is likewise emboldened to counter the onslaught. Needless to
say, this makes conflict more likely. The Washington Post: China’s most daring adversary
in Southeast Asia is, by many measurements, ill-suited for a fight. The Philippines has a military
budget one-fortieth the size of Beijing’s, and its navy cruises through contested waters in 1970s
hand-me-downs from the South Vietnamese. From that short-handed position, the Philippines
has set off on a risky mission to do what no nation in the region has managed to do: thwart
China in its drive to control the vast waters around it. So, tiny little Philippines is angling for
a fight with China despite a military budget one-fortieth the size of Beijing’s. Are we
surprised? Throughout 2012, the U.S. increased its military and economic support for the
Philippines government while at the same time expanding the American military presence in the
country. This at a time when the Obama administration publicly pledges to support any U.S. ally
that is threatened by China and vocally chastises Beijing for subtly staking claims to contested
maritime territories. Undoubtedly, Manila got the right message. But the militaristic response to
21st century China was not obvious to all Filipinos. “Analysts say the Philippines’ strategy, in
standing up to Asia’s powerhouse, is just as likely to backfire as succeed,” the Post continues.
“But it provides a crucial test case as smaller countries debate whether to deal with China as a
much-needed economic partner, a dangerous maritime aggressor, or both.” And there is the rub.
Conceivably, China and its neighbors could be getting along great through further
economic trade and interdependence. The same goes for the U.S.-China
relationship, but Washington has instead aimed to turn peaceful economic
exchange into a casus belli – and encouraged its smaller Asian allies to do the
same.
The TPP and the Asian pivot will spark Chinese aggression, South China Sea and
Senkaku island conflicts
Ratner 13 -Dr. Ely Ratner is a Fellow at the Center for a New American Security. He served as a
political officer on the China Desk at the State Department from 2011 to 2012, (“Rebalancing to
Asia with an
Insecure China”, 2013, http://csis.org/files/publication/TWQ_13Spring_Ratner.pdf)//sawyer
As President Obama enters his second term, continuing to shift U.S. attention and resources to
the Asia—/Pacific will be a leading U.S. foreign policy priority. While many in the region have
welcomed this renewed commitment, the U.S. ‘‘pivot’’ to Asia has created heightened
concerns in China about U.S. intentions.1 U.S. efforts to expand its military force posture
in Asia, to strengthen security ties with allies and partners, and to enhance the role of regional
institutions are viewed by many in Beijing as directly aimed at constraining China’s
rise and as the principal cause of regional instability as well as the deterioration of
China’s strategic environment. In the years ahead, China’s perceived sense of insecurity
will likely intensify as the United States continues to deepen its diplomatic, economic, and
military engagement in Asia. This will limit the possibilities for U.S.—/ China
cooperation on geopolitical issues and place additional strain on the bilateral
relationship, leaving policymakers in Washington with the critical task of
reconciling the goal of maintaining stable U.S.—/China relations while pursuing next
steps in the rebalancing effort. Even as major diplomatic breakthroughs and deliverables remain
elusive, sustained commitment to intensive high-/level engagement with Beijing will be
essential to cope with inevitable crises. Furthermore, from a broader regional perspective,
continued engagement with China will be a key element to actualizing the rebalancing strategy
and ensuring that the United States can advance its multitude of interests in Asia. At the same
time, it will be essential for U.S. policymakers to better communicate the origin and content of
the strategy, to further develop/with commensurate resources/the economic, diplo-/ matic, and
cultural elements of the rebalancing effort, and ultimately to demonstrate that America’s Asia
policy is not only paying dividends to the relative strategic position of the United States, but to
the region as a whole. The U.S. shift toward Asia should and will continue, but its execution
must account for an insecure China in order for the rebalancing to achieve its intended aims.
China’s Insecurity Complex This past August in Beijing, a senior colonel in the People’s
Liberation Army (PLA) told a U.S. think tank delegation that: ‘‘You have your Pearl Harbor and
September 11th, we have our 1999.’’ This was a reference to the widely held view in China that
the U.S. bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade during NATO’s air campaign over Serbia
was an intentional warning to Beijing not to challenge U.S. dominance in international politics.
However absurd on its face, the analogy exemplifies the pervasive perception that the United
States is working to constrain China’s rise and to maintain U.S. hegemony in the region.
Although China has long harbored concerns and conspiracy theories about U.S.
efforts to weaken and encircle China, these perceptions are becoming increasingly
dominant in Beijing.2 An editorial in the People’s Daily, ground zero for quasi-/authoritative
commentary on U.S. foreign policy and the rebalancing, described U.S. strategy in Asia as
having ‘‘the obvious feature of confrontation.’’3 Chinese public opinion, although
difficult to poll with precision, also appears to reflect growing suspicion toward the United
States. The Pew Research Center found that the percentage of Chinese respondents who view
the U.S.—/China relationship as hostile has risen from eight percent in 2010 to 26 percent in
2012.4 These views are found not just among the public and in nationalist newspapers and
micro-/blogs, but are widely shared among Chinese government officials, academics, and think
tank strategists. Wang Jisi, dean of Peking University’s School of International Studies and a
leading expert on U.S.—/China relations, has argued that in recent years the view throughout
China has ‘‘deepened’’ that ‘‘the ultimate goal of the United States in world affairs is to maintain
its hegemony and dominance and, as a result, Washington will attempt to prevent the emerging
powers, in particular China, from achieving their goals and enhancing their stature.’’5 Like
taking a Rorschach test, Chinese analysts perceive U.S. policies in Asia as a dizzying
array of ink blots that combine to paint an ominous picture of U.S. intentions. Such
activities include strengthening U.S. security ties with treaty allies, including Japan, South
Korea, and the Philippines; deepening relations with emerging powers like Indonesia and
Vietnam; increasing U.S. engagement with ASEAN-/centered institutions; announcing U.S.
national interests in the South China Sea; supporting the Trans-/Pacific Partnership
(TPP) trade agreement; re-/engaging Burma; and deploying a rotational presence of U.S.
Marines to Darwin, Australia. Taken together, leading Chinese thinkers view these actions as
undermining China’s security and increasingly believe the unifying rationale for
such a seemingly coordinated U.S. approach is to constrain China’s rise. Beyond
purely emotive impressions of malevolent U.S. intentions, two related arguments/often mixed
in imprecise ways/form the basis for Chinese accusations about how the United States’ renewed
commitment to Asia is destabilizing to regional security. The first is that the United States is
proactively fomenting conflict between China and other regional states (including the
Philippines, Vietnam, and Japan) by ‘‘sensationalizing’’ divisive issues, like the South China Sea,
and by actively pressuring and encouraging countries to challenge China.6 According to this
view, the United States instigates crises both to suppress China’s rise and to cause the U.S.
military to be drawn or invited more deeply into the region’s security affairs.7 Upon Secretary
Clinton’s September 2012 visit to Beijing, a commentary in China’s official Xinhua news agency
called upon the United States to ‘‘stop its role as a sneaky troublemaker sitting behind some
nations in the region and pulling strings.’’8 The second, and more nuanced, Chinese assessment
is that recent U.S. statements and activities in Asia have, even if unintentionally, emboldened
regional states to believe they can challenge China while the United States has their back.
Chinese analysts argue that ‘‘the reason why some countries are so unbridled may be related
with the adjusted geo-/strategy of the United States.’’9 Much of China’s ire with U.S.
rebalancing has been concentrated in the South China Sea, where six governments
claim a variety of contested land features and surrounding waters in historical fishing grounds
that are believed to be rich in hydrocarbons. China has repeatedly claimed ‘‘indisputable
sovereignty’’ over the sea, demarcating its claims on official maps with a nine-/ dash line that
stretches far from mainland China and snakes along the coasts of Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei,
the Philippines, and Taiwan.10 Seeking to maintain maximum leverage over individual
claimants, China has bristled at repeated statements by U.S. officials, beginning with Secretary
Clinton’s intervention at the 2010 ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) in Hanoi, that articulate U.S
national interests in the South China Sea, including the freedom of navigation and respect for
international law.11 Beijing has also objected to U.S. efforts to prevent and manage local crises
by strengthening regional rules and institutions. After the release of a U.S. State Department
press statement in August 2012 expressing concerns about particular Chinese actions in the
South China Sea, the Communist Party’s top newspaper, the People’s Daily, told Washington to
‘‘shut up,’’ accusing the United States of ‘‘fanning flames’’ of division.12 China’s official Foreign
Ministry response noted that ‘‘people cannot but question the true intention of the U.S.
side.’’13 The most serious crisis in the South China Sea last year began in an April
2012 standoff between Beijing and Manila over Scarborough Reef, when the
Philippines apprehended eight Chinese fishing vessels in disputed waters. China was furious
that the Philippines had used a naval ship (rather than a maritime law enforcement vessel) to
arrest the fishermen, and were further incensed that the ship was the BRP Gregorio del Pilar, a
decommissioned U.S. Coast Guard frigate transferred by the United States in May 2011. In the
ensuing months, as the crisis dragged on, Chinese diplomats doggedly accused the United States
of both maintaining a biased position and encouraging the Philippines to take additional
provocative actions. A scattershot of events during the crisis reinforced China’s concerns: these
included the U.S.—/Philippines Balikatan military exercise in April, a port visit to Subic Bay in
May by the nuclear-/ powered submarine USS North Carolina, and a visit to Washington by
President Benigno Aquino in June. Chinese officials argued that these activities were stoking
tensions and emboldening the Philippines to perpetuate the standoff. In a June interview with
Thailand’s The Nation newspaper, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Fu Ying expressed China’s
concerns that, ‘‘against the backdrop of ongoing changes in the overall environment in the
Asia—/Pacific region, these problems and differences seem to be hyped up, and even used to
justify certain policies or actions.’’14 Amidst what it viewed as unrelenting pressure in
the South China Sea, China saw disturbing parallels in the East China Sea with
Japan. Strategists in Beijing perceived that the United States was again/by
design/creating an additional source of instability on China’s doorstep. For
decades, tensions have simmered between China and Japan over the sovereignty
of the Senkaku Islands, which offer access to key shipping lanes, fishing grounds, and
potential oil reserves. These tensions began to boil over in April 2010 when Tokyo Governor
Shintaro Ishihara declared his goal of purchasing three of the islands from a private Japanese
citizen. Many in Beijing saw the maneuverings of the United States behind this, partly because
Governor Ishihara first announced his intentions in a speech at the Heritage Foundation, a
conservative think tank in Washington, D.C. Subsequent events only fed Chinese suspicions. For
instance, as the crisis escalated into the fall of 2012, U.S. officials reiterated Secretary Clinton’s
October 2010 statement that the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security/ which obliges the
United States to defend Japan in case of hostilities/covers the Senkaku Islands.15 Furthermore,
the Defense Department announced during Secretary Panetta’s trip to Tokyo in August 2012
that the United States would locate an additional X-/Band missile-/defense radar in southern
Japan. China claims that this is an attempt at containment and could reduce the effectiveness of
its nuclear deterrent. Few in Beijing accepted the explanation by U.S. officials that
these actions were not aimed at China. Professor Shi Yinhong, director of the Center for
American Studies at Renmin University’s School of International Studies in Beijing, noted that
‘‘the joint missile defense system objectively encourages Japan to keep an aggressive position in
the Diaoyu Islands dispute, which sends China a very negative message. Japan would not have
been so aggressive without the support and actions of the U.S.’’16 Similarly, former Under
Secretary-/ General of the United Nations and former Chinese ambassador to Japan, Chen Jian,
said in an October 2012 speech in Hong Kong that many viewed the issue of the disputed
islands ‘‘as a time bomb planted by the U.S. between China and Japan.’’17 More
Rebalancing to Come Recent U.S. initiatives in Asia by no means represent the culmination or
complete execution of the Asia-/pivot strategy. Instead, it is more appropriate to view them as
first or foundational steps in a decade-/long project upon which substantially more economic,
diplomatic, cultural, and military initiatives will be built. The Defense Department’s January
2012 strategic guidance document pronounced that the United States ‘‘will of necessity
rebalance toward the Asia—/Pacific region.’’18 Secretary Panetta’s June 2012 speech at the
Shangri-/La Dialogue in Singapore reinforced this message and described specific actions the
United States would take to make good on its promise to provide ‘‘a deeper and more enduring
partnership in advancing the security and prosperity of the Asia—/Pacific.’’19 In his most cited
announcement, Panetta avowed that ‘‘by 2020 the Navy will re-/posture its forces from today’s
roughly 50/50 percent split between the Pacific and the Atlantic to about a 60/40 split between
those oceans.’’20 He also noted that the United States would invest in systems to
address China’s anti-/ access/area-/denial capabilities (including advanced fifth/generation fighters enhanced Virginia-/class submarines, electronic warfare and
communication capabilities, and improved precision weapons), as well as systems to address the
‘‘tyranny of distance’’ that U.S. planners face in the Western Pacific (including aerial-/refueling
tankers, a new bomber, and advanced maritime patrol and anti-/ submarine warfare aircraft).21
Finally, beyond hardware, Panetta noted that the United States would continue to develop new
operational concepts/including the Joint Operational Access Concept and the Air—/Sea Battle
concept/to meet the ‘‘unique challenges’’ of the Asia—/Pacific.22 In the security realm, the
future of the rebalancing strategy will go beyond U.S. military modernization to
include further development and diversification of U.S. force posture in Asia.
Obama administration officials have announced that the U.S. military is seeking new presence
and access arrangements in the region that are ‘‘geographically distributed, operationally
resilient, and politically sustainable.’’23 In March 2012, The Washington Post published a map
of Southeast Asia outlining a number of new potential operating locations for the U.S.
military.24 These included a possible rotational deployment of U.S. Marines in the Philippines,
including bases for surveillance aircraft and increased ship visits; plans to base four U.S. Navy
littoral combat ships in Singapore; a possible upgraded airfield for P-/8 surveillance aircraft and
Global Hawk drones on the Cocos Islands of Australia; possible expansion of the Royal
Australian Navy’s primary base in Western Australia (HMAS Stirling in Perth) to accommodate
visits by U.S. aircraft carriers, other warships, and attack submarines; the rotational deployment
of as many as 2,500 U.S. Marines in Darwin, Australia; and a possible new Australian fleet base
in Brisbane, Australia, that could accommodate visits from U.S. warships and submarines.
While budget and political realities in Washington and the region will curb or slow
these plans, at least some are likely to move forward in ways that will disquiet
Beijing. Add to that the possibility of deepening U.S. security ties with additional partners in
the region beyond traditional U.S. allies, including those on China’s periphery and with which
China has ongoing maritime and territorial disputes. On China’s southern border, for instance,
high-/level visits have become routine between the United States and Vietnam, including the
Political, Security, and Defense Dialogue, launched by the State Department and Vietnam’s
Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2008, and the Defense Policy Dialogue, a high-/level channel for
direct military-/to-/military discussions first held in 2010.25 Since 2006, the two countries have
conducted at least nine joint naval patrols in the Gulf of Tonkin, and in August 2010 engaged in
a bilateral non-/combatant naval exercise in the South China Sea.26 Furthering these security
ties, in June 2012, Secretary Panetta made the first visit since the end of the Vietnam War by a
U.S. defense secretary to the former U.S. Navy base in Cam Rahn Bay. Aboard the USS Richard
E. Byrd, Panetta declared that ‘‘access for United States naval ships into this facility is a key
component of this relationship and we see a tremendous potential here for the future.’’27 He
later spoke at a joint news conference about the potential to take the U.S.—/Vietnam military
relationship ‘‘to a new level’’ in the areas of maritime security, naval visits, search-/and-/rescue
operations, humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, and peacekeeping operations.28 Similar
stories could be told about deepening U.S. security relations with any number of emerging
powers in the region including India, Indonesia, and Singapore. If current trends continue,
China will also have to contend with deepening engagement between the United
States and Burma, which at some point will include discussions about the content
and timing of military-/to-/military relations between the two countries. As a step in
this direction, Burmese officials for the first time participated as observers in the annual U.S.—
/Thailand Cobra Gold military exercise in February 2013.29 Beyond security activities, U.S.
diplomatic and economic efforts in Asia will also likely contribute to Beijing’s
sense of unease, including the prospect of progress on the Trans-/Pacific
Partnership (TPP) trade agreement, growing U.S. collaboration with ASEAN, and
enhanced U.S. development assistance in Southeast Asia. Beijing will not view these actions
favorably, and to the extent that relatively minor U.S. initiatives to date have already raised
concerns and codified a view of malevolent U.S. intentions, additional activities closer to China’s
borders/in the Philippines, Vietnam, India, or Burma/will likely be cause for even greater
suspicion. China’s Vision: a ‘‘New Type of Relationship’’ With several acts in the drama of
America’s rebalancing to Asia to follow, there is an increasing dissonance between the
future direction of U.S. regional policy and China’s view of what would constitute a
stable U.S.—/China relationship. In what could only be interpreted as a highly coordinated
effort endorsed by the senior-/most leadership in Beijing, Chinese government officials have in
multiple venues and at the highest levels promoted the notion that the United States and China
should work toward a ‘‘new type of relationship between major powers.’’ The concept was
floated during then-/Vice President Xi Jinping’s visit to Washington in February 2012 and
subsequently reinforced and elaborated upon by the major players in the bilateral relationship,
including President Hu Jintao, State Counselor Dai Bingguo, Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi, and
Vice Foreign Minister for North America and Oceania Cui Tiankai.30
TPP is bad – kills democracy and destroys US power putting China in a position of
leverage causing war
Stoller 12 – Matt Stoller has a background in financial journalist and was a Roosevelt fellow
(“Trans-Pacific Partnership: The biggest trade deal you’ve never heard of”, October 23, 2012
http://www.salon.com/2012/10/23/everything_you_wanted_to_know_about_the_trans_paci
fic_partnership/)//sawyer
There are two major concerns about agreements like this. One is that these agreements continue
a transition from a democratic system toward one in which the rights of foreign corporations
can trump laws passed by legislative bodies. As Lee put it, “Every time you have a new trade
agreement you expand the number of companies who can challenge American
laws.” The second concern is far more frightening. America’s dependence on China was not an
issue in 1992, when NAFTA was signed. Today, it is. Lee noted, “We’ve put ourselves in a very
vulnerable position because of the concentrated source of supply on critical resources, whether
it’s China or elsewhere. I don’t agree that the TPP is the answer to this. In my view TPP, if
anything, will exacerbate this. In TPP what’s being discussed are fairly weak rules
of country of origin. Some of these countries may get substantial inputs from
China. The TPP could become a conduit for the U.S. to become more dependent on
China.” Barry Lynn spelled this out in a hypothetical disaster scenario, in which
American tensions with China cause genuine friction. This isn’t far-fetched, as
America is positioning military assets in the region. “Officials [in China] do not even
need to impose some sort of across-the-board trade embargo to achieve their ends. Far more
effective would be to put the squeeze on one industrial system or other, or one company or
other, day after day, in a systematic fashion, until Washington cried uncle. The Pentagon has
sketched out complex plans for how to respond to any use of force by China. Far more
useful would be to know how the United States as a nation would respond when, suddenly,
grandma can’t get her medicine. Or when, suddenly, the store shelves empty of batteries and
lightbulbs. What does the president do when he has General Electric and Wal-Mart both on the
phone, demanding the restoration of normal trade? Or when Apple’s stock plummets because
the company can’t move any of its iPhones through Chinese ports? The only real option is to
embrace the logic of industrial interdependence, hence to recognize that the only way for the
United States to achieve its most vital national aims — indeed, to be taken seriously by China —
is no longer to reposition its aircraft carriers, but to force its industrial and trading corporations
to reposition the machines on which it depends. The United States does not need to bring all or
even any of these systems of production home. But it can no longer continue to live in a world in
which many activities remain in one location, under the control of one state, especially a
strategic rival.” The TPP does not mitigate the threat of Chinese leverage over the American
supply chain at all. It is, at best, a weak agreement that looks and sounds big, but does very little
except further undermine the power of American government to maintain consumer,
environmental and labor laws and protect public assets, while denying some medicine to poor
people and making it easier for copyright owners to take down websites they don’t like. But as
the TPP is being portrayed in elite circles as the answer to the China dilemma, perhaps the
biggest danger inherent in the TPP is that the enormous threat implied in China controlling
America’s industrial base is being ignored, yet again.
AT: Asia Pivot
The status quo solves the entirety of the aff – dominant presence in asia and high
trade relations now with the Asian-Pacific – only a risk that the aff causes Chinese
aggression
Innocent 12 –Malou Innocent is an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. She is a member of
the International Institute for Strategic Studies, and her primary research interests include
Middle East and Persian Gulf security issues and U.S. foreign policy toward Pakistan,
Afghanistan, and China. She has appeared as a guest analyst on CNN, BBC News, Fox News
Channel, Al Jazeera, Voice of America, CNBC Asia, and Reuters. Innocent has published reviews
and articles on national security and international affairs in journals such as Survival,
Congressional Quarterly, and Harvard International Review. She has also written for Foreign
Policy, Wall Street Journal Asia, Christian Science Monitor, Armed Forces Journal, the
Guardian, Huffington Post, the Washington Times, and other outlets both in the United States
and overseas. She earned dual Bachelor of Arts degrees in Mass Communications and Political
Science from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Master of Arts degree in
International Relations from the University of Chicago, (“Textile Protectionism in the TransPacific Partnership”, July 23, 2012, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/textileprotectionism-trans-pacific-partnership)//sawyer
The greatest misperception surrounding Washington’s “pivot” to Asia is that America’s
dominant presence is not already felt there on a regular basis. It is. The United
States plays a considerable role in the Far East, despite the Obama administration’s
proclamations last autumn that it would “pivot” or “rebalance” there in the future. For one, the
United States maintains forward-deployed forces in South Korea, with 28,500 U.S.
troops; Guam, with 4,500 U.S. troops;and Japan, with 40,000 U.S. troops. Guam, of course, is
part of America as a non-self-governing, unincorporated territory. South Korea and Japan,
however, after decades of proven internal stability and peaceful democratic transitions, are
equipped to defend themselves. Once upon a time, South Korea was incapable of surviving
without America’s support. That began to change in the 1980s. Today, its economy ranks around
13th in the world, it has twice the North’s population, and, if South Korea’s leaders chose to,
could be spending on defense the equivalent of the North’s entire annual GDP. As for Japan,
despite its recent economic woes, it had the fifth highest defense budget in the world in 2011,
according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Japan surpassed Russia, India, and
Brazil, and fell only behind the United States, China, the United Kingdom, and France.
Moreover, as scholars Shinichi Ogawa and Michael Schiffer have pointed out, in criticism of its
policy, Japan possesses a nuclear “breakout” capacity, meaning its civilian nuclear fuel cycle is
so advanced “that, at the flip of the switch, [it] could be militarized.” “ Washington’s obsessive
fixation on the Middle East and North Africa should warrant serious reconsideration.” Save for a
planned contingent of 2,500 U.S. Marines in Australia, four littoral combat ships stationed in
Singapore, and rotating troops and surveillance aircraft in the Philippines, it is unclear whether
U.S. troop deployments will grow more robust in Japan and South Korea. They should not.
Such prosperous allies can live without the generous welfare of American taxpayers. Aside from
these forward-deployed forces, the Far East feels Washington’s constant presence with the
United States Pacific Command. This regional unified military structure consists of about onefifth of total U.S. military strength. It includes six aircraft carrier strike groups, about two-thirds
of U.S. Marine Corps combat strength, and the U.S. Pacific Fleet, which goeson frequent patrols
conducting joint, military-training exercises with America’s allies and partners. Talking about
partners, Uncle Sam has a lot of them in a region home to over 50 percent of the world’s
population. The United States has been cultivating warmer relations with India,
most especially after accommodating New Delhi’s nuclear expansion with a symbolic,
2008 agreement facilitating civilian nuclear cooperation between them. Moreover, despite
recent hand wringing over U.S.-Russia relations, Washington’s so-called “reset” has rebounded
ties from their 2008 low, particularly with regard to Moscow’s help supplying NATO’s war effort
in Afghanistan. Elsewhere, the United States has forged better relations with Vietnam,
Myanmar, Indonesia, Singapore, and the Philippines, and has embraced existing multilateral
organizations and trade agreements, like the East Asia Summit, the Trans-Pacific Partnership,
and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. In the end, Washington’s obsessive fixation on
the Middle East and North Africa should warrant serious reconsideration. More of America’s
attention should be paid to the future of the Asia-Pacific, since maintaining peace in that region
will be the challenge of the 21st century. However, what foreign policy planners in Washington
should be asking themselves is what the United States should be willing to defend in this region,
and at what cost? What implicit commitments should Washington make to prosperous,
populous countries eminently capable of defending themselves? Allies are intended to
supplement a nation-state’s power, not hinder or jeopardize it. Primarily, America’s
deepening involvement in Asia is meant to reassure allies nervous over China’s
growing assertiveness and increased military spending. However, the United States
can both value being a strong military power and allow other countries in the Far East to assert a
greater leadership role. These policies are neither zero-sum nor mutually exclusive.
For more than half a century, the United States has played a prominent military and economic
role in the Asia-Pacific. The American people should not be led to believe that their country was
a never a force to be reckoned with there. Indeed, the biggest tale proponents of U.S.
prominence in Asia ever sold was the intimation that we do not already have it.
Counterplans
NAFTA 2 + China CP
NAFTA 2 + China solves better than the TPP
Paramonov, 13 – Dr. Igor M. Paramonov, Southern Alberta Institute of Technology, Calgary (“The Rise of
Asia and North American Economic Integration: A Canadian Perspective” The Business Review,
Cambridge21.1 (Summer 2013): 67-73. Proquest)
NAFTA 2 + CHINA FORMULA
A number of experts agree that Canadians should have a long-term strategy which not only provides
access to Asian markets and capital, but also ensures that we view engagement with China through "a
Canada-US lens" (Dobson, p.5, 2011). All projections show that the U.S. will remain the main trade and
investment partner for Canada. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade forecasts
that, "By 2040 the U.S. share of Canadian exports is expected to be 75.5 percent" (Canada's State of
Trade, p. 67, 2011). If so, Canadians must avoid being caught between their largest market and their
fastest growing one at all costs (Crowley, 2012). This is particularly timely given that Ottawa's
engagement with China has already caused concerns on both sides of the border. Recent acquisition of
Canadian publicly traded oil company Nexen Inc. by the Chinese government-run firm CNOOC Ltd., and
security issues over the operation of Huawei Technologies in the telecom sectors of both Canada and
the USA have been widely publicized by the North American media. To ensure that any Canada-China
negotiations contribute to mutual benefits while at the same time keeping our relations with the U.S.
intact, Ottawa has to strike a balance that satisfies everyone. This paper recommends considering the
"NAFTA 2 + China" formula.
NAFTA 2 is known in the literature as a possible future scenario of renegotiation and deepening of North
American integration with the elimination of deficiencies in the initial 1993 agreement (Paramonov,
2012). Critics describe NAFTA as "outdated" and largely stalled (Dobson, Kuzmanovic, 2010). Many see
the TPP as a vehicle for upgrading and modifying NAFTA. The analysis above shows serious roadblocks
on the way to a complete TPP agreement anytime soon, which would subsequently delay NAFTA 2
progress as well. In theory, the suggested "NAFTA 2 + China" formula of negotiations allows for a
modernization of the 20-year old agreement in terms of its deficiencies (including dispute resolution,
capital movements, rules of origin, and trade in services) while simultaneously harmonizing the interests
of Canada, the U.S., and Mexico in trade and investment with China. Modern, transparent, and mutually
beneficial rules of economic engagement in North America should be the foundation for regional
consolidation and collaboration for the next 20 years (Jeffs, 2012). NAFTA 2 should deliver the strength
and resolve which is so highly respected by China.
Renegotiation of NAFTA has been viewed as a remote possibility due to a lack of interest from the U.S.
government, but perhaps new developments in Mexico could motivate Americans to look beyond the
new and exotic markets in Asia and to return their attention to the home continent. Rising wages in
China and its geographic remoteness make Mexico's labour market appealing once again. The Economist
predicts that according to present trends, the U.S. will import more from Mexico than from any other
country by 2018 (Mexico and the United States, 2012). Mexico is one of the fastest growing markets and
the second-largest economy in Latin America, as well as a faithful member of NAFTA. As Canada's
largest-circulation national newspaper advised in its Editorial, the U.S. and Canada are right to reach out
to emerging markets, but should not lose sight of their NAFTA partners in the process (Mexico, a natural
partner for Canada, 2012).
TAFTA CP
Integrating Mexico into TAFTA negotiations reignites support for widespread
multilateral trade liberalization – decreases international violence globally
Hills 4/24 – former US Trade Representative and Chief Executive Officer of Hills & Company
International Consultants (Carla A, “A Trans-Atlantic Trade Pact for the World,” 4/24/13, New York
Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/25/opinion/global/a-trans-atlantic-trade-pact-for-theworld.html)//SJF
The opening of global markets — starting in 1947 with the first round of trade negotiations among 23
nations and the creation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), through the creation of
the World Trade Organization in 1995 — caused international trade to explode and standards of living
for nations rich and poor to soar.
Economic studies show that the opening of global markets since the end of World War II has added
about $9,000 of additional wealth for the average American household. Developing nations have also
gained from global trade. On average, poor countries that opened their markets to trade and
investment have grown more than three times faster than those that kept their markets closed. No
country has prospered by sealing itself off from global economy.
The Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations was launched in 2001, two months after the 9/11
terrorist attacks in the United States. It sought to boost economic growth through trade liberalization
for all nations, but particularly for developing nations.
The security dimension was real, because in addition to the projected economic benefits, past
experience showed that as governments liberalized their trade regimes, they generally liberalized their
political regimes. Adherence to an agreed set of trade rules and support for the W.T.O. dispute
settlement mechanism encourages nondiscrimination, transparency and rule of law, which contribute to
increased stability.
The Doha negotiations broke down in 2005 and have made little progress since. Trade commentators
are declaring Doha dead and multilateral negotiations obsolete as governments increasingly have turned
to negotiating bilateral and regional trade agreements that create conflicting rules and distort trade by
creating trade preferences for the signatories at the expense of those that do not participate. There is
legitimate concern that the proliferation of bilateral and regional trade agreements could render the
W.T.O. irrelevant and destroy the enormous benefits we derive from our multilateral trading system.
What could bring the 159 W.T.O. members back to the table? Ironically, history demonstrates that the
successful negotiation of a major regional trade agreement of high quality can provide the necessary
catalyst.
In 1990, the Uruguay Round collapsed in Brussels. In June 1991 the United States, Mexico and Canada
launched the negotiations of a North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta). Fourteen months later
negotiations were concluded. President George H.W. Bush signed the agreement in December 1992;
President Clinton secured congressional approval of the agreement the following year.
By joining the economies of Canada, Mexico and the U.S., Nafta created a regional market of over 400
million people. It was the first comprehensive free trade agreement to join developed and developing
nations, and it achieved broader and deeper trade liberalization than any prior trade agreement.
The world’s reaction was broad, deep and fast. In just a few months following the passage of the Nafta,
trade negotiators returned to the bargaining table, completed the Uruguay Round, and created the
W.T.O. to the enormous benefit of the global economy.
If we are to repeat the success of two decades ago, we will require an even greater catalyst: a regional
trade agreement of such quality and scope that the rest of the world is galvanized.
The Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership recently announced by the European Union and
the United States could be that catalyst. That negotiation would involve roughly half the global
economy. The negotiation need not be protracted. The E.U. and the U.S. each recently concluded free
trade agreements with South Korea that could serve as a template upon which to build.
The proposed Trans-Atlantic Partnership could have even more heft if Canada and Mexico were added
— which makes sense, since Mexico already has a free trade agreement with the E.U., and Canada is in
the final stages of negotiating one. Including them would avoid having different rules covering trade
involving our two largest trading partners.
The global reaction to Nafta 20 years ago shows that “competitive liberalization” can be a powerful
catalyst. When governments see others taking economic action that generates growth and stability, they
do not want to be left out.
A broad, gold-standard trade agreement across the Atlantic could be such a catalyst for reigniting
support for multilateral trade liberalization, bringing W.T.O. members back to the table to finish the
Doha Round, which would give a real boost to the global economy.
It was done before with the Nafta, and it could be done again with the successful conclusion of the
Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.
US backing is vital to Mexican negotiation credibility in TAFTA
Glickhouse and Zissis 4/26 – editor-in-chief of the Americas Society and Council of the Americas
(Rachel, Carin, “Explainer: President Barack Obama's Trip to Mexico and Costa Rica,” 4/26/13,
http://www.as-coa.org/articles/explainer-president-barack-obamas-trip-mexico-and-costa-rica)//SJF
Trade: Talking TPP and More in Mexico
Given that Mexico is the third-biggest U.S. trading partner, the two countries’ economies are deeply
connected. The North-American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is closing in on its twentieth birthday,
and U.S.-Mexican trade neared $500 billion last year, representing more than a fivefold increase since
pre-NAFTA days. As Herminio Blanco, one of the deal’s chief negotiators, commented on NAFTA to
AS/COA Online last month: “[I]f somebody would have told me, in 20 years Mexico will be exporting
more than a billion dollars per day, I would say, ‘You must be crazy.’” In 2011, trilateral trade between
Canada, Mexico, and the United States “reached the $1 trillion threshold,” notes a Congressional
Research Service report.
More recently, the three countries have become party to negotiations of a larger trade agreement—the
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a multilateral deal seeking to boost economic integration among Pacific
Rim countries. In terms of hemispheric membership, Chile and Peru are also members; Colombia, Costa
Rica, and Panama are observers (a new Americas Quarterly article notes that Costa Rica “is close to
signing with all members, one of the requirements of full membership”). “A concluded TPP would
solidify North America as an integrated production platform with Asia-Pacific and parts of South
America, while also offering an opportunity to strengthen NAFTA—cutting edge when it entered into
force almost 20 years ago but now in need of an update,” says COA Vice President Eric Farnsworth. “This
is in equal measure why both Mexico and Canada should be invited to join the United States in the
pending negotiations with Europe at the front end, not brought in after the fact when negotiations may
already be well advanced,” he added, referring to the EU-U.S. Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership announced in February.
It was during Obama’s last trip to Latin America in June 2012—for the G20 in Los Cabos—that the United
States backed Mexico’s membership in the TPP. This time around the Mexican government could seek
U.S. support to join in the EU-U.S. negotiations.
TAFTA is better and solves the affs internal links – comparative evidence to TPP
Cooper 13 –Ryan Cooper is the web editor of the Washington Monthly, (“A Look at Two
Potential Trade Deals”, March 13, 2013, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animala/2013_03/a_look_at_two_potential_trade043546.php#)//sawyer
Prestowitz highlights several little-known facts about the TPP which ought to see wider
discussion before any treaty is signed. For example, it has the potential to seriously alter many
of our existing trade agreements, especially in Latin America and the Caribbean:
An additional problem is how the TPP would destroy the Caribbean Basin Free Trade
Agreement (CAFTA) and poke big holes in the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA). For example, under both agreements, textile producers in the
Caribbean and Mexico who use U.S. yarn receive duty-free access to the U.S. market for textiles
and apparel. The U.S. struck these deals partly in response to the discriminatory trade and
industrial policies of some Asian countries that were distorting markets and causing the loss of
U.S. jobs. A second objective was to help create jobs in Mexico and the Caribbean and thereby
reduce the number of undocumented immigrants from these countries while also providing an
alternative to employment in the drug-trafficking trade. By removing tariffs on textile imports
from Vietnam, the TPP would displace an estimated 1.2 million textile workers in the Caribbean
Basin and Mexico along with about 170,000 in the United States, according to Mary O’Rourke,
an industry analyst. Some see that as simply the price of achieving true free trade and
optimizing the planet’s division of labor. But Vietnam is dominated by state-owned enterprises
and is far from being a market economy. Furthermore, under a situation of true free trade, it
would be China, not Vietnam, that would take most of the textile business, because China has
gigantic excess capacity in textiles, as it does in just about everything else. TAFTA, though,
comes out as a better deal, according to Prestowitz. It should spark some nontrivial economic
growth, for starters, and would have little of the labor market undercutting that is such a
problem when dealing with countries like China: This experience is one reason why TAFTA
deserves a second look, but there are also others. First is the need for growth in an
age of high debt and austerity. Neither the U.S. nor Europe is politically prepared to
stimulate its economy through any significant increase in deficit spending. That means growth
must come from some other source, and the efficiencies that would come from further
integration of European and American economies are a plausible answer. Labor unions in the
EU are strong and wages are high, so there will be no race to the bottom. And the EU and the
U.S. largely share a commitment to free markets, free trade, and democracy . Much
of what has gone wrong with the WTO derives from systemic conflicts between the U.S. and the
EU on the one side and the more interventionist and authoritarian political economies of the
rest of the world on the other. The biggest economic gain from TAFTA would be from
harmonizing regulation . Inconsistencies in regulation raise the costs of transatlantic trade
in automobiles, for example, by 27 percent, and by 6.5 percent in the electronics sector alone.
The United States and Europe both have safe headlights, for instance, but EU cars exported to
America must have different headlights than those sold in Europe and vice versa. That non-tariff
barrier inhibits exports while raising costs by forcing producers to keep extra stocks of different
headlights. The same holds true for electronics and most other products. Mutual recognition of
essentially equivalent standards and removal of similar non-tariff barriers would boost U.S.
GDP by 1 to 3 percent ($150 billion to $450 billion), according to a 2005 study by the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Condition CP
Text: Do the plan if and only if the full social, environmental, and economic
impacts are assessed and only if Mexico says yes to requiring a to
environmental protection standards higher than those of the international
community
Here’s a solvency advocate
NCC 13 –Nelson City Council, (“Nelson is Second City to Pass Critical Resolution on
TPPA”, July 25, 2013, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories9/AK1307/S00665/nelson-issecond-city-to-pass-critical-resolution-on-tppa.htm)
Nelson is Second City to Pass Critical Resolution on TPPA Nelson City Council passed a
resolution setting a number of conditions for an acceptable Trans-Pacific
Partnership Agreement (TPPA) on Thursday 18 July. There were 6 votes for, 1
against and 2 abstentions. The Nelson motion mirrors one passed by Auckland City last
December. The Council declined the recommendation of a council researcher for a
shortened, less critical version and adopted the full resolution. Cr. Mike Ward, who
moved the motion, spoke forcefully in favour of it, pointing to the risk the TPPA posed
to the healthy and participatory life of local communities. The resolution calls on the
government to conclude negotiations on the TPPA and other free trade agreements in a
way that provides net positive benefits for Nelson and New Zealand – and sets out a list
of criteria to satisfy that test. The conditions target areas of particular concern to the
powers and responsibilities of local government. They include retaining the right to give
local preferences when spending ratepayers’ money on public procurement, and the
right to choose whether particular services or facilities are provided in house by councilcontrolled organisations. Nor should foreign investors have greater rights than locals.
The motion also stressed the need to preserve the Council’s right to require more robust
health and safety provisions, environmental protection, employment rights, community
participation, animal protection or human rights standards than national or
international minimum standards. In relation to democratic decision making, the
resolution urges that the text should not be signed off without full public
consultation on the drafts and that ratification is conditional on a full social,
environmental and economic impact assessment. A large crowd attended the
Nelson City Council public forum where the vote was taken. Graeme O’Brien, the chief
petitioner spoke to the meeting. Mr O’Brien called on other councils to follow suit,
flagging to central government that there is awareness and concern at local government
level about the dangers of this secretly negotiated agreement. The resolution will be
forwarded to the Government. RESOLUTION: That the Nelson City Council encourages
the government to conclude negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Free
Trade Agreements in a way that provides net positive benefits for Nelson and New
Zealand ie the partnership and agreements achieve the following objectives: a)
encourages the government to conclude negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership
and Free Trade Agreements in a way that provides net positive benefits for Nelson and
New Zealand. a) …, that is, provided the Partnership and Agreements achieve the
following objectives: i. Continues to allow the Nelson Council and other councils, if they
so choose, to adopt procurement policies that provide for a degree of local preference; to
choose whether particular services or facilities are provided in house, by council
controlled organisations (CCOs) or by contracting out; or to require higher health
and safety, environmental protection, employment rights and conditions,
community participation, animal protection or human rights standards
than national or international minimum standards. ii. Maintains good
diplomatic and trade relations and partnerships for Nelson and New Zealand with other
major trading partners not included in the agreement, including with China. iii.
Provides substantially increased access for our agriculture exports. iv. Does not
undermine PHARMAC, raise the cost of medical treatments and medicines or threaten
public health measures, such as tobacco control; v. Does not give overseas investors or
suppliers any greater rights than domestic investors and suppliers, such as through
introducing Investor-State Dispute Settlement, or reduce our ability to control overseas
investment or finance; vi. Does not expand intellectual property rights and enforcement
in excess of current law; vii. Does not weaken our public services, require privatisation,
hinder reversal of privatisations, or increase the commercialisation of government or of
Nelson Council or other local government organisations; viii. Does not reduce our
flexibility to support local economic and industry development and encourage good
employment and environmental practices and initiatives like Council Cadetships, and
the Mayor’s Taskforce for Jobs which enable marginalised young people to develop their
skills and transition into meaningful employment; ix. Contains enforceable labour
clauses requiring adherence to core International Labour Organisation conventions and
preventing reduction of labour rights for trade or investment advantage; x. Contains
enforceable environmental clauses preventing reduction of environmental standards for
trade or investment advantage; xi. Has general exceptions to protect human rights, the
environment, the Treaty of Waitangi, and New Zealand’s economic and financial
stability; xii. Has been negotiated with real public consultation including regular public
releases of drafts of the text of the agreement, and ratification being conditional
on a full social, environmental and economic impact assessment including
public submissions.
Mexico will say yes to gain participation
Bell 12 - Douglas Bell, Chair, Trade Policy Staff Committee, (“Public Hearings: Mexico
Participation in Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Agreement; Negotiating Objectives”,
September 4, 2012, http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USTR-2012-0014-0001)
Request for comments on negotiating objectives with respect to Mexico's participation in the
ongoing negotiations of a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement, and notice of public
hearing. The United States intends to commence negotiations with Mexico as part
of the ongoing negotiations of a TPP trade agreement. Including Mexico in the TPP
negotiations furthers the objective of achieving a high-standard, broad-based Asia-Pacific
regional agreement. The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is seeking
public comments on all elements related to Mexico's participation in the TPP
negotiations in order to develop U.S. negotiating positions. Persons wishing to testify
orally at the hearing must provide written notification of their intention, as well as their
testimony, by September 4, 2012. The hearing will be held in Washington, DC, on September 21,
2012. Written comments are due by noon, September 4, 2012. Submissions via on-line:
www.regulations.gov. For alternatives to on-line submissions, please contact Donald W. Eiss at
(202) 395-3475. For questions concerning requirements for written comments, please contact
Donald W. Eiss at (202) 395-3475. All other questions regarding this notice should be directed
to Kent Shigetomi, Director for Mexico and NAFTA, at (202) 395-3412. On November 13, 2011,
Mexican Economy Secretary Bruno Ferrari stated Mexico's intention to begin consultations with
the current TPP participating countries regarding Mexico's participation in the TPP
negotiations. On December 7, 2011, USTR published notices in theFederal Register(76 FR
76479), seeking public comments on Mexico's possible participation in the TPP negotiations. On
July 9, 2012, following consultations with relevant Congressional committees and after having
reached consensus on Mexico's participation with the other TPP negotiating partners (Australia,
Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam), the U.S.
Trade Representative informed Congress that the President intends to commence negotiations
with Mexico in the context of the ongoing negotiations of the TPP. The objective of this
negotiation is to achieve a high-standard, 21st century agreement with a membership and
coverage that provides economically significant market access opportunities for America's
workers, manufacturers, service suppliers, farmers, ranchers, and small businesses. The
addition of Mexico to the group of TPP negotiating partners will contribute
meaningfully to the achievement of these goals. In addition, under the Trade Act of 1974,
as amended (19 U.S.C. 2151, 2153), in the case of an agreement such as the proposed TPP trade
agreement, the President must (i) afford interestedpersons an opportunity to present their views
regarding any matter relevant to the proposed agreement, (ii) designate an agency or interagency committee to hold a public hearing regarding the proposed agreement, and (iii) seek the
advice of the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) regarding the probable economic
effects on U.S. industries and consumers of the removal of tariffs and non-tariff barriers on
imports pursuant to the proposed agreement. USTR intends to hold a public hearing on matters
related to Mexico's participation in the TPP negotiations on September 21, 2012. In addition,
USTR has requested the ITC to provide advice to USTR on the probable economic effects of
including Mexico in a TPP agreement. To assist USTR as it develops its negotiating objectives
for the agreement, the Trade Policy Subcommittee Chair invites interested persons to submit
written comments and/or oral testimony at a public hearing on matters relevant to Mexico's
participation in the TPP negotiations. Members of the public who submitted comments in
response to the earlier request (76 FR 76479) need not make an additional submission unless
the comments are different. Comments and testimony may address the reduction or elimination
of tariffs or non-tariff barriers on any articles provided for in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
the United States (HTSUS) that are products of Mexico, any concession that should be sought by
the United States, or any other matter relevant to the inclusion of Mexico in the proposed TPP
agreement. The TPSC Chair invites comments on all of these matters and, in particular, seeks
comments addressed to: (a) General and product-specific negotiating objectives for Mexico in
the context of this proposed regional agreement. (b) Economic costs and benefits to U.S.
producers and consumers of removal of tariffs and removal or reduction in non-tariff barriers
on articles traded with Mexico. (c) Treatment of specific goods (described by HTSUS numbers)
under the proposed regional agreement, including comments on— (1) Product-specific import or
export interests or barriers, (2) experience with particular measures that should be addressed in
the negotiations, and (3) approach to tariff negotiations, including ways to address export
priorities and import sensitivities related to Mexico in the context of this regional agreement. (d)
Adequacy of existing customs measures to ensure that qualifying imported goods from TPP
countries, including Mexico, receive preferential treatment, and appropriate rules of origin for
goods entering the United States under the proposed regional agreement. (e) Existing sanitary
and phytosanitary measures and technical barriers to trade imposed by Mexico that should be
addressed in the negotiations. (f) Existing barriers to trade in services between the United States
and Mexico that should be addressed in the negotiations. (g) Relevant electronic commerce
issues that should be addressed in the negotiations. (h) Relevant trade-related intellectual
property rights issues that should be addressed in the negotiations. (i) Relevant investment
issues that should be addressed in the negotiations. (j) Relevant competition-related matters
that should be addressed in the negotiations. (k) Relevant government procurement issues that
should be addressed in the negotiations. (l) Relevant environmental issues that should
be addressed in the negotiations. (m) Relevant labor issues that should be addressed in
the negotiations. In addition to the matters described above, USTR is addressing new and
emerging issues in this proposed regional agreement. Specifically, USTR is considering new
approaches designed to promote innovation and competitiveness, encourage new technologies
and emerging economic sectors, increase the participation of small- and medium-sized
businesses in trade, and support the development of efficient production and supply chains that
include U.S. firms in order to encourage firms to invest and produce in the United States. The
Chair of the Trade Policy Staff Committee (TSPC) invites comments regarding how Mexico's
participation in the negotiations might affect these new approaches. The TPSC Chair also invites
comments on the impact of Mexico's participation in the negotiations on other trade-related
priorities in this regional agreement, including environmental protection and
conservation, transparency, workers rights and protections, development, and other issues.
USTR has already provided notice and requested comments on the scope for an
environmental review of the proposed TPP trade agreement (see 75 FR 14470, March
25, 2010). As described above, the present notice invites comments on, among other topics,
environmental issues to be addressed in the TPP negotiations to take into account
Mexico's participation in the negotiation . Further comments are also invited on the
environmental review, including possible changes in the scope or other issues that should be
addressed in the review. At a later date, USTR, through the TPSC, will publish notice of reviews
regarding the impact of the proposed agreement on U.S. employment and labor markets. These
reviews will take into account Mexico's participation in the negotiations.
TPP bad
TPP bad – organized crime
Involving Mexico in TPP negotiations expands organized crime – causes widespread
instability
Peele 12 – Rotary World Peace Fellow and holds a master's degree in International Relations from the
Universidad del Salvador (Justin, “A Call for Caution: The (Side) Effect of Mexico’s Entry into the TransPacific Partnership,” 7/3/12, http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/a-call-for-caution-the-side-effect-ofmexico%E2%80%99s-entry-into-the-trans-pacific-partnership)//SJF
Recently Mexico was invited to participate in talks which could culminate in its entry into the TransPacific Partnership (TPP). This proposed free trade area in the Asia-Pacific Region currently has nine
nations on board (Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and the
United States) and aims to “enhance trade and investment among the TPP partner countries, promote
innovation, economic growth and development, and support the creation and retention of jobs.”
On the surface these trade talks will be a positive step for Mexico’s business community and has been
met with wide acclaim from the Mexican leadership. President Calderon, sitting directly beside
President Obama at the meeting, was overheard stating: “This is wonderful news,” adding that their
inclusion “implies economic growth and jobs for at least the next two decades.” But below the surface
there is a very real cause for alarm. While supporting legitimate businesses in international trade, the
Trans-Pacific Partnership runs the risk of also aiding significantly Mexico’s numerous Transnational
Criminal Organizations (TCOs), much to the same effect of NAFTA in the 1990s. NAFTA stipulated a
variety of demands, namely the removal of most tariffs and restrictions on trade between the three
participating nations, the United States, Canada and Mexico. NAFTA implemented a wide range of
agreements on everything from agricultural, textile and auto trade to telecommunications, intellectual
property and environmental policies. The results of NAFTA were mixed to say the least.
It is important to move beyond the common arguments for or against this multilateral agreement
regarding which country benefited the most or how many jobs were created or destroyed. Instead,
focus should be heightened on an oft-talked about subject: that of the illicit markets and known
criminals that benefited tremendously from this policy. From there we gain insight into possible
undesired outcomes of Mexico’s future participation in the TPP, an agreement which according to one
Mexican trade expert the country has envisioned as “NAFTA-plus.” After all, if all interested countries
are admitted, this proposed economic pact would be about forty percent larger than the entire twentyseven nation European Union. This is not small change on the table.
The (Side) Effect of NAFTA in the Creation of Mexico’s TCOs
In 1990 Mexico approached the U.S. with the idea of forming a free trade agreement between their
countries, an endeavor which would eventually culminate in the creation of NAFTA several years later.
The then Mexican President Salinas de Gortari had several motivations in pursuing such a pact with the
United States, namely to increase economic growth by attracting foreign direct investment, to boost
exports, the creation of industrial jobs and giving the Mexican economy an overall growth stimulus.
Overall, the increased foreign direct investment would help create jobs, increase wage rates, and reduce
poverty within the country (p. 1).
However, as an unintended consequence, the same policies which were designed to encourage business
and the integration of U.S.-Mexican economies aided significantly in the expansion of illicit markets,
primarily the illicit drug sector. NAFTA helped create not only the three most prominent drug trafficking
organizations in Mexico, but some of the country’s most notorious drug lords, criminals worth billions of
dollars.
As the majority of maquiladoras (factories operating in a free trade zone) were located along the U.S.Mexican border, it is no coincidence that the focus of Mexican drug-traffickers shifted from the Pacific
coast to the border states of Baja California, Chihuahua, and Tamaulipas. In time, these three states on
the U.S.-Mexican border would become the home of the Tijuana Cartel, Juarez Cartel, and Gulf Cartel
respectively. As one author describes the time period, Mexican drug trafficking organizations
consolidated their power “amid the gold rush of globalization (p. 75).” According to Eduardo Valle, who
resigned as personal advisor to the Mexican attorney general in 1994, the most successful drug capos
had become “driving forces, pillars even, of our economic growth (p. 129).”
In response to the doubling of U.S. imports from Mexico between 1993, the year before NAFTA took
effect, and 1997, Phil Jordan, the former Director of the DEA’s El Paso Intelligence Center remarked that
NAFTA served as a “godsend” to drug trafficking, “the best thing that happened to product distribution
since Nike signed up Michael Jordan (p. 3).” Based on this ‘growth stimulus’ of the free trade
agreement, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the leader of the Sinaloa Federation, Joaquín “El Chapo”
Guzman currently appears for the fourth consecutive year on Forbes Magazine’s list of top billionaires.
Not only was he recently named “The world’s most powerful drug trafficker” by the U.S. Department of
the Treasury, he has been named repeatedly as one of Forbes Magazine’s “World’s Most Powerful
People” throughout the years. His current location on the list places him just a few spots down from
President Bill Clinton and the Dalai Lama. It is unlikely that so much wealth and power could be
amassed without the myriad of unintended consequences stemming from NAFTA.
In a study conducted to understand the impact of Mexico’s market reforms on the illicit drug trade, a
number of shocking conclusions were drawn, namely that the increased trade flows between ColombiaMexico-U.S., brought about by trade liberalization, provided the necessary cover for increased drug
trafficking. The privatization of companies and services was also utilized by cartels for money laundering
and narco-investment. The deregulation of the trucking industry inadvertently aided in the transport of
both legal and illegal goods, thus increasing transport of large drug shipments within Mexico and into
the U.S. market. It was found that foreign debt repayments also provided the incentives for a
government to tolerate a heavy influx of drug revenues. As public sector salaries were lowered, the
incentives for officials to accept bribes increased, thus furthering corruption within the state. Financial
liberalization also increased money laundering opportunities for drug cartels, and capital markets
investment created a ‘narco-sector.’ The volume of legitimate cross-border trade increased
significantly, thereby providing a cover for increased illegitimate trade. Even agricultural reform brought
about the unintended consequences of families resorting to drug crop cultivation as a household
survival strategy. This would in turn increase narco-investment in rural areas of cultivation (p. 137). It is
apparent that there was a significant amount of collateral damage created by governmental policies
designed to increase the overall wealth of the country and the standard of living of the average Mexican
citizen.
There is an average estimate of 210 million illegal drug users throughout the world. This illicit market is
currently valued in the hundreds of billions of dollars, a sum which “far exceeds the size of the
legitimate economy” of some countries plagued by drug trafficking (p. 8). With the Drug Trafficking
Organizations having graduated in recent years to Transnational Criminal Organizations, their portfolio
of illicit businesses and practices has grown exponentially. Edgardo Buscaglia, a leading Mexican
academic and advisor to several U.S. government agencies, has identified twenty-two illicit markets in
which these TCOs operate. These same illicit markets could be inadvertently expanded upon if given the
opportunity by the new TPP, much like NAFTA of the 1990s.
If NAFTA did for illicit substance distribution what Michael Jordan did for Nike- perhaps Mexico’s entry
into the Trans-Pacific Partnership would be akin to Nike’s humble beginnings as a small shoe company,
and its evolution over time into a multi-billion dollar brand easily recognized the world over, dominating
not only athletic shoes, but apparel, equipment and their distribution as well. A truly global empire.
An induction of Mexico into the TPP could very well result in an escalation in criminal activities for the
TCOs, already an empire and global enterprise in their own right. After all, the powerful illicit economy
that they enjoy is one of the primary employers in poor communities and is the number two source of
foreign currency behind Mexico’s oil exports (p. 147). A future evolution and growth into other
currently untapped markets around the globe would eclipse our old notion of the term ‘transnational
criminal organization,’ creating new meaning and an even more empowered Mexican criminal network,
the likes of which the world has never seen.
Conclusion
With Mexico’s first excursion into a free trade agreement with the United States, both the Clinton and
Bush administrations ignored, despite the evidence, the developing drug trafficking groups just across
the border. The priority was always the passage of NAFTA and the economic growth of legitimate
markets. Concerns were left off the negotiating table, prompting the Director of the DEA at the time to
call it “a hot potato we were not supposed to touch, no question (p. 2).”
We have since witnessed the numerous side-effects of this short-sightedness: the culmination of an
unprecedented body count, along with the terror, bombings, beheadings, mutilations, torture, mass
graves, and other forms of suffering that have been inflicted upon the Mexican people in recent years.
Regarding Mexico’s admittance into the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a call for caution must be issued by
policy makers on both sides of the border, lest history repeat itself.
Aids turn
The TPP would deny the production of AIDS drugs
HG 11 - Public Citizen, Health GAP, Global Access Project, Healthgap.org, (“The Trans Pacific
Free Trade Agreement Deadly Big-Pharma Greed Threatening AIDS Drugs”, June 16, 2011,
http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/9727221/1663267868/name/TPP+Health+Gap+1+Page.pdf)//s
awyer
The Trans Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (or TPP for short) is currently being
negotiated in secret with hundreds of corporate lobbyists “advising” on the largest regional free
trade agreement the U.S. has ever seen. Multinational pharmaceutical companies are
driving an agenda that would deny affordable AIDS drugs to people in Asia and
Latin America. It’s part of a broader power-grab to shut down production of generic
AIDS medicines globally, and the Obama administration is acting as a pharmapuppet in
support! The biggest drug companies, job-killing corporations, major global banks, and
agribusiness giants want this deal to be another corporate power tool that could eventually
include every Pacific Rim nation from Vietnam and Thailand to Mexico and Russia. The
proposed deal would halt generic production of AIDS drugs plus drive down wages,
environmental standards, and Wall Street regulation!
AIDS drugs are key to stop the spread
Pettypiece and Langreth 12- Shannon Pettypiece is an American print and broadcast
journalist. She currently reports on health care and markets for Bloomberg, Robert
Langreth is a reporter for Bloomberg News, (“AIDS Deaths Drop as Global Access to
HIV Drugs Expand “, July 18, 2012, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0718/aids-deaths-drop-as-global-access-to-hiv-drugs-expand.html)//sawyer
Deaths from AIDS continued to decline last year as the number of people on
HIV drugs worldwide surged 21 percent from 2010, according to a report that
found poor and middle income countries spent more on treatment. Deaths dropped 5.6
percent to 1.7 million in 2011 from the previous year as 8 million people in developing
regions gained access to medicines that fight the infection, according to a reporttoday
from UNAIDS, the United Nations’ program to treat and prevent the illness. In SubSaharaAfrica, where 69 percent of people with HIV live, the number on therapy jumped
to 6.2 million from 100,000 in 2003. “ There is still a huge gap from where we
should be, but the world is doing better ,” said Mitchell Warren, executive director of
AVAC: Global Advocacy for HIV Prevention, in a telephone interview. “The big story is
no longer about the science; it is about the money and politics. The two biggest
questions now are where is the money coming from and where is it going to go.” About 7
million people infected with HIV in low income countries still need drugs and don’t get
them, the report said. Global health experts are now talking about getting millions more
people on medications based on recent data showing that early treatment can prevent
transmission of the AIDS virus. One concern is how to pay for it as the U.S. and some
European nations tighten foreign aid.
An AIDS pandemic will cause extinction
DUJS 9 –Dartmouth Undergraduate Journal of Science, (“Human Extinction: The
Uncertainty of Our Fate, May 22, 2009, http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/spring2009/human-extinction-the-uncertainty-of-our-fate#.UfAaaI3BsYk)//sawyer
A pandemic will kill off all humans. In the past, humans have indeed fallen victim to
viruses. Perhaps the best-known case was the bubonic plague that killed up to one third of the
European population in the mid-14th century (7). While vaccines have been developed for the
plague and some other infectious diseases, new viral strains are constantly emerging — a process
that maintains the possibility of a pandemic-facilitated human extinction. Some surveyed
students mentioned AIDS as a potential pandemic-causing virus . It is true that scientists
have been unable thus far to find a sustainable cure for AIDS, mainly due to HIV’s rapid and
constant evolution. Specifically, two factors account for the virus’s abnormally high mutation
rate: 1. HIV’s use of reverse transcriptase, which does not have a proof-reading mechanism, and
2. the lack of an error-correction mechanism in HIV DNA polymerase (8). Luckily, though, there
are certain characteristics of HIV that make it a poor candidate for a large-scale global infection:
HIV can lie dormant in the human body for years without manifesting itself, and AIDS itself
does not kill directly, but rather through the weakening of the immune system. However, for
more easily transmitted viruses such as influenza, the evolution of new strains
could prove far more consequential. The simultaneous occurrence of antigenic drift (point
mutations that lead to new strains) and antigenic shift (the inter-species transfer of disease) in
the influenza virus could produce a new version of influenza for which scientists may not
immediately find a cure. Since influenza can spread quickly, this lag time could
potentially lead to a “global influenza pandemic,” according to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (9). The most recent scare of this variety came in 1918 when bird flu
managed to kill over 50 million people around the world in what is sometimes referred to as the
Spanish flu pandemic Perhaps even more frightening is the fact that only 25 mutations were
required to convert the original viral strain — which could only infect birds — into a humanviable strain (10).
.
ext – tpp causes aids
The TPP would stop the occurrence of an AIDS-free generation through restrictive
trade policies
Naiman 12 - Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy, and writes for the Daily
Kos and the Huffington Post, (“Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement: Drone Strikes on People
With AIDS?”, September 10, 2012, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/10/1130097/Trans-Pacific-Partnership-Agreement-Drone-Strikes-on-People-With-AIDS#)//sawyer
In August 2012, Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders noted that the 19th
International AIDS Conference "illuminated the profound contradiction" between the U.S.
government's goal of "an AIDS-free generation" and "some of the U.S.
government’s trade policies." MSF noted the need to make antiretroviral therapy available
to "more than 7 million people still in need of urgent treatment." To achieve this, MSF said,
"antiretroviral drugs need to be available at affordable prices." But, MSF said, USTR is
"promoting restrictive trade policies that would make it much harder for patients,
governments and treatment providers like MSF to access price-lowering generic
drugs. " Leaked drafts of the TPP agreement, MSF said, "outline U.S. aggressive
intellectual property demands that that could severely restrict access to
affordable, life-saving medicines for millions of people… the U.S. is asking countries to
create new, enhanced and longer patent and data monopoly protections for multinational
pharmaceutical companies so they can keep competitors out of the market and
charge higher prices for longer."
Environment turn
The TPP will cause allow for corporations to subvert regulations accelerating
environmental collapse – the Asian-Pacific region is key
Nash-hoff 13 -Michele Nash-Hoff, Founder and President at ElectroFab Sales (“The TransPacific Partnership Trade Agreement Would Harm Our Environment”, 7/10/13
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michele-nashhoff/the-transpacificpartners_1_b_3568136.html)//sawyer
Proponents say that the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement would be a platform
for economic integration and government deregulation for nations surrounding the Pacific Rim
and facilitate free trade to counter China's financial influence in Asia and the Pacific. The
negotiating parties include Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand,
Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and the United States. Japan also announced its intention to join the
agreement last spring. Because the TPP is intended as a "docking agreement," other Pacific Rim
countries could join over time, and the Philippines, Thailand, Colombia, and others are already
expressing interest. The TPP is poised to become the largest Free Trade Agreement in the world.
According toCitizensTrade.org, "The ongoing, multi-year negotiations over the TPP are
supposed to conclude this year, so the window of opportunity for preventing this free trade
agreement is rapidly closing." Among other reasons about which I have written previously,
opponents of the TPP say it would harm our planet's environment, subverting climate
change measures and regulation of mining, land use, and biotechnology. The Pacific
Rim is an area of great significance from an environmental perspective. It includes Australia's
Great Barrier Reef, the world's largest coral reef system, home to more than 11,000 species.
It includes Peru and its Amazon Rainforest -- one of the most biologically diverse
areas on Earth . In May 2007, citizen-led advocacy groups including the Sierra Club forged a
bipartisan consensus that set the minimum standards for environment, labor and other
provisions to be included in future trade agreements. According to sections of the TPP that
have been leaked, it appears that these minimum standards are being ignored. It is
essential that the environment chapter of the TPP build on the environmental protection
progress that has been made: "At the minimum, the chapter should be binding and subject to
the same dispute settlement provisions as commercial chapters; ensure that countries uphold
and strengthen their domestic environmental laws and policies and their obligations under
agreed multilateral environmental agreements; and include biding provisions to address the
core environment and conservation challenges of the Pacific Rim region, such as efforts to
combat illegal trade in wood, wood products, and wildlife and to strengthen
fisheries management." If you "Google" TPP and the environment, you come up with more
than 20 pages of articles by one organization after another and one author after another
expressing reasons why the TPP would harm the environment. The opposition to the TPP
began as early as 2011 when the first drafts were leaked and intensified in 2012. These
organizations include the Sierra Club, Public Citizen group (founded by Ralph Nader), the
Citizens Trade Campaign, and Economy in Crisis, among many others. A common thread of the
articles is either a subtle or overt accusation that President Obama has "sold out" to Wall
Street/big banks and multinational/transnational corporations. On their website, Union-backed
We Party Patriots states, "...the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is being put together in extreme
secrecy. This secrecy comes complete with a total lack of mainstream media coverage despite
serious potential long-term effects. Leaked documents show that the TPP will have a chilling
effect on the ability of the United States government to take legal action against
multi-national corporations for their abuses of environmental, agricultural, and labor
laws." The Fair World Project's website states that in late 2012, "a group of labor leaders, trade
justice advocates, family farmers, environmentalists, food sovereignty groups and others from
the U.S., Canada and Mexico created a 'North American Unity Statement Opposing NAFTA
Expansion through the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP),' with the goal of uniting 1,000
organizations in opposition to the TPP." On March 7, 2013, Friends of the Earth announced that
it had released a new video, "Peril in the Pacific: Trans Pacific trade agreement threatens people
and the planet." The video illustrates these threats by telling the story of "Chevron v. Ecuador"
international investment suit brought under an existing U.S. treaty. The video raises questions
like: "Who should pay to clean up what has been called the "Rainforest Chernobyl" in the
Ecuadorian Amazon? Why are the people of the rainforest who suffered the most not
represented at the international tribunal hearing the case? Is it U.S. policy to favor the
financial interests of multi-national corporations over people and the
environment in such disputes?" The video also asks why the negotiating framework for the
TPP favors Wall Street and multinational corporations at the expense of current U. S.
environmental and climate policy and why does it allow multinational corporations to challenge
laws that protect our air, land and water. Because the Asia-Pacific region accounts for
about one third of all the threatened species in the world, Friends of the Earth is
concerned that the TPP trade agreement potentially checkmates many of our
country's past environmental victories and would block new initiatives. The
natural environment and rich biodiversity of the Pacific Rim are threatened by
illegal and/or unsustainable commercial exploitation of the ocean, natural
resources, and forests. Friends of the Earth recommends that the TPP negotiators must
address the following issues to avoid the most serious environmental harms by: Including an
environment chapter that would obligate countries to enforce domestic environmental
protections and abide by global environmental agreements that are enforceable through
international lawsuits. Rejecting the proposed TPP investment chapter that would
authorize foreign investors to bypass domestic courts and bring suit before special international
tribunals biased in favor of multinationals to seek awards of unlimited monetary
damages in compensation for the cost of complying with environmental and other
public interest regulations. Rejecting "provisions of the TPP intellectual property chapter
that would provide international legal protections for corporate patents on plant and animal life,
granting companies ownership and sole access to these building blocks of life."
Rejecting the regulatory coherence chapter that could hamstring environmental regulation and
"encourage cost-benefit analysis that exaggerates financial costs and minimizes the intrinsic
value of protecting living things, wild places, and the stability of the ecosystem." Friends of the
Earth urges that the TPP "must serve to strengthen environmental protection and
support the biodiversity in the Pacific Rim and not facilitate a race to the bottom in
environmental deregulation." What surprises me is that all of the above organizations
supported President Obama in his bid for reelection last year despite the fact that he had gone
back on his pledge "to oppose Bush-style free trade agreements that lead to thousands of lost
American jobs" and his word to "not support NAFTA-type trade agreements" in his 2008
campaign. Now that he is elected for his second and last term, what incentive does he have
to listen to the opinions of these organizations that oppose the Trans-Pacific
Partnership agreement? None! A few conservative news outlets such as WorldNet Daily
began to recognize the dangers of the TPP early this year, beginning with the article, "Obama
skirting Congress in globalist plan?" in which Jerome Corsi warn that "the administration
apparently plans to restrict congressional prerogatives to an up-or-down vote" utilizing the
"fast-track authority," a provision under the Trade Promotion Authority that requires Congress
to review a FTA under limited debate, in an accelerated time frame subject to a yes-or-no vote.
Under fast-track authority, there is no provision for Congress to modify the agreement by
submitting amendments to ensure foreign partners that the FTA, once signed, will not be
changed during the legislative process. In a more recent article, "Obama's 2-ocean globalist
plan," Jerome Corsi writes, "Quietly, the Obama administration is systematically putting into
place a two-ocean globalist plan that will dwarf all prior trade agreements, including NAFTA,
with the goal of establishing the global sovereignty envisioned by New World Order enthusiasts.
The two agreements are the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, and the Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership, or TIPP. WND has learned the Obama administration plans to
jam the TPP through Congress no later than Dec. 31." We certainly cannot expect to
influence the President to oppose the TPP near the end of three-years of negotiations that took
place under his direction. With the virtual black out of coverage about the TPP in the
mainstream media, the best we can do is make our opinions heard loud and clear to our
Senators and Congressional representatives and urge our family, friends, and members of our
personal and business network to do the same. We must urge our elected representatives to vote
against granting President Obama "fast track authority" under the Trade Promotion Authority.
There is no time to waste. Contact your congressional representative and tell them we cannot
afford another damaging "free trade" agreement that would destroy our national sovereignty,
hurt American manufacturers, and harm our environment. Tell them to vote "no" to granting
the President "fast track authority."
Biodiversity collapse will lead to an invisible threshold of destruction
Diner, 94 [David, Ph.D., Planetary Science and Geology, "The Army and the Endangered
Species Act: Who's Endangering Whom?," Military Law Review, 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161]
To accept that the snail darter, harelip sucker, or Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew 74 could
save [hu]mankind may be difficult for some. Many, if not most, species are useless to[hu]man[s]
in a direct utilitarian sense. Nonetheless, they may be critical in an indirect role, because
their extirpations could affect a directly useful species negatively. In a closely
interconnected ecosystem, the loss of a species affects other species dependent on it. 75
Moreover, as the number of species decline, the effect of each new extinction on the remaining
species increases dramatically. 4. Biological Diversity. -- The main premise of species
preservation is that diversity is better than simplicity. 77 As the current mass extinction has
progressed, the world's biological diversity generally has decreased. This trend occurs within
ecosystems by reducing the number of species, and within species by reducing the number of
individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications. 78 [*173] Biologically diverse
ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological
niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more
complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each
knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a
simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." 79 By
causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As
biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert
in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild
examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new
animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects,
could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction
increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an
aircraft's wings, 80 [hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.
at – link turn
Even if the TPP includes environmental regulations they will fail
Vincent 13 – David Vincent University of San Diego School of Law, 2012; B.A., University of
California, San Diego, 2009, (“THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP: ENVIRONMENTAL
SAVIOR OR CORPORATE CARTE BLANCHE?”, July 3, 2013,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2290333)//sawyer
The problem with these environmental efforts is that international law of any kind is inherently
weak due to the sovereignty each country possesses. International environmental law is
especially hard to implement and enforce because of the lack of incentives.
Environmental law runs into the tragedy of the commons dilemma, where
countries acting independently and rationally according to each one's self-interest,
will pollute and deplete the environment despite knowing that doing so is contrary
to their long-term best interests. Yet, even if this dilemma is attempted to be avoided
through treaties or other agreements, free-riding becomes an issue as well when countries who
decide not to join environmental agreements still reap the benefits of those agreements without
paying the costs. Therefore, any environmental provisions that are agreed upon are
likely to be inadequate to addressing the environmental issue. Furthermore,
enforcement of these laws is another enormous problem. The competing capitalist nature of
nations encourages the limited enforcement of any type of international law that would
negatively affect GDP. As environmental law poses a direct threat to the short terms gains of
countries, many nations are unwilling to enforce international environment law absent any
incentives or enforcement measures. If a country fails to adhere to environmental law, there
must be consequences. Yet, if the consequences are too harsh, then countries will not engage in
environmental agreements at all. For example, the Kyoto Protocol, which was organized to
create binding obligations on the industrialized countries to reduce their GHG emissions, was
signed but never ratified by the United States, and was withdrawn from by Canada.179 There
were certain provisions in the Protocol with which the United States Congress disagreed and to
which they declined to adhere.180 This is not the first time the United States has signed but
failed to ratify a treaty; the United States has made habit of signing but not ratifying treaties.181
Scholars believe there are currently 10 treaties the United States has signed but not ratified that
would improve global environmental protection.182 With all the factors working against strong
and effective environmental agreements, any opportunity for countries to enact effective
environmental laws should be taken, which is why it is imperative that the TPP contain strong
environmental provisions.
Environmental regulations will never be a part of the TPP
Vincent 13 – David Vincent University of San Diego School of Law, 2012; B.A., University of
California, San Diego, 2009, (“THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP: ENVIRONMENTAL
SAVIOR OR CORPORATE CARTE BLANCHE?”, July 3, 2013,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2290333)//sawyer
Despite the poor environmental record of the United States on prior free trade
agreements, there have been some indications that the TPP will include strong provisions
regarding environmental protection. At the 2008 Democratic National Convention, Barack
Obama’s party pledged to “not negotiate bilateral trade agreements that stop the government
from protecting the environment.”126 The United States Trade Representative (USTR)
spokesperson Nkenge Harmon has said that “[The Obama] administration is committed to
ensuring strong environmental…laws. Nothing in our TPP investment proposal could impair our
government's ability to pursue legitimate, non-discriminatory public interest regulation,
including measures to protect…the environment.”127 In August 2010, USTR officials announced
that all TPP participants, despite differences in levels of development, would be required to meet
the same labor and environmental conditions,128 and USTR official Mark Linscott has stated
that an “environment chapter in the TPP should strengthen country commitments to enforce
their environmental laws and regulations, including in areas related to ocean and fisheries
governance, through the effective enforcement obligation subject to dispute settlement.”129
There is, however, cause for concern that the TPP will not adequately protect
environmental interests. It is not an easy task getting eleven or more countries to agree on
any type of international law, but environmental provisions are an especially difficult
topic. Accordingly, the environment chapter has emerged as one of the most challenging areas
of the negotiations.134 Developing nations are the most concerned with including
environmental provisions, as they would be at disadvantage if they must adhere to the same
standards as developed nations.135 Enforcement is also a large issue as several parties
do not want to make environmental obligations binding under the TPP dispute
settlement mechanism as the United States has proposed .136 Even though New
Zealand has proposed including climate change provisions in the TPP, its support has been
limited to a non-binding affirmation of the benefit of pricing carbon.137 It remains uncertain
how hard the United States will push for strict environmental provisions when it may have
higher priorities regarding the TPP. Chinese scholars believe that the successful
implementation of the TPP will have a negative impact on China.138 This has led for many
people to speculate, including members of the press in China, that the United States is using the
TPP to marginalize China’s influence in Asia.139 President Obama himself said during the 2012
presidential debates that "we're organizing trade relations with countries other than China so
that China starts feeling more pressure about meeting basic international standards.”140
Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has indicated that China has an open invitation to join TPP
talks,141 although China would likely not have much influence over the terms of the TPP. With
the current concerns over China’s growing economic influence, the United States may be using
the TPP to force China either to “meet basic international standards” or else risk substantial
trade losses to countries in their own region. If this truly is the main priority of the TPP from
the American perspective, environmental provisions could be left on the chopping
block if they become too controversial. China’s undervalued currency is a mounting
foreign policy concern that may take precedence over environmental goals.142
The TPP will not include environmental provisions
Vincent 13 – David Vincent University of San Diego School of Law, 2012; B.A., University of
California, San Diego, 2009, (“THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP: ENVIRONMENTAL
SAVIOR OR CORPORATE CARTE BLANCHE?”, July 3, 2013,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2290333)//sawyer
Unfortunately for the environment and our future, strong environmental
provisions that include real enforcement measures are not likely to be included in
the TPP. The TPP is a very expansive document and so environmental concerns are not
a high priority for many of the countries that want to focus on strengthening the
economy . The United States and other countries’ main priority may be to marginalize China’s
influence in the area, and therefore they would be willing to exclude strong
environmental provisions in order to reach an agreement. Additionally, the sheer
number of countries involved makes detailed environmental provisions and standards hard to
manage, and the public has had little say or influence over the document due to its secrecy in
negotiations. The likelihood of substantial new environmental provisions making their way into
the TPP is not great. Most of the proposed additions to the TPP in this comment are not being
considered in negotiations, and represent significant changes to past free trade agreements. If
there was more public awareness regarding the TPP, perhaps proposed provisions such as these
could gain more traction, but as it stands the TPP has not received the level of press that should
be associated with such an important document. As a result, while the Trans-Pacific
Partnership does not pose a large threat to the environment, it is unlikely to be the
environmental savior that is severely needed. Therefore, we must hope for the sake of present
and future generations that world leaders implement impactful environmental law
before it is too late.
Regulations on the environment will fail – no enforcement
Levitt 13 – Tom Levitt is a writer for CNN, (“Overfished and under-protected: Oceans on the
brink of catastrophic collapse”, March 27, 2013,
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/22/world/oceans-overfishing-climate-change)//sawyer
There's a real lack of public and political awareness of these issues," says Alex Rogers, professor
of conservation biology at the UK's Oxford University. "They're too big to understand in
economic terms. We can put a value on the loss of fishing, but how can we put a value on oxygen
production or the absorption of carbon dioxide?" he says. The problem is that most of the
world's ocean is located outside of international law and legal control. Any attempts
to implement rules and regulation come with the problem of enforcement , says
Rogers, who is also scientific director of the International Program on State of the Ocean (IPSO).
ext – tpp hurts the environment
The TPP will destroy the environment – trading routes and illegal logging
Vincent 13 – David Vincent University of San Diego School of Law, 2012; B.A., University of
California, San Diego, 2009, (“THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP: ENVIRONMENTAL
SAVIOR OR CORPORATE CARTE BLANCHE?”, July 3, 2013,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2290333)//sawyer
Wildlife conservation and illegal logging are additional environmental concerns that could be
address through the TPP as member countries contain primary trading routes for some of
the world’s greatest concentrations of biological diversity in animal and plant
species .168 Illegal trade in wildlife endangers species and destroys wildlife, and
can cause the spread of disease as well as the undesirable effects of organized
crime. 169 Worldwide, illegal trade in wildlife generates anywhere from $10 to 20 billion
annually, and is especially prevalent in TPP members countries such as Peru, Chile, and
those in Southeast Asia.170 Illegal logging is a problem in TPP countries as well and occurs
when protected logging areas or endangered species of trees, logging without the necessary
permits, and logging in protected areas.171 Illegal loggings contribute to forest degradation and
accounts for 5% to 10% of global timber production, with annual losses estimated at roughly
$10 billion.172 The United States is one of the world’s largest timber product consumers and
top importers of tropical hardwoods, of which a significant portion is illegally logged.173 Peru
is one of those sources of illegally logged timber, while Malaysia and Vietnam engage in
smuggling and laundering of illegal logged timber and timber products.174
The TPP will cause a race to the bottom in environmental deregulations
SC 12 Sierra Club’s Labor and Trade Campaign, (“A True 21st Century Trade Agreement:
Is the Trans-Pacific Partnership the Way to Go?”, 2012,
https://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/1987/images/Sierra-club-fact-sheet-A-True-21st-CenturyTrade-Agreement.pdf)//sawyer
A True 21st Century Trade Agreement: Is the Trans-Pacific Partnership the Way to Go? The
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement is an expansive Free-Trade Agreement being
negotiated between countries in the Pacific Rim, including Australia, Brunei Darusslam, Chile,
Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and the United States. Other countries,
including Japan, Canada, and Mexico, may soon be joining the negotiations. Eventually, every
Pacific Rim nation may be included. The Pacific Rim is an area of great significance from an
environmental perspective. It includes Australia’s Great Barrier Reef , the world's largest
coral reef system, home to more than 11,000 species. It includes Peru and its Amazon
Rainforest —one of the most biologically diverse areas on Earth, with thousands of species of
birds, plants, mammals, and fish. The Rainforest is also home to Indigenous Peoples who live
with, live in, and rely upon the forest. In or around each of the TPP countries live critically
endangered species , such as the Javan Rhinoceros in Vietnam, the Sumatran Orangutan in
Malaysia, or the roaming Great White Shark. Tragically, the natural environment and
biodiversity in the TPP countries are threatened by, among other things, illegal
and/or unsustainable commercial exploitation . The TPP must serve to strengthen
environmental protection and support the biodiversity in the Pacific Rim and not facilitate a
race to the bottom in environmental deregulation . Cloaked in Secrecy The TPP is the
first free trade agreement negotiated by President Obama. The proposed agreement touches on
a broad range of issues having to do with the environment, workers and jobs, agriculture,
health, and access to medicines, and more. While the agreement is being touted by government
officials as a 21st Century Trade Agreement, it is hard to know exactly what this means or even
what is being negotiated because the talks are taking place in complete secrecy. TPP texts, or
chapters, have been developed behind closed doors with very little public consultation. None of
the texts have been made public. Moreover, the only people, apart from TPP government
officials, with access to texts are more than 600 business representatives who serve as official
US trade advisors.
The TPP will devastate the environment including degradation of the Great Barrier
reef and the Amazon Rainforest
SC 12 -Sierra Club’s Labor and Trade Campaign, (“The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement:
What it could mean for the Environment”, 2012, http://sierraclub.org/trade/downloads/TPPLNG%20Factsheet%20FINAL.pdf)//sawyer
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement is an expansive trade agreement being
negotiated between countries in the Pacific Rim, including Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile,
Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and the United States. Japan has
also announced its intention to join the agreement. Because the TPP is intended as a “docking
agreement,” other Pacific Rim countries can join over time. The Pacific Rim is an area of
great significance from an environmental perspective. It includes Australia’s
Great Barrier Reef, the world's largest coral reef system , home to more than
11,000 species. It includes Peru and its Amazon Rainforest—one of the most
biologically diverse areas on Earth. But the natural environment and rich
biodiversity of the Pacific Rim are threatened by, among other things, illegal
and/or unsustainable commercial exploitation. The Asia-Pacific region accounts for
about one third of all the threatened species in the world. The numbers of several species
of oceanic sharks, including reef sharks, are declined rapidly. And illegal logging
persists in a number of TPP countries, threatening not only natural forests, but the
communities who live in and rely upon the forests. The TPP must serve to strengthen
environmental protection and support the biodiversity in the Pacific Rim and not facilitate a
race to the bottom in environmental deregulation. Cloaked in Secrecy The proposed
TPP touches on a broad range of issues—the environment, workers and jobs, agriculture, health,
access to medicines, and more. Government officials tout the agreement as a “21st Century
Trade Agreement,” but it is hard to know what this means or what they are negotiating because
the talks are held in near complete secrecy. Negotiators are developing TPP texts, or chapters,
behind closed doors with very little public input. None of the texts are public (though a few have
leaked). Moreover, nearly the only people, apart from TPP government officials, with access to
texts are more than 600 business representatives who serve as official US trade advisors. Even
members of Congress are left in the dark on the actual contents of the TPP. The TPP and the
Environment Environmental chapters in our trade deals have a history of lacking meaningful
enforcement. But they've been strengthened over the years, largely thanks to citizen-led
advocacy by groups including the Sierra Club. This pressure led to the forging of a bipartisan
consensus in May 2007 that set the minimum standards for environment, labor and other
provisions in our trade agreements. It is essential that the environment chapter of the TPP build
on this progress. At the minimum, the chapter should be binding and subject to the same
dispute settlement provisions as commercial chapters; ensure that countries uphold and
strengthen their domestic environmental laws and policies and their obligations under agreed
multilateral environmental agreements; and include biding provisions to address the
core environment and conservation
The aff allows for environmental degradation – Mexico is pulling out the TPP in the
status quo only the aff reinvigorates environmental destruction
Simmons 12 -Alisa Simmons: National Field Director for citizen.org, (“TPP’s Investment Rules
Harm the Environment”, 2012, http://www.citizen.org/documents/TPP-and-theenvironment.pdf)//sawyer
Trade officials from twelve Pacific Rim nations—Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan,
Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam— are in
intensive, closed-door negotiations to sign a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Free Trade
Agreement (FTA) in 2013. Every Pacific Rim nation from China to Russia could eventually be
included. There are draft texts for many of this pact’s 29 chapters, most of which have nothing
to do with trade, but rather impose limits on domestic food safety, health,
environmental, and other policies. The governments won’t release the texts to the public.
But about 600 U.S. corporate “trade advisors” have full access. America’s worst job-offshoring
corporations, global banks, agribusiness, and pharmaceutical giants want this deal to be
another corporate power tool like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Consumer, labor, environmental, and other public interest advocates want a transparent
process and a “Fair Deal or No Deal.” A major goal of U.S. multinational corporations for the
TPP is to impose on more countries a set of extreme foreign investor privileges and rights and
their private enforcement through the notorious “investor-state” system. This system allows
foreign corporations to challenge before international tribunals national
environmental, land use, health and other laws and regulations that apply to
domestic and foreign firms alike. Outrageously, this regime elevates individual
corporations and investors to equal standing with each TPP signatory country’s government –
and above all of us citizens. This regime empowers corporations to skirt national courts and sue
our governments before tribunals of private sector lawyers operating under UN and World Bank
rules to demand taxpayer compensation for domestic regulatory policies that investors believe
diminish their “expected future profits.” Many of these regulatory policies are designed for
environmental protection. For example, in 2012, the U.S. Lone Pine company launched a $250
million NAFTA investor-state case against a Canadian ban on fracking. If a corporation “wins,”
the taxpayers of the “losing” country must foot the bill. Over $380 million in compensation has
already been paid out to corporations in a series of investor-state cases under NAFTA-style deals
alone. This includes attacks on natural resource policies, toxics bans, zoning and permits,
health and safety measures, and more. In fact, of the nearly $14 billion in the 18 claims now
pending under NAFTA-style deals, all relate to environmental, public health and transportation
policy – not traditional trade issues. Governments have paid out over $3 billion to investors in
investor-state disputes under U.S. FTAs and bilateral investment treaties (BITs) – over 85
percent of this related to oil, mining, gas, and other environmental and natural resource
disputes. A review of just some of the outrageous anti-environment cases brought
under this system highlights the extreme peril of these radical investor privileges,
and their investor-state private enforcement, being included in the TPP: Renco Group Inc., a
company owned by one of the richest men in America, invested in a metal smelter in La Oroya,
Peru. The site has been designated as in the top 10 most polluted in the world. The firm has
been sued in U.S. court on behalf of severely lead-poisoned children in La Oroya. Sulfur dioxide
concentrations at La Oroya greatly exceed international standards, with sulfur dioxide levels
doubled in the years after Renco’s acquisition of the complex. Renco’s Peruvian subsidiary
promised to install sulfur plants by 2007 as part of an environmental remediation program.
Although it was out of compliance with its contractual obligations, the company sought (and
Peru granted) two extraordinary extensions to complete the project. In December 2010, Renco
sent Peru a Notice of Intent that it was launching a U.S.-Peru FTA investor-state attack, alleging
that Peru’s failure to grant a third extension of the remediation obligations constituted a
violation of the firm’s FTA foreign investor rights. The company is demanding $800 million in
compensation from Peruvian taxpayers. The Renco case illustrates two deeply worrying
implications of investor-state arbitration. Even the mere threat of a case can put pressure on
governments to weaken environment and health policies. Recent developments suggest that the
threat of this case was highly effective. While full environmental compliance has yet to be seen,
the government has allowed the smelter to restart zinc and lead operations. That would be bad
enough, but Renco is also attempting to evade justice in U.S. domestic courts through the
investor-state mechanism. Renco has now successfully argued that the U.S. lawsuit filed on
behalf of La Oroya’s children must be removed from a U.S. state court, where it had a decent
chance of success. Renco tried to derail the case this way three times before without success. But
after filing the investorstate case, the firm claimed that the matter now involved an international
treaty and thus was outside the state court’s remit. In January 2011, the same federal judge who
rejected the past attempts determined that the existence of the investor-state case made this a
federal issue and allowed Renco to terminate the state court case. An unprecedented ruling in
the 18-year struggle of Ecuadorean indigenous people to force Chevron to clean up horrific
toxic contamination in a swath of the Amazon the size of Rhode Island provides a chilling
glimpse of how corporations can use international investor tribunals in “trade” agreements to
evade justice. After 18 years of losing in U.S. and Ecuadorean courts and endless delay tactics,
Chevron was ordered by an Ecuadorean court to pay $18 billion for cleanup and punitive
damages. An appellate court affirmed the decision in January 2012. Chevron turned to an ad
hoc “investor-state” tribunal under the U.S.- Ecuador BIT as the last chance to evade justice. In
February, that tribunal ordered Ecuador’s government to interfere with the country’s
independent court system to halt enforcement of the ruling, even though it had not even
determined that it has jurisdiction over the case. The case stems from damage caused to 30,000
indigenous people in the Amazon by Texaco, which operated in Ecuador from 1964 to 1992 and
was purchased by Chevron in 2001. During this time, the company admits that it dumped more
than 16 billion gallons of toxic water into streams and rivers used by local inhabitants for
drinking water. The trial included dozens of technical reports containing evidence of open pits
of toxic waste and severe health problems among residents. An Ecuadorean court rejected the
tribunal’s order. However, the ad hoc panel may still prevent the clean-up from starting, as its
ruling may be recognized by other countries whose cooperation is needed to collect the $18
billion from Chevron, which has no assets in Ecuador now. Pacific Rim Mining Corp. (a
Canadian-based multinational firm also known as Pac Rim) made plans to expand into El
Salvador in the 2000s, as the price of gold was climbing. Pac Rim’s plan is for an underground
mine and the use of a process employing large amounts of water and cyanide to extract
gold from the ore it excavated. For decades, there had been no large scale gold mining in El
Salvador, a densely populated country with limited clean water supplies. In a country only
recently recovered from civil war, opposition to cyanide-leach gold mining united the
population. Right and left party presidents pledged to review mining policy, citing the negative
health impacts and threats to scarce water resources. Meanwhile, Pac Rim never completed
various studies required to apply for the license to operate the mine, and halted its operations.
However, it also reincorporated in the U.S., and months later launched an attack on El
Salvador’s mining policies under the U.S.-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). The
firm is demanding $200 million in compensation from the Salvadoran people, whose average
annual income is $7,200. In 2012, the investor-state tribunal determined on very narrow
grounds that the case was outside CAFTA’s jurisdiction. Though Pac Rim is a Canadian firm,
according to the tribunal, the company could have used CAFTA by merely filing proper
ownership papers for its U.S. subsidiary. As the case now proceeds at World Bank-based
hearings, El Salvador’s mining policy remains unresolved and violence has killed four antimining activists.In a similar NAFTA case, Mexico was ordered to pay the U.S. Metalclad
Corporation $15.6 million after a Mexican municipality refused to grant the firm a construction
permit for a toxic waste facility unless it cleaned up existing toxic waste problems. The facility
had been closed when it was owned by a Mexican firm, from which Metalclad acquired the
facility in a transaction that specifically noted the clean up condition for obtaining a permit. The
NAFTA tribunal ruled that Mexico violated NAFTA’s “minimum standard of
treatment” guaranteed foreign investors, because the firm was not granted a
“clear and predictable” regulatory environment. It also ruled that a provincial
ecological decree amounted to an indirect expropriation, or what is sometimes called a
regulatory taking. There are even outrageous investor-state cases between TPP negotiating
parties, including recent attacks by U.S. investors on Vietnam’s land use policies and on Peru’s
oil, gas, and mining policies. But such challenges are not all brought by developed country
investors. In 1996, after a four-day visit to the country and minimal due diligence, MTD (a set of
Malaysian investors) decided to build a whole new planned community outside of Santiago,
Chile. But to do this, they needed to get authorization from both Chile’s foreign investment
authorities and its environmental zoning authorities. As is common in many countries, foreign
investment authorities are tasked with considering the impact of foreign inflows on a country’s
balance of payments. But all developers – national and foreign – have to comply with zoning
rules, which are administered by authorities with a whole different set of objectives and
expertise. Although MTD passed the first hurdle in April 1997, Chile’s zoning authorities
promptly started sounding concerns about the ecological impact of the development. In 2004,
an investor-state tribunal ordered Chile to pay nearly $6 million to MTD, even though the
tribunal noted that the investors themselves had not conducted due diligence. To reach this
conclusion, the tribunal used the most favored nation provisions of a Malaysia-Chile
investment treaty to import a so -called “fair and equitable treatment” provision from a CroatiaChile bilateral investment treaty, and said that this provision requires government to act “as a
monolith.” This type of uniformity in policymaking is not remotely possible for TPP nations,
many of which have multiple agencies of government at the national, state and local levels.
There are serious questions as to whether this type of uniformity is even desirable, since
different agencies may have different objectives to fulfill. The anti-environment cases don’t end
there.
dian ban of
PCB exports that complied with a multilateral environmental treaty on toxic-waste trade. An
investorcompany challenged Canada’s implementation of the 1996 U.S.-Canada Softwood Lumber
Agreement. The tribunal dismissed the company’s claims of expropriation and discrimination,
but held that the rude behavior of the Canadian government officials seeking to verify the firm’s
compliance with the lumber agreement constituted a violation of the “minimum standard of
treatment” required by NAFTA for foreign investors. The panel also stated that a foreign firm’s
“market access” in another country could be considered a NAFTAU.S. chemical company called Ethyl Corporation challenged a Canadian environmental ban of
the gasoline additive MMT under NAFTA’s investor-state provisions. Although the panel made
no ruling on the merits, the Canadian government revoked the ban and settled for $13 million
governments risk great expense. Methanex, a Canadian corporation, produced methanol, a
component chemical of the gasoline additive MTBE. The company challenged California’s
phase-out of the additive, which was contaminating drinking water sources around the state.
The company lost on the merits, and was even ordered to pay the federal government’s legal
expenses. But the State of California had also expended significant sums on the case, and it
remains to be seen if the state’s attorneys will be compensated for their time. The investor-state
system is so extreme that it is losing whatever small political support it ever had. Australia has
said it will not include investor-state in its trade deals. South Africa and India are among the
countries now conducting critical reviews of the regime. Brazil has always refused it. Latin
American countries are pulling out of various arbitration agreements that
provide venues for these private corporate attacks. President Obama even campaigned
against this system! But career bureaucrats and big business want to stay the course by
expanding the extreme system through the TPP, no matter the cost.
ext – invasive species
Increased trade with the trans-pacific will cause an influx in invasive species killing
biodiversity and the economy
Callaway et al 6 – Ragan M. Callaway University of Montana, Missoula, MT Shi Li Miao South
Florida Water Management District Qinfeng Guo U.S. Geological Survey, (“Are trans-Pacific
invasions the new wave?”, 1-1-2006,
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=usgsnpwrc)//sawye
r
The movement of organisms among continents by humans has caused profound changes in the
ecology of relocated species and of communities to which they have been introduced. Perhaps
less than 1% of all species that arrive at foreign shores become invaders (Williamson and Fitter
1996), but the few that explode in abundance wreak tremendous environmental
and economic damage (Mack et al. 2000; Pimentel et al. 2000; Xu et al. 2006). During the
last decade research on invasive species has dramatically increased. For example, from 1988 to
1990 the journal Ecology published three papers with the words ‘invasive’ or ‘invader’ in their
title or abstract that related to exotics. From 1998 to 2000 this number increased to 14.
However, the focus of the increasing volume of research on exotic invaders has been primarily
on the exchange of species between North America and Europe. Of the 14 papers on exotic
invasions published in Ecology from 1998 to 2000, seven involved Europe–North America
invasions and all primary empirical research focused on at least one species from Europe or
North America. Two focused on a species moving to or from Asia and North America. The focus
on North America and Europe may be driven by the unusually high numbers of organisms
moved between these regions in the last few centuries (or to the unusually high numbers of
ecologists), but regardless of why the historic focus has been on North America and Europe,
future research on invasive species may shift to include those coming from and
going to eastern Asia (Normile 2004). As pointed out by Jenkins and Mooney (2006), trade
between the United States and China has mushroomed from $200 million in 1978 to over $6
billion in 2002. This increase in trade is highly likely to increase accidental
invasions of organisms between North America and eastern Asia, a problem that
will be difficult to solve . However, many invasive plant species appear to have been
introduced intentionally for horticulture, agriculture, or forestry; and these invasions can be
prevented by a farsighted and proactive policy. Increased trade is not the only reason for
concern about new trans-Pacific invasions . The probability that the introduction of
organisms will result in new invasions is exacerbated because eastern Asia and North America
also have similar latitudes and climates and therefore share many biomes and taxa (Guo 2002).
Because rapidly growing trade between East Asia and North America also
increases the probability of new trans-Pacific invasion s, it is imperative to accelerate
research designed to predict which species will invade and which ecosystems are vulnerable, to
understand the mechanisms by which species transform into overwhelming competitive
dominants, and to develop policy for preventing invasions and economic risk analysis for
invasive species. This growing threat of exchanging invaders between eastern Asia and North
America was addressed at the 2004 Beijing International Symposium on Biological Invasions
titled ‘Species Exchanges Between Eastern Asia and North America: Threats to Environment
and Economy’. About 100 scientists from academia, governmental agencies, and other
organizations from both regions focused on the current status of species exchange of transPacific invasions (Liu et al. 2006; Xu et al. 2006; Kohli et al. 2006), predicting and preventing
invasions (Erhenfeld 2006; Williamson 2006; Wu et al. 2006), eliminating invaders,
understanding invasions (Alpert 2006; Guo 2006; Kitijami et al. 2006; Liu and Stiling 2006;
Wang et al. 2006), and developing policy recommendations (Jenkins and Mooney, 2006) and
management approaches (Gu 2006). This special feature was motivated, in part, by the outcome
of the symposium. Although only a start, this special feature provides an initial model for
international collaborations, information sharing (Simpson et al. 2006), and bilateral efforts to
stem the increase in exotic invasions. There were 283 invasive alien species in China including
microorganisms, plants, invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, fish, and mammals (Xu et al.
2006). Over 50% of these invasive species originated from North America (e.g., common
ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia and annual fleabane, Erigeron annuus). The total economic
losses caused by invasive alien species to China were $14.45 billion in 2000, with direct and
indirect economic losses accounting for 17 and 83% of total economic losses, respectively. Yet,
much more (ca. 800) plant species introduced from eastern Asia to North America have
established, including the most notable invasives such as Chinese tallow (Sapium sebiferum),
kudzu (Pueraria lobata), saltcedar (Tamarix chinensis), and two large carp species
(Hypophthalmichthys molitrix and nobilis) that leap out of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers
and injure boaters (Normile 2004). Predicting future invasions has proved to be exceptionally
difficult (Williamson 2006), but without some level of predictive ability, developing sound policy
for restricting entry of particular species may be elusive. Classifying invaders by taxonomic
relationships or by shared suite of traits has been helpful, but there are many exceptions to the
rule, so many exceptions that prediction is quite inaccurate (Mack et al. 2000). In this feature,
Williamson argues that looking for universal attributes and causes of invasions is not profitable,
because invasions can go through a series of stages and the important factors are often different
at each. When a cause has been found for a particular part of a set of invasions, it is important to
distinguish between explanation (relatively easy) and prediction (much harder). Erhenfeld
(2006) proposes that screening for novel plant secondary chemistry may be a useful predictive
tool and collaborations among new groups of scientists may help us to predict new invasives.
Preventing invasions ultimately will be determined by policy makers. As argued by
Mooney and Jenkins in this feature we are much better at determining whether a species
proposed for import will invade. They suggest the adoption of a ‘clean list’ policy in which only
approved species can be allowed to enter. As trade and transportation of species increases
among the countries of North America and eastern Asia, we may have the opportunity to
develop preemptive policy based on collaborative science between the regions rather than the
retroactive responses once invasives have already established and spread. Eliminating invaders
may prove to be the most difficult, and in most cases perhaps, impossible task of all. The
apparent permanence of many invasive species emphasizes the crucial necessity of good
importation policies. Furthermore, rapid collaborative responses toward eradication of invaders
must occur if we are to eliminate invaders before they become thoroughly naturalized. Again,
explicit collaborative efforts among scientists in different continents, such as modeled in this
feature, may allow much more rapid responses than in the past. Scientific responses may
included the rapid development of herbicides, identification of host-specific and effective
biological control agents (Ding et al. 2006), or simply a level of awareness promoting
elimination of small populations before they spread. Despite the fact that exotic invasions can
result in astounding ecological changes, we do not know why they occur. The oldest and most
widely accepted hypothesis is that invaders have escaped consumers, predators, herbivores, or
pathogens that control them in their native habitat. But clear evidence for such escape from such
powerful top–down regulation is scarce and invasions appear to have other causes such as
response to human disturbance, occupation of empty niches, or the possession of novel
biochemical weapons (Hierro et al. 2005; Kohli 2006). Relative to North America, the
ecological and economic impact of exotics in eastern Asia is lower but on the rise
(Li and Wilcove 2005). One of the reasons for the Beijing symposium is that, although studies
on invasives in China are relatively recent, some good progresses have been made. Therefore it
is now feasible to make some meaningful comparisons in both research and invasives
management between North America and eastern Asia. We hope that future collaborations
among scientists in eastern Asia and North America, such as initiated in this special feature, will
shed light on the nature of exotic invasions
Invasive species will collapse biodiversity and cause extinction
Simberloff 2k – Ecologist Daniel Simberloff, Ph.D., is the Nancy Gore Hunger professor of
environmental studies at the University of Tennessee. His interests include the ecology and
evolution of introduced species, conservation biology, and the composition of biotic
communities. He is a member of the U.S. Invasive Species Advisory Committee, (“Introduced
Species: The Threat to Biodiversity & What Can Be Done”, December 2000,
http://www.actionbioscience.org/biodiversity/simberloff.html)//sawyer
There are many ways in which the introduction of non-native or exotic species
negatively affects our environment and the diversity of life on our planet. The
statistics are startling and more attention must be paid to the problem and devising a solution
before the cost is more than we can bear. Invasive species cause more damage than
some pollutant s. Almost half of the native species in America are endangered because of
invasive species. Compared to other threats to biodiversity, invasive introduced species rank
second only to habitat destruction, such as forest clearing. Of all 1,880 imperiled species in the
United States, 49% are endangered because of introduced species alone or because of their
impact combined with other forces. In fact, introduced species are a greater threat to
native biodiversity than pollution, harvest, and disease combined. Further, through
damage to agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and other human enterprises, introduced species
inflict an enormous economic cost, estimated at $137 billion per year to the U.S. economy alone.
Of course, some introduced species (such as most of our food crops and pets) are beneficial.
However, others are very damaging. Introduced species are not good guests The greatest impact
is caused by introduced species that change an entire habitat, because many native species
thrive only in a particular habitat. Florida’s fires are fueled by a tree imported from Australia.
When the Asian chestnut blight fungus virtually eliminated American chestnut from over 180
million acres of eastern United States forests in the first half of the 20th century, it was a
disaster for many animals that were highly adapted to live in forests dominated by this tree
species. For example, ten moth species that could live only on chestnut trees became extinct.
Similarly, the Australian paperbark tree has replaced native plants, such as sawgrass, over
400,000 acres of south Florida, because it has a combination of traits (for example, spongy
outer bark and flammable leaves and litter) that increase fire frequency and intensity. Many
birds and mammals adapted to the native plant community declined in abundance as paperbark
spread. The invasive zebra mussel is depleting the food of marine natives. In similar fashion,
aquatic plants such as South American water hyacinth in Texas and Louisiana and marine algae
such as Australian Caulerpa in the Mediterranean Sea change vast expanses of habitat by
replacing formerly dominant native plants. The zebra mussel, accidentally brought to the United
States from southern Russia, transforms aquatic habitats by filtering prodigious amounts of
water (thereby lowering densities of planktonic organisms) and settling in dense masses over
vast areas. At least thirty freshwater mussel species are threatened with extinction by the zebra
mussel. Other invaders, though they do not change a habitat, endanger single species or even
entire groups of them in various ways: Trout fishing is almost nonexistent in some American
states because of a foreign parasite. The predatory brown tree snake, introduced in cargo from
the Admiralty Islands, has eliminated ten of the eleven native bird species from the forests of
Guam. The Nile perch, a voracious predator introduced to Lake Victoria as a food fish, has
already extinguished over one hundred species of native cichlid fish there. A parasite can be
similarly devastating. The sea lamprey reached the Great Lakes through a series of canals and, in
combination with overfishing, led to the extinction of three endemic fishes. The European
parasite that causes whirling disease in fishes, introduced to rainbow trout in a hatchery in
Pennsylvania, has now spread to many states and devastated the rainbow trout sport fishery in
Montana and Colorado. Herbivores can wreak great damage. The first sailors to land on the
remote Atlantic island of St. Helena in the 16th century introduced goats, which quickly
extinguished over half the endemic plant species. Some impacts of invaders are subtle but
nonetheless destructive to native species: Some alien species eliminate native species by
breeding with them, altering the gene pool. North American gray squirrels are driving native red
squirrels to extinction in Great Britain and Italy by foraging for nuts more efficiently than the
native species. Such competition for resources is not easy to observe, but the end result is the
loss of a native species. Hybridization, or cross-breeding, of introduced species with natives
is an even subtler impact (no lineage goes extinct), but it is insidious because it leads gradually
to the extinction of many native species, as their gene pools inevitably evolve to become those of
the invader. Introduced mallards, for instance, are driving the native Hawaiian duck to a sort of
genetic extinction by breeding with them. Of 26 animal species that have gone extinct since
being listed under the Endangered Species Act, at least three were wholly or partly lost because
of hybridization with invaders. One was a fish native to Texas, eliminated by hybridization with
introduced mosquito fish. Rainbow trout introduced widely in the United States as game fish are
hybridizing with five species listed under the Endangered Species Act, such as the Gila trout and
Apache trout. The endangered, endemic Hawaiian duck is being lost to hybridization with North
American mallards introduced for hunting. The rarest European duck (the white-headed duck)
is threatened by hybridization with the North American ruddy duck, which was originally kept
as an amenity in a British game park. The ruddy duck escaped, crossed the English Channel, and
spread to Spain, the last stronghold of the white-headed duck. Invasion meltdown: when
an invasive species triggers destructive traits in another species.
ext – invasive species link
The TPP will expand illegal trade networks – crushing biodiversity and spreading
invasive species
USTR 11 – Office of the United States Trade Representative, (‘USTR Green Paper on
Conservation and the Trans-Pacific Partnership”, December 2011, http://www.ustr.gov/aboutus/press-office/fact-sheets/2011/ustr-green-paper-conservation-and-trans-pacificpartnership)//sawyer
Illegal trade in wildlife is significant worldwide. Its global scale presents several potential threats
to both the environment and regional security, including loss of biodiversity,
introduction of invasive alien species and growth of global criminal networks .
The TPP countries are source, transit or destination countries for this illegal
trade , and the region includes primary trading routes for illegal trade ranging from rhino
horn, live tiger cubs and tiger parts for medicinal purposes, to tortoises, snakes, iguanas, exotic
pets and much more. Each of the TPP countries has a vested interest in protecting its wildlife
resources for their ecological and economic value.
ext – overfishing
The TPP will accelerate overfishing
Sakai 11 – Courtney Sakai is a staff writer for OCEANA, (“The Trans-Pacific Partnership:
Promoting Sustainable Trade in Seafood Products”, December 2011,
http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/Wilson_Center_TPP_Handout__Dec2011_FINAL.pdf)//
sawyer
The world depends on the oceans for food and livelihood . More than a billion people
worldwide depend on fish as a key source of protein. Fishing activities support coastal
communities and hundreds of millions of people who depend on fishing for all or part of their
income. But now, nearly all of the world’s fish populations in every part of the world are severely
depleted from overfishing. The situation is so severe that according to leading fisheries
scientists, if current trends continue, the world’s fisheries could be beyond recovery within
decades. Despite the precarious state of the oceans, many practices continue in the fishing
sector that impede trade and threaten the sustainability of the resource. The two major fisheries
trade issues are subsidies and illegal fishing. Fisheries are an important economic sector for the
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) countries. Yet to date, oceans and fisheries issues have
largely been neglected in trade agreements. The TPP has an immediate and pressing
need to address trade and fisheries -- to promote a level playing field, reduce trade distortions,
and help shape international trade rules for the fisheries sector. The World’s Fisheries
According to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 85 percent of the world’s
commercial fish populations are fully exploited, overexploited, depleted or recovering from
depletion. According to the FAO, the maximum long-term potential of the world marine capture
fisheries has been reached. As a result, increased demand for wild capture fish cannot be met by
increasing fishing effort without restoring fish populations and ensuring their ongoing
sustainability – including by controlling illegal fishing and limiting subsidies that not only
distort trade but also undermine management efforts and lead to overfishing. Fisheries, Trade,
and Development. Fisheries are important to international trade and development. Fish
products are highly traded. World exports of fish and fish products are currently about $86
billion a year. This represents more than a third of the industry’s total production. This level of
trade is equivalent to the world trade in meat or trucks or cosmetics. Approximately 80 percent
of the world fishery production occurs in developing countries. On average, each fisheries job
holder provides for three dependents or family members, so the fisheries sector and supporting
sectors directly provide for more than 500 million people (8 percent of world population).
Fisheries and the TPP Fisheries are highly relevant to the TPP. The Pacific Ocean
accounts for 55 percent of marine wild capture production . Fisheries are important
economic sectors for all TPP countries. Five of the nine TPP countries (Australia, Malaysia,
Peru, United States, and Vietnam) are among the top twenty countries in wild capture
production. The TPP countries in total account for about 22 percent of the world’s wild capture
production. If Japan is added, the figure becomes even larger, since Japan is the 6 th largest
producing country, accounting for approximately 5 percent of the world total by itself. The
United States and Japan are the world’s largest importers of fish and fish products. As in all
trade agreements, an important objective is to reduce trade distortions and promote a level
playing field. This is also what we should aim to do with respective to fisheries in the TPP. The
TPP can address two major fisheries trade issues -- subsidies and illegal fishing.
Overfishing cause extinction
Safina et al 95 -Mercedes Lee and Carl Safina, Safina is author of 6 books and roughly 200
scientific and popular publications, including features in The New York Times, and National
Geographic and a new Foreword to Rachel Carson’s The Sea Around Us, Originally published in
Current: The Journal of Marine Education, 13: 5-9, 1995, (“The Effects of Overfishing on Marine
Biodiversity”, 1995, http://www.seaweb.org/resources/articles/writings/safina1.php)//sawyer
"The last fallen mahogany would lie perceptibly on the landscape, and the last black rhino would
be obvious in its loneliness, but a marine species may disappear beneath the waves
unobserved and the sea would seem to roll on the same as always ." (Ray, p. 45)
Overfishing occurs when fish are being caught faster than they can reproduce and replace
themselves. Overfishing can affect biological diversity. Biodiversity is the diversity
of living things, and can be thought of as occurring on three levels: genetic,
species, and ecosystem . Genetic diversity is the genetic variability that occurs
among members of the same species. Species diversity is the variety of species
found in a community or ecosystem. And ecological diversity is the variety of types
of biological communities. An additional means of categorizing biological diversity is
functional diversity; the variety of biological processes characteristic of a
particular ecosystem. These units of diversity are interrelated. As Thorne-Miller and
Catena explain, In the face of environmental change, the loss of genetic diversity weakens a
population's ability to adapt; the loss of species diversity weakens a community’s ability to
adapt; the loss of functional diversity weakens an ecosystem's ability to adapt; and the loss of
ecological diversity weakens the whole biosphere’s ability to adapt. Because
biological and physical processes are interactive, losses of biological diversity
may also precipitate further environmental change. This progressively destructive
routine results in impoverished biological systems, which are susceptible to
collapse when faced with further environmental changes. (Thorne-Miller and Catena,
1991, p. 10)
ext – overfishing brink
The brink is now – overfishing has brought us to the brink – the TPP will open up Asia
and collapse the marine environment
Levitt 13 – Tom Levitt is a writer for CNN, (“Overfished and under-protected: Oceans on the
brink of catastrophic collapse”, March 27, 2013,
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/22/world/oceans-overfishing-climate-change)//sawyer
Many marine scientists consider overfishing to be the greatest of these threats.
The Census of Marine Life, a decade-long international survey of ocean life completed in 2010,
estimated that 90% of the big fish had disappeared from the world's oceans, victims
primarily of overfishing . Tens of thousands of bluefin tuna were caught every year in the
North Sea in the 1930s and 1940s. Today, they have disappeared across the seas of Northern
Europe. Halibut has suffered a similar fate, largely vanishing from the North Atlantic in the 19th
century. Opinion: Probing the ocean's undiscovered depths In some cases, the collapse has
spread to entire fisheries. The remaining fishing trawlers in the Irish Sea, for example,
bring back nothing more than prawns and scallops, says marine biologist Callum Roberts, from
the UK's York University. "Is a smear of protein the sort of marine environment we
want or need? No, we need one with a variety of species , that is going to be more
resistant to the conditions we can expect from climate change, " Roberts said. The
situation is even worse in Southeast Asia. In Indonesia, people are now fishing for
juvenile fish and protein that they can grind into fishmeal and use as feed for
coastal prawn farms. "It's heading towards an end game," laments Roberts
ext – tpp causes overfishing
The TPP will accelerate overfishing
Vincent 13 – David Vincent University of San Diego School of Law, 2012; B.A., University of
California, San Diego, 2009, (“THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP: ENVIRONMENTAL
SAVIOR OR CORPORATE CARTE BLANCHE?”, July 3, 2013,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2290333)//sawyer
Another environmental concern of the implementation of the TPP is the impact it could have on
fishing. The United States, Vietnam, Canada, and Chile are among the top fifteen exporters of
fish in the world.164 Overfishing is an ever-increasing concern as one half of the
global marine catch is designated as fully exploited, one quarter as over exploited
or depleted, and the other quarter as underexploited but composed mainly of lowvalue species.165 This problem is not strictly a conservational one, as losses to the global
economy from the unsustainable exploitation of marine resources may exceed $50 billion
annually.166 While relaxed restrictions on fishing contribute to overfishing, fishing subsidies
which total $16 billion worldwide each year are a more immediate concern as governments are
actively promoting overfishing.167
democracy da
The TPP undermines democracy
Zeese 13 - Kevin Zeese is a participant in PopularResistance.org which will be announcing a
campaign to stop the TPP in the very near future; and a member of the Green Shadow Cabinet
where he serves as Attorney Genera, (“The Trans-Pacific Partnership is an Assault on
Democracy That Will Undermine the Economy”, June 20, 2013,
http://www.popularresistance.org/the-trans-pacific-partnership-is-an-assault-on-democracythat-will-undermine-the-economy/)//sawyer.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a global corporate coup that undermines
democracy and makes corporations more powerful than government . It creates a
“trade tribunal” system that allows corporations to sue governments for expected lost profits
resulting from environmental, labor, health, consumer protection and other laws. The judges in
the tribunals will be corporate lawyers on temporary leave from corporate job in order to rule on
cases brought by corporations and then returning to their corporate job. This rigged rule of
law system will prevent countries from acting in the public interest and for the
protection of the planet. The TPP undermines the rule of law.
The TPP will yank democracy out of the world
Doyle 13- Cyn Doyle is the President of Placements USA LLC, a healthcare recruiting firm that
specializes in Nurse Practitioner recruiting and Physician Assistant recruiting. Her Nurse
Practitioner jobs and Physician Assistant jobs company motto is “We work hard to help keep
America working…” She uses her healthcare recruiting company to advocate for Nurse
Practitioner jobs and Physician Assistant jobs, (“is President Obama Selling Our Democracy If
He Signs the Trans-Pacific Partnership?”, July 10, 2013, http://voices.yahoo.com/is-presidentobama-selling-our-democracy-if-he-signs-12175122.html)//sawyer
The Trans-Pacific Partnership, TTP, will enable corporations to override US Law
even while operating in the U.S. The TPP will yank democracy right out of our
hands by making law contrary to our interests! This act will allow corporations to just
about have no oversight at all. Pharmaceutical companies will be able to charge outrageous
prices for medicine. The Banks will run roughshod over us (again), destroying our already
fragile economy. Chemical-Agricultural companies will have carte blanche over our food,
accomplishing their goal of weeding out the world's population. Nestle and others will have full
control over our water supply. This "trade" deal will only enrich the 1% and further the
destruction of our middle class and its freedoms. The Trans-Pacific Partnership's goal is to give
multinational investors (corporations) and domestic corporations the right to challenge any and
all of our health, consumer safety, environmental, banking (Dodd-Frank, for example), patent
and copyright laws and regulations before an international tribunal (most likely cherry-picked
by the corporations). This will place these corporations in an equal or higher
position than the nations of the world's governments and certainly above us, the
people . Basically, if we pass any laws or currently have any laws on the books that could
somehow restrict or diminish any "expected future profits", these corporations can demand the
taxpayers to compensate them for their "lost" earnings and also pay their legal bills.
econ da
The TPP will cause economic instability and crisis
Gallagher 13 -Kevin P. Gallagher published the following op-ed in the Financial Times based
on the recent Pardee Center report from the Task Force on Regulating Global Capital Flows for
Long-Run Development, which he co-chairs, (“Don’t Trade Away financial Stability in The
Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement”, 2013, http://triplecrisis.com/expert-panel-dont-tradeaway-financial-stability-in-trans-pacific-partnership-agreeement/)//sawyer
Negotiators will meet in Singapore this week for yet another round of talks on a Trans-Pacific
Partnership – it is the 16th time in just a few years. A TPP would bring together key Pacific-rim
countries into a trading bloc that the US hopes would counter China’s growing influence in the
region. Among other sticking points, talks remain stalled because the US insists that its TPP
trading partners dismantle regulations for cross-border finance. Many TPP nations
will have nothing of it, and for good reason. The US stance stands on the wrong side of
country experience, economic theory and guidelines issued by the International
Monetary Fund. TPP nations such as Chile and Malaysia successfully regulated cross-border
finance to prevent and mitigate severe financial crises in those countries in the 1990s. In the
wake of 2008, there has been a global rethink regarding the extent to which cross-border
financial flows should be regulated. Many nations such as Brazil and South Korea have built on
the example of Chile and Malaysia and reregulated cross border finance through taxes on shortterm debt and foreign exchange derivative regulations. After 2008, emerging markets and
developing nations want as many tools as possible to prevent and mitigate crises. New research
in economic theory justifies this. Anton Korinek and Olivier Jeanne have demonstrated how
externalities are generated by cross border financial flows because investors and borrowers do
not know (or ignore) what the effects of their financial decisions will be in terms of financial
stability in a particular nation. Foreign investors may well tip a nation into financial
difficulties, and even a crisis. The authors argue that regulating cross border finance will
correct for the market failure and make markets work more efficiently. Such thinking has in part
triggered an about face at the IMF on capital flows. Last December, the IMF endorsed an
“institutional view” on capital account liberalization and the management of capital flows. The
IMF now recognises that capital flows bring risk, particularly in the form of
capital inflow surges and sudden stops, which can cause a great deal of financial
instability. Under such conditions, the IMF will now recommend the use of cross-border
financial regulations to avoid such instability. I led a task force that held a compatibility review
examining the extent to which the regulation of cross-border finance was compatible with many
of the trade and investment treaties across the globe. It consisted of former and current Central
Bank officials, IMF and WTO staff, members of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, as well
as scholars and members of civil society. In areport published this week, we find that US
trade and investment treaties were the most incompatible with new thinking and
policy on regulating global finance. Not only do US treaties mandate that all forms of
finance move across borders freely and without delay, but deals such as the TPP would allow
private investors to directly file claims against governments that regulate them, as opposed to a
WTO-like system where nation states (ie the regulators) decide whether claims are brought.
Therefore, under investor-state dispute settlement a few financial firms would have the power to
externalise the costs of financial instability to the broader public, while profiting from awards in
private tribunals. Such provisions fly in the face of recommendations on investment from a
group of more than 250 US and globally renowned economists. The 2012 IMF decision echoes
these sentiments when it says “these agreements in many cases do not provide appropriate
safeguards or proper sequencing of liberalization, and could thus benefit from reform to include
these protections”.
The TPP will crash the housing industry
Perry 13 – Sandy Perry is the secretary of Housing for the Green Shadow Cabinet is an
outreach minister for CHAM Deliverance Ministry in San Jose, Perry has been a leader
in the movement for housing in the San Jose area, Sandy Perry works with Poor People’s
Economic Human Rights Campaign, World Courts of Women, National Alliance of HUD
Tenants, Occupy, and every other social movement battling for housing justice,
economic human rights, and a better world (“TPP would make U.S. housing crisis much
worse
”, June 21, 2013, http://greenshadowcabinet.us/statements/tpp-would-make-ushousing-crisis-much-worse)//sawyer
The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) will dramatically undermine the housing
rights of Americans, primarily by prohibiting meaningful government control
over financial institutions . Americans have already lost over five million homes to
foreclosure as a result of the 2008 economic collapse. Virtually every regulatory
measure that could have averted this crisis will now be banned by the TPP.
According to the Citizen Trade Campaign, the TPP will put an end to any government
policy that: Imposes any limit whatsoever on the size of banks (“too big to fail”)
Establishes a Glass-Steagell-style firewall between different types of financial
institutions Limits or bans any specific financial derivatives no matter how toxic or risky
Enacts capital controls designed to protect national currencies against speculation The
TPP includes an “investor-state” provision that specifically grants global banks the
power to challenge any law or regulation of any country that reduces their profits as a
“regulatory taking”. It could then take that country to a private international tribunal
that entirely circumvents all public judicial authorities. The tribunal would be
authorized to force countries to either rescind their laws or pay “damages”
from their treasuries directly to global corporations. The TPP will not only
allow further speculative bubbles like the 2000s sub-prime mortgage scandal: it will
make them much bigger and make them inevitable. Finally, the TPP will
undermine housing affordability by weakening government affordable housing
programs and further shredding public and HUD-subsidized housing all across
the country . It will accomplish this not only through corporate seizure of public assets,
but also by dramatically eroding the tax base by offshoring millions of jobs. The TPP
will outlaw almost every single housing and financial provision in the SteinHonkala Green New Deal, and effectively nullify the right to housing. Public banks
would be out of the question. The TPP would enthrone the power of
corporations and tear down the very vision of human rights that has
inspired Americans for over 200 years.
eu trade-off da
The TPP will leave the EU by the wayside
Volz et al 12 -Florian Mölders PhD candidate and Researcher, DIW Berlin Ulrich Volz Senior
Researcher, German Development Institute (DIE); and Visiting Professor, Peking University,
(“TPP negotiations, anticipatory trade creation, and implications for European trade policy”,
March 23, 2012, http://www.voxeu.org/article/trans-pacific-partnership-and-implicationseurope)//sawyer
The prospect of a coming trade bloc in the Pacific region under leadership of the
US should be a wake-up call for EU trade policy. While the EU is in itself the biggest
trade bloc, total EU exports to the prospective TPP countries account for 23.8% of EU’s external
exports (and 30.6% if Canada, Mexico, and Japan would join the TPP). Figure 1 depicts the
importance of different markets for the EU’s external exports in 2010. Even though the
members of the TPP negotiations have already initiated several bilateral agreements among
themselves, the EU may be losing out in terms of market access if the liberalisation
process triggers exports within the prospective TPP without simultaneously
stimulating demand for European goods. Additionally, the TPP leaves significant
potential for vertical integration via production networks (Baldwin 2011). The risk of tradediverting effects of the TPP on the EU’s external trade is therefore real. Jagdish Bhagwati
(2012), the most prominent and ardent critic of any kind of regional PTA, recently called the
TPP a “discriminatory plurilateral FTA [free trade agreement]”.
EU trade is key to regional stability and the prevention of an arms race
AFP 11 - Advokatur Fischer & Partner is a law firm in Switzerland, (“EU President urges trade
to halt Asia-Pacific militarization”, November 9, 2011,
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/EU_President_urges_trade_to_halt_AsiaPacific_militarisation_999.html)//sawyer
The Asia-Pacific region is showing signs of militarisation that could lead to an
arms race, EU President Herman Van Rompuy warned Wednesday, calling for closer trade
ties to defuse any political tensions. "Whereas Europe used to be the most dangerous continent
in the past century... the focus of security analysts and hard power strategic planners has
recently moved towards developments in Asia and the Pacific," said Van Rompuy in a speech at
the University of Zurich. "They do not yet observe a full-blown arms race, but in
terms of military spending and confrontational psychology, the premises of an
arms race are there," he added, without naming individual countries. " It will thus be key
to continue deepening economic relationships within that region, so as to make a
war as it were 'materially impossible'," added Van Rompuy. Noting that the EU is a key
trading partner to major economies in the region, the EU Council President said
Brussels "does not only have a significant stake in regional stability, but itself is a
potential major factor contributing to this stability. " This fact "should also be reflected
in higher political attention paid to and political activity shown in the region," he added.
ext – link
TPP will trade off with the EU
Volz et al 12 -Florian Mölders PhD candidate and Researcher, DIW Berlin Ulrich Volz Senior
Researcher, German Development Institute (DIE); and Visiting Professor, Peking University,
(“TPP negotiations, anticipatory trade creation, and implications for European trade policy”,
March 23, 2012, http://www.voxeu.org/article/trans-pacific-partnership-and-implicationseurope)//sawyer
What do these results imply for economic policy? Even though our estimates suggest that
negotiations of bilateral trade initiatives are more likely to reap anticipatory trade effects
compared with a multilateral alternative, anticipatory trade effects will depend on more than
just the number of participating countries. The more credible the negotiations are, and the
greater the prospects of successful conclusion and implementation, the greater the chances to
realise anticipatory effects in terms of increased investment and trade. If policymakers involved
in the TPP negotiations can credibly signal that multilateral trade liberalisation will be achieved,
TPP may yet have its desired impact ahead of coming into force. Therefore, given potential
trade-diverting effects, the TPP could have a direct impact on the EU’s trade relations
with the Asia-Pacific region sooner than Brussels may realise. Instead of standing idly by,
the European Commission should become more active and seek to strengthen trade ties between
the EU and the prospective TPP countries. One option for the EU would be to try to advance its
current bilateral PTA negotiations with Malaysia and Singapore and enter trade talks with
Japan, Brunei, and Vietnam, which have been under consideration for a while. The second
option, which is more ambitious, and likely to yield greater benefits not only for the EU but for
the entire world economy, would be to revive global trade talks by offering more concessions on
market access for agricultural products from developing countries and cutting agricultural
subsidies at home.
fracking da
The TPP will increase carbon emissions, fracking, and lng exports
SC 12 -Sierra Club’s Labor and Trade Campaign, (“An Explosion of Fracking?
One of the dirtiest secrets of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement”, 2012, h
http://www.sierraclub.org/trade/downloads/TPP-Factsheet.pdf)//sawyer
The United States is quietly negotiating an expansive trade agreement with ten other countries
that could dramatically increase exports of liquefied natural gas to overseas
markets without any domestic oversight. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
trade agreement, therefore, could increase dirty fracking and carbon emissions;
put sensitive ecological areas at risk; and increase natural gas and electricity
prices, impacting consumers, manufacturers, workers, and increasing the use of
dirty coal power. The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement The Trans-Pacific Partnership
agreement is an expansive new trade agreement being negotiated between countries in the
Pacific Rim, including Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru,
Singapore, Vietnam, and the United States. Because the TPP is intended as a “docking
agreement,” other Pacific Rim countries can join over time. Japan—the world’s largest natural
gas importer—has formally announced its intention to join the talks. The TPP touches on a
broad range of issues—the environment, workers and jobs, access to medicines, and more. For
example, every indication is that the TPP would allow foreign corporations to sue governments
directly--for unlimited cash compensation in foreign tribunals—over almost any domestic
environmental or other law that the corporation believes is hurting its ability to profit. And, by
offering special benefits to firms that relocate investment and jobs to other countries, the TPP
could incentivize offshoring of goodpaying jobs to low-wage nations and undercut working
conditions globally. Despite the impact that the TPP would have on nearly every aspect of our
lives, the TPP is being negotiated in near complete secrecy. None of the draft chapters of the
agreement have been made public and apart from TPP government officials, nearly the only
people with access to texts are more than 600 business representatives who serve as official US
trade advisors. One of the dirtiest secrets of the TPP is its potential to pave the way
for dramatically increase fracking across the United States. How the TPP could
increase fracking In order for the United States to export natural gas to another
country, the Department of Energy (DOE) must first conduct a thorough public analysis to
determine whether those exports are consistent with the public interest. This analysis is
critical to understanding the environmental and economic impacts associated with
natural gas exports and to building a deliberate energy policy that protects the
interests of the American public.
Fracking sparks remote triggered massive earthquakes
Begley 13 -Sharon Begley, the senior health & science correspondent at Reuters, was the
science editor and the science columnist at Newsweek, (“Study raises new concern about
earthquakes and fracking fluids”, July 11, 2013, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/11/usscience-fracking-earthquakes-idUSBRE96A0TZ20130711)//sawyer
It comes as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency conducts a study of the effects of
fracking, particularly the disposal of wastewater, which could form the basis of new regulations
on oil and gas drilling. Geologists have known for 50 years that injecting fluid underground can
increase pressure on seismic faults and make them more likely to slip. The result is an
"induced" quake. A recent surge in U.S. oil and gas production - much of it using vast
amounts of water to crack open rocks and release natural gas, as in fracking, or to bring up
oil and gas from standard wells - has been linked to an increase in small to
moderate induced earthquakes in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Ohio, Texas and Colorado. Now
seismologists at Columbia University say they have identified three quakes - in Oklahoma,
Colorado and Texas - that were triggered at injection-well sites by major earthquakes a long
distance away. "The fluids (in wastewater injection wells) are driving the faults to their tipping
point," said Nicholas van der Elst of Columbia's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in
Palisades, New York, who led the study. It was funded by the National Science Foundation and
the U.S. Geological Survey. Fracking opponents' main concern is that it will release toxic
chemicals into water supplies, said John Armstrong, a spokesman for New Yorkers Against
Fracking, an advocacy group. But "when you tell people the process is linked to earthquakes, the
reaction is, 'what? They're doing something that can cause earthquakes?' This really should be a
stark warning," he said. Fracking proponents reacted cautiously to the study. "More fact-based
research ... aimed at further reducing the very rare occurrence of seismicity associated with
underground injection wells is welcomed, and will certainly help enable more responsible
natural gas development," said Kathryn Klaber, chief executive of the Marcellus Shale Coalition.
'DYNAMIC TRIGGERING' Quakes with a magnitude of 2 or lower, which can hardly be felt, are
routinely produced in fracking, said geologist William Ellsworth of the U.S. Geological Survey,
an expert on human-induced earthquakes who was not involved in the study. The largest
fracking-induced earthquake "was magnitude 3.6, which is too small to pose a serious risk," he
wrote in Science. But van der Elst and colleagues found evidence that injection wells can
set the stage for more dangerous quakes. Because pressure from wastewater wells
stresses nearby faults, if seismic waves speeding across Earth's surface hit the
fault it can rupture and, months later, produce an earthquake stronger than
magnitude 5. What seems to happen is that wastewater injection leaves local faults
"critically loaded," or on the verge of rupture . Even weak seismic waves from faraway
quakes are therefore enough to set off a swarm of small quakes in a process called "dynamic
triggering." "I have observed remote triggering in Oklahoma," said seismologist Austin Holland
of the Oklahoma Geological Survey, who was not involved in the study. "This has occurred in
areas where no injections are going on, but it is more likely to occur in injection areas." Once
these triggered quakes stop, the danger is not necessarily over. The swarm of quakes, said
Heather Savage of Lamont-Doherty and a co-author of the study, "could indicate that faults
are becoming critically stressed and might soon host a larger earthquake." For
instance, seismic waves from an 8.8 quake in Maule, Chile, in February 2010 rippled across the
planet and triggered a 4.1 quake in Prague, Oklahoma - site of the Wilzetta oil field - some 16
hours later. That was followed by months of smaller tremors in Oklahoma, and then the largest
quake yet associated with wastewater injection, a 5.7 temblor in Prague on November 6, 2011.
That quake destroyed 14 homes, buckled a highway and injured two people. The Prague quake is
"not only one of the largest earthquakes to be associated with wastewater disposal, but also one
of the largest linked to a remote triggering event," said van der Elst. The Chile quake also caused
a swarm of small temblors in Trinidad, Colorado, near wells where wastewater used to extract
methane from coal beds had been injected. On August 22, 2011, a magnitude 5.3 quake hit
Trinidad, damaging dozens of buildings. The 9.1 earthquake in Japan in March 2011, which
caused a devastating tsunami, triggered a swarm of small quakes in Snyder, Texas - site of the
Cogdell oil field. That autumn, Snyder experienced a 4.5 quake. The presence of injection wells
does not mean an area is doomed to have a swarm of earthquakes as a result of seismic activity
half a world away, and a swarm of induced quakes does not necessarily portend a big one. Guy,
Arkansas; Jones, Oklahoma; and Youngstown, Ohio, have all experienced moderate induced
quakes due to fluid injection from oil or gas drilling..
Unchecked natural disasters cause extinction
Sid-Ahmed 5 [Mohamed Sid-Ahmed, political activist, writer and journalist with Al-Ahram
Weekly, January 2005 “The post-earthquake world” Al-Ahram Weekly Online
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/724/op3.htm]
The contradiction between Man and Nature has reached unprecedented heights, forcing us to
re-examine our understanding of the existing world system. US President George W Bush has
announced the creation of an international alliance between the US, Japan, India, Australia and
any other nation wishing to join that will work to help the stricken region overcome the huge
problems it is facing in the wake of the tsunamis. Actually, the implications of the disaster are
not only regional but global, not to say cosmic. Is it possible to mobilise all the inhabitants of our
planet to the extent and at the speed necessary to avert similar disasters in future? How to
engender the required state of emergency, that is, a different type of inter-human relations
which rise to the level of the challenge before contradictions between the various sections of the
world community make that collective effort unrealisable? The human species has never been
exposed to a natural upheaval of this magnitud3e within living memory. What happened in
South Asia is the ecological equivalent of 9/11. Ecological problems like global warming and
climatic disturbances in general threaten to make our natural habitat unfit for human life. The
extinction of the species has become a very real possibility, whether by our own hand or as a
result of natural disasters of a much greater magnitude than the Indian Ocean earthquake
and the killer waves it spawned. Human civilisation has developed in the hope that Man will be
able to reach welfare and prosperity on earth for everybody. But now things seem to be moving
in the opposite direction, exposing planet Earth to the end of its role as a nurturing place for
human life. Today, human conflicts have become less of a threat than the
confrontation between Man and Nature. At least they are less likely to bring about the end
of the human species. The reactions of Nature as a result of its exposure to the onslaughts of
human societies have become more important in determining the fate of the human species than
any harm it can inflict on itself.
ext – fracking causes earthquakes
Earthquakes are human induced and caused by fracking –empirics prove
Sweet 13 – Bill sweet blogs for IEEE Spectrum magazine about energy & climate and for
Foreign Policy Association about nuclear disarmament and weapons of mass destruction, (“Can
Wastewater Injection from Fracking Cause Earthquakes?”, July 11, 2013,
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/fossil-fuels/can-wastewater-injection-fromfracking-cause-earthquakes)//sawyer
Hydraulic fracturing to release gas or oil trapped deep underground in shale rock is of course
highly contested. In environmental circles and on the political left, indeed, the "politically
correct" view seems to be that fracking is just as bad as nuclear energy, however much each
might contribute to energy security or greenhouse gas reduction. The wider mainstream view—
and this is the attitude explicitly embraced by the Obama administration—is that fracking can be
good if properly regulated to minimize negative effects on the environment, especially on water.
That position may be complicated, however, by results of new study appearing Friday in Science,
which strongly suggest that wastewater injection in fracking operations can
significantly aggravate earthquake risks. The study, led by Nicholas van der Elst of
Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, finds that a severe Chilean
earthquake on 27 February 2010 triggered, less than a day later, a significant earthquake in
Prague, Oklahoma, where there was a set of water injection wells. Unusual seismic activity
continued near Prague for almost two years until late November 2011, when an earthquake
destroyed 14 homes and injured two people, according to a Lamont-Doherty press release. Then,
in April 2012, a major earthquake in Sumatra triggered yet another earthquake near the Prague
wells, where injection continues. The Science article builds on an earlier study that appeared in
Geology last March, in which a team of Lamont Doherty scientists hypothesized that highpressure injection of water in a seismically active area could cause a known fault
to "jump." “ When you overpressure the fault, you reduce the stress that’s pinning
the fault into place and that’s when earthquakes happen ,” said Heather Savage, a coauthor of both the older and newer reports. Besides affecting Prague, the Chilean quake also is
believed to have set off a temblor in Trinidad, Colorado, where suspicions about water injection
and seismicity already had attracted the attention of the U.S. Geolorgic Survey. Japan's
devastating earthquake of March 2011 is thought to have triggered a temblor in the West Texas
town of Snyder, where high-pressure water injection was taking place. The van der Elst
research in Science appears together with other articles about how human
activity may be affecting earthquake risks.
human rights da
The TPP will violate human rights
Baraka 13 - Ajamu Baraka is Public Intervenor for Human Rights in the Democracy
Branch of the Green Shadow Cabinet, (‘The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Another assault
on human rights that must be opposed”, June 18, 2013,
http://greenshadowcabinet.us/statements/trans-pacific-partnership-another-assaulthuman-rights-must-be-opposed)//sawyer
The right to have the means to sustain one’s physical life is a foundational
principle of human rights. The right to work and earn a livable wage in conditions
commensurate with human dignity that allow for securing adequate food,
clothing, housing, medical care and necessary social services is the basis for
material sustainability and a dignified life. The right to join or form unions, engage in
collective bargaining and live in a clean and healthy environment, free of pollutants in the air
and land, are also fundamental for securing material sustainability and dignity for the
individual, peoples and States. And in order to secure these rights, the right to information,
participation, popular sovereignty and national self-determination must be recognized and
protected. All states have an obligation, under the current regime of state-centered
international human rights, to respect, protect and fulfill the full range of human
rights. However, under the terms of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a so-called free trade
agreement negotiated in secret by the Obama Administration and now scheduled to be fasttracked into law this fall, it appears that the fundamental human rights of the laboring
classes in the U.S. and all of the countries involved in this free trade agreement
would be violated. It is difficult to determine the full extent to which the agreement poses a
threat to human rights because of the wall of secrecy with which the Obama Administration has
excluded the public during the negotiations. The secrecy surrounding the agreement also
extended to members of Congress, who have been denied access to the draft agreement by the
Obama Administration. Incredibly, even US Senator Ron Wyden, who chairs the Congressional
Committee with jurisdiction over the TPP agreement, was denied access to the negotiation texts.
On the other hand, more than 600 private sector “advisors” have had access to the draft—a fact
that is consistent with the Administration’s commitment to the private corporate sector over the
public’s right to know. Judging by the provisions of the agreement that have been leaked, it is
quite understandable why the Administration would not want the terms and the scope of this
agreement made available to the public. The TPP goes well beyond what is commonly
understood to come under the purview of free trade. Not only will the TPP be the largest and
most ambitious trade agreement in U.S. history, it will set rules on non-trade matters such as
food safety, internet freedom, medicine costs, financial regulation and the environment, in favor
of U.S. financial and corporate interests and to the detriment of workers and the general public
in the U.S. and in the countries that become part of the agreement.
manufacturing da
The TPP will hollow out the US manufacturing industry
Olen 13 – John Olen is a writer for Economy in Crisis, (“The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
Will Cause Continued Harm To U.S. Economy, Manufacturing”, June 17, 2013,
http://economyincrisis.org/content/the-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-will-cause-continuedharm-to-u-s-economy-manufacturing)//sawyer
Perhaps one of the most alarming measures that the TPP will implement will be
the further destruction of the U.S. manufacturing sector , as the TPP will send
even more manufacturing jobs overseas. Furthermore, very little is known about the
agreement. The negotiations have been taking place in secret and very few of the details have
been unveiled to the public. Like other trade agreements before it, such as NAFTA and the
Korea-US Free Trade Agreement (KOR-US), the TPP is being advertised to the U.S. as a means
to improve our economy and increase exports. However, if the disastrous effects of NAFTA
are any indication, TPP will only serve to further cripple our industrial base.
America has already experienced the destruction of our manufacturing capabilities with NAFTA,
a “free trade” agreement that saw much of our manufacturing industry outsourced
to foreign nations. If our leaders – primarily President Obama – continues to ram the
TPP into law, then surely the United States will fall victim to even more economic
destruction. Another scary thing about this particular agreement is that the one’s leading the
negotiations and gathering support aren’t even taking into account or listening to what the
People of the U.S. want. The U.S. public knows how damaging “free trade” agreements are, but
those taking part in the TPP negotiations don’t care. They’re too busy working to appease
corrupt corporations and other 1%-ers who stand to benefit financially from the TPP.
ext – tpp kills manufacturing
The TPP would devastate US manufacturing
Nash-Hoff – Michele Nash-Hoff, Founder and President at ElectroFab Sales, (“Why the TransPacific Partnership would Hurt American Manufacturers”, 05/02/13,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michele-nashhoff/why-the-trans-pacificpar_b_3186557.html)//sawyer
The Obama Administration has continued negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership
agreement behind doors closed to the media and without the Congressional involvement that
was requested by Congress. Besides being a threat to our national sovereignty as I discussed in a
previous blog, it is time to shine the light on another egregious provision that would hurt
American manufacturers. The Buy American Act was passed by Congress in 1933 and
required the U.S. government to give preferential treatment to American producers in awarding
of federal contracts. The Act restricted the purchase of supplies that are not domestic end
products. For manufactured products, the Buy American Act used a two-part test: first, the
article must be manufactured in the U.S., and second, the cost of domestic components must
exceed 50 percent of the cost of all its components. Other federal legislation passed since
extended similar requirements to third-party purchases that utilize federal funds, such as
highway and transit programs. "Buy American" provisions do not help all U.S. firms equally.
Corporations headquartered in the U.S. that offshore most of their manufacturing operations do
not benefit from the system designed to promote domestic production in the way that
companies with actual U.S. manufacturing operations do. However, strengthening the "Buy
American" provisions in our federal procurement system is one of the recommendations I made
in my book to benefit American manufacturers and help save American manufacturing. If a
domestic producer offers the government a more expensive bid than a foreign producer, it can
still be awarded the contract under certain circumstances, but more recent free trade
agreements have granted other nations the same negotiating status as domestic firms. In certain
government procurements, the requirements may be waived if purchasing the material/parts
domestically would burden the government with an unreasonable cost, as when the price
differential between the domestic product and an identical foreign-sourced product exceeds a
certain percentage, or the product is not available domestically in sufficient quantity or quality,
or if doing so is not in the public interest. In recent years, the requirements have been
increasingly waived to the point that we have lost domestic sources for some defense
components and products. In addition, the president has authority to waive the Act in response
to the provision of reciprocal treatment to U.S. producers. Under the 1979 GATT Agreement on
Government Procurement, the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement, the U.S.-Canada Free Trade
Agreement, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Central American Free Trade
Agreement, and the Korea Free Trade Agreement, access to government procurement by certain
U.S. agencies of goods for the other parties to these agreements is granted. Every one of these
trade agreements have increased the trade deficit that the U.S. has with the parties to these
agreements. The Obama administration is currently pushing to grant the several nations
involved in the Trans-Pacific agreement the same privileged status. What this means is that the
TPP's procurement chapter would require that all companies operating in any country signing
the agreement be provided access equal to domestic firms to U.S. government procurement
contracts over a certain dollar threshold. To meet this requirement, the U.S. would have to agree
to waive Buy America procurement policies for all companies operating in TPP countries.
Supporters of TPP argue that it would be good for America because these rules would apply to
all the countries signing the agreement, so U.S. firms would be able to bid on procurements
contracts in other countries on a national treatment basis. The question is whether this new
access for some U.S. companies to bid on contracts in the TPP countries is a good
trade-off for waiving Buy America preferences on U.S. procurement? Lori Wallach of
Public Citizen has written several articles warning about the dangers of the Trans-Pacific
Partnership. In an article titled, TPP Government Procurement Negotiations: Buy American
Policy Banned, a Net Loss for the U.S., she points out that the total U.S. procurement market is
more than seven times the size of the combined procurement market of the current TPP
negotiating parties: Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and
Vietnam. But the United States already has trade deals with procurement provisions with six of
these countries: Australia, Canada, Chile, Mexico, Peru and Singapore. Removing these
countries would mean that the U.S. procurement market is 24 times the size of the total "new"
TPP procurement market. She concludes "the size of the new procurement markets that the TPP
may open for the United States is in the order of $53 billion (national) to $72 billion (total),
which is a terrible trade for giving up the U.S procurement market of $556 billion (federal) to
$1.7 trillion (total)." In addition, she notes that the TPP procurement rules would constrain how
our national and state governments may use our tax dollars in local construction projects and
purchase of goods and limit what specifications Governments can require for goods and
services, as well as the qualifications for bidding companies. She warns that if we do not
conform our domestic policies to the TPP terms, the U.S. government would be subject to
lawsuits before foreign tribunals empowered to authorize trade sanctions against the U.S. until
our policies changed. "Also, any "investor" that happens to be incorporated in one of these
countries would be empowered to launch its own extra-judicial attack on our domestic laws in
World Bank and UN arbitral tribunals with respect to changes to procurement contracts with
the U.S. federal government." A letter from Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) and 68 other
Congressional Reps to President Obama on May 3, 2012 states in part, "We are concerned about
proposals we understand are under consideration in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
agreement negotiations that could significantly limit Buy American provisions and as a
result adversely impact American jobs, workers, and manufacturers...We do not
believe this approach is in the best interest of U.S. manufacturers and U.S.
workers. Of special concern is the prospect that firms established in TPP
countries, such as the many Chinese firms in Vietnam, could obtain waivers from
Buy American policies. This could result in larger sums of U.S. tax dollars being
invested to strengthen other countries' manufacturing sectors, rather than our
own." On November 30, 2012, 24 Senators sent a letter to President Obama outlining
guidelines for the TPP and calling for Congressional consultation for the TPP. The letter urged
that the TPP: "Maintain "Buy American" government procurement requirements. The American
people, through their elected officials, should not be prohibited from establishing government
procurement policies that prioritize job creation in the United States. We hope that you will
direct USTR negotiators to ensure that any TPP not restrict "Buyer American" and "Buy Local"
government procurement policies at the Federal or sub-federal level. Require strong Rules of
Origin. The Rules of Origin in the TPP should ensure that only signatories to the TPP will benefit
from its increased market access and other provisions so that employment opportunities in the
U.S. may be expanded. Non-TPP members must not be allowed to use weak rules of origin as a
backdoor way to enter the U.S. market and further depress U.S. job prospects. Ensure that
State-Owened and State-Supported Commercial Enterprises (SOEs) operate on a level plaing
field. Given that SOEs are more common in the other TPP countries than in the U.S., the TPP
should require that SOEs competing with private U.S. enterprises operate andmake decisions on
a commercial basis. The agreement should also incorpoarte a reporting requirement so that
countries have to provide infromation on the operation of their SOEs in other TPP countries on
a regular basis." Country of Original labeling is another one of the recommendations I've written
about in previous blog articles and is the main recommendation of Alan Uke in his book Buying
Back America. This would help American consumers make choices when they purchase
consumer goods and allow professional procurement specialists in industry and government to
choose to support American manufacturers through "Buying American." The TPP treaty
would exacerbate our trade deficit problem and make it even harder for American
manufacturers to compete in the global marketplace. Instead of weakening "Buy
American" requirements through additional trade agreements such as TPP, we
need to strengthen the requirements. This drastic curtailment of "Buy American"
procurement provisions is another reason why we must make sure Congress rejects any fasttrack authority the Obama administration seeks to invoke when it comes time to get final
congressional approval for the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.
textile da
Pakistan’s textile industry is high now – exports
Khan 12 – Mubarek Zed Khan is a writer for Dawn, (“Pakistan's textile export rebounds”, 1122-2012, http://www.asianewsnet.net/news-39237.html)//sawyer
Pakistan's export of textile and clothing rebounded for the second consecutive month after
posting a decline for at least one year. The increase was mainly driven by a surge in
demand from recession-hit key markets of Europe and US, suggested data of Pakistan Bureau
of Statistics released here on Wednesday. In absolute terms, export of textile and clothing
witnessed a growth of 10.50 per cent in October 2012, from a year ago. The growth in export
proceeds in September 2012 was 12.91 per cent. The unprecedented growth was mainly
driven by substantial increase in export proceeds of readymade garments, towels, and
other low value products, like cotton yarn and cotton cloth, etc.
The TPP will crush India’s and Pakistan’s textile industries
PTJ 13 – Pakistan textile Journal, (“Trans Pacific Partnership, a valid threat for Pakistan’s
textile sector”, 06, 2013, http://www.ptj.com.pk/Web-2013/06-2013/PDF-June2013/Editorial.pdf)//sawyer
While the motivation for this agreement may be China, it is countries such as Pakistan and India
which will be badly affected when this agreement takes place in the near future. The US
accounts for 30% of total apparel and textile exports of India. While Pakistan is hoping for GSP
plus status in 2014 from the European Union, India is on the verge of signing a free trade
agreement with the EU. The high duties as compared with the TPP member countries
will render textile and garment exports uncompetitive . The most disturbing aspect of
this agreement is the ‘yarn forward rule’ that makes it obligatory to procure all the components
of any manufactured products from other TPP member countries to avail the benefits of duty
waiver. If any component is found to be of origin outside of the member countries, full duties on
apparel and textiles would be applicable. This will negatively effect and disturb the
global supply chain in textile and apparel. While aimed mainly at China, Pakistan and
other countries who are manufactures of raw material for apparel and textiles will
surely suffer from ‘collateral damage’ as a result of TPP. The large retailers and textile
buyers such as JC Penny and Levis from the US are not in the favour of any provisions that
would exclude traditional suppliers of yarn and fabrics like Pakistan and India to TPP member
countries including the US. The government and the industry need to pay heed and lobby for
flexibilities in the “yarn forward rule”before it is too late. We may gain GSP Plus to the European
Union but risk losing a big market share of the US and other member countries of Trans Pacific
Parnership Agreement
Those are key to India Pakistan relations and trade
PTJ 12 – Pakistan textile Journal, (‘Textile industry to benefit from open trade between India
and Pakistan”, 04-2012, http://www.ptj.com.pk/Web-2012/04-2012/Editorial.htm)//sawyer
Names such as Lakshmi for the spinning industry, Kuster Calico for the finishing industry and
Bajaj for the ginning industry can offer to Pakistan’s textile industry the highest technology at
reasonable price and short delivery times. Pakistan due to its extremely restrictive trade with
India could not benefit from Indian machines until two years ago when a large part of spinning
machines were officially allowed except the ring frames. Now complete range of textile machines
can be imported except for a few parts and accessories which are being made in Pakistan and
therefore are given protection. Mr. G.T. Dembla, ex Chairman of Textile Machinery
Manufacturers Association of India, who has visited Pakistan several times spoke to the editor
PTJ and said that this liberalization of trade will go a long way in improving the
relations between two neighbors India and Pakistan . He said over the years his various
meetings with the government functionaries including ex Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, he
always stressed the importance of trade between India and Pakistan . He is an active
member of ITME India Society the organizers of the textile machinery exhibition ITME held
every four years. He believes that this year in December, many visitors from Pakistan who visit
ITME India 2012 will be able to witness first hand the level of high technology for the textile
industry India. Mr. Venkat Reddy, Managing Director of Kuster Calico, was part of a delegation
to Pakistan in 2001, fondly remembered his last visit and said that it is an important moment in
history which will bode well for good relations between India and Pakistan. Pakistan also has a
lot to offer to India and together they can be a formidable force. Mr. Amir Madhani whose
company, Madhani Associates has been representing Lakshmi Group since 2010, is delighted
with the new developments. According to him finally a complete range of state of the
art spinning machines including ring frames will be available for Pakistan’s textile
industry. Furthermore it will generate a healthy competitive environment which will benefit
the industry by and large. Mr. Amjad Taj Khan, who represents Bajaj, Lakshmi Card Clothing
and a number of other Indian textile machinery brands says that it is a very positive
development. Pakistan can now benefit from the R & D of companies, like Bajaj who have
developed double roller ginning machines most suitable for the subcontinental cotton. This
technology which has replaced obsolete saw gin technology is already proving its worth and
India is striding ahead in clean and high quality cotton production needed for high value added
textiles.
Relations and trade are key to prevent IndoPak war
CSIS 12 – Center for Strategic International Studies, (“Thaw in South Asia: Can Free Trade
Prevent War?”, September 26, 2012, http://cogitasia.com/thaw-in-south-asia-can-free-tradeprevent-war/)//sawyer
A cursory Google search using keywords “free trade,” “prevent,” and “war,” reveals a body of
literature rich on academic studies and scholars attempting to understand the relationship
between the level of economic integration between two countries and the likelihood that said
countries will engage in armed conflict. Robert Cobden, a 19th century British liberal thinker,
postulated that the “gains from trade” combined with the uncertainty involved with the costs of
armed conflict incentivizes nations to uphold the peace. Simply put: trade pays more than war.
While the jury is still out on the merits of this argument, those who follow India-Pakistan
relations have reason to root for Mr. Cobden. A recent spate of high-level meetings
between Pakistan and India has produced an impressive array of progress on the economic
front, signaling a step forward in economic interaction between the South Asian neighbors. On
September 7, India’s Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna met with his Pakistani counterpart, Hina
Rabbani Khar. While security, terrorism, and border disputes were discussed, the real chatter
revolved around a landmark visa agreement signed by both countries making it easier for
businesspeople as well as those with relatives across the border to travel freely. Adding to this,
the Indian and Pakistani Commerce Secretaries met September 20-21 and upstaged their
foreign ministry counterparts. Commerce Secretary S.R Rao and Munir Qureshi signed three
agreements: a trade grievances agreement, a mutual recognition agreement and a customs
cooperation agreement. They also attended an inauguration of an Integrated Check Post at
Attari and discussed promoting trade through increased high-capacity railway traffic, opening
additional land routes across the border (between Munabhao and Khokhrapar) and ways to
encourage two-way investment. The Pakistani side reiterated its goal to grant MFN status to
India by the end of 2012 and both nations vowed to further reduce the number of goods
protected under the SAFTA sensitive list, scale down tariffs to maximum of 5%, and remove all
non-tariff barriers by 2020. Some analysts indicate that these recently-announced achievements
and stated future goals—if pursued to completion—could boost bilateral trade four-fold, to $10
billion per year, potentially laying the foundation for further economic cooperation and even
larger trade flows. Is this a turning point in Indian-Pakistani relations? Will this scenario
provide a data-point in support of Mr. Cobden’s hypothesis; that India and Pakistan are on
the path towards increased economic integration and hence one step closer to
stability and peace?
IndoPak war causes miscalculation and extinction
The Economist 11 (“A rivalry that threatens the world,” 5/19/11,
http://www.economist.com/node/18712274)//SJF
Armed and dangerous To Indians Pakistan's existential fears are exaggerated, blown up by the
army to scare the people. India has never been the aggressor, they point out. Even when India
intervened to help split Pakistan in two, in 1971, it only did so late, after seeing mass flows of
refugees and atrocities on a horrific scale by the army against civilians in East Pakistan (now
Bangladesh). Instead, say Indians, Pakistanis' own paranoia is the root of their instability. M.J.
Akbar, an eloquent Indian journalist and author of a new book on Pakistan, sums up the place as
dangerous and fragile, a “toxic jelly state”. He blames the army, mostly, for ever more desperate
decisions to preserve its dominance. “Pakistan is slipping into a set of contradictions that
increasingly make rational behaviour hostage to the need for institutions to survive,” he says.
Others, including liberal Pakistanis, add that Pakistan cannot shake itself from military men
obsessed with India. “We have become delusional, psychotic, fearing how to protect ourselves
from the rest of the world,” says one. India's most senior security officials say that Pakistan is
still, in essence, a state run by its army. That army, the world's seventh-largest, bleeds the state
of about a sixth of all public funds with almost no civilian oversight. All that is grim enough.
Then consider how Pakistan is rapidly expanding its arsenal of nuclear weapons. That
programme was born out of the country's humiliating loss of East Pakistan in 1971. Six years
earlier, around the time of a previous defeat by India, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, then Pakistan's
foreign minister, had declared: “If India builds the bomb, we will eat grass or leaves for a
thousand years, even go hungry, but we will get one of our own.” Pakistan may now have
between 70 and 120 usable nuclear devices—and may be unusually ready to use them. Some in
the West believe Pakistan started preparing nuclear-tipped missiles in the midst of the 1999
Kargil war against India, after Pakistan invaded a remote corner of Kashmir. Nobody doubts
that Pakistan, in the midst of its anxiety over India, is trying hard to get more. Its nuclear
warheads use an implosion design with a solid core of about 15-20 kilograms of highly enriched
uranium. The country produces about 100 kilograms of that a year, but is rapidly expanding its
nuclear infrastructure with Chinese help. And with production long-established, the price of
adding weapons has fallen to almost nothing. A nuclear physicist in Pakistan, Pervez Hoodbhoy,
now suggests that “you can have a working nuke for about $10m, or the cost of a nice big house
in Islamabad.” The new push seems, as ever, to be a response to two developments next door.
Pakistan was badly spooked by India's deal on civil nuclear power with America, completed in
2008. This not only binds America and India closely; it also lets India buy uranium on
international markets, and probably means it will soon build many more reactors. By one
panicky Pakistani estimate, India could eventually be making 280 nuclear weapons a year. The
other change is over doctrine and delivery. India has long held a position of “no first use” of
nukes. Pakistan, by contrast, with weaker conventional forces, refuses to rule out the option of
starting a nuclear war against India, and is now taking steps that could make such first use more
likely. Last month it test-fired a new missile, the Hatf IX, with a range of just 60km and
specifically designed for war-fighting. Two missiles are carried in tubes on a transporter and can
be fired, accurately, at short notice. The warheads are small, low-yielding devices for destroying
large tank formations with relatively little explosive damage or radiation beyond the battlefield.
Pakistan's generals say their new tactical weapons will meet a threat from India's Cold Start
doctrine, adopted in 2004, that calls for rapid, punitive, though conventional thrusts against
Pakistan. But by rolling out tactical nuclear weapons, Pakistan is stirring fears of instability.
Previous efforts to reassure observers that terrorists or rogue army officers could not get hold of
nukes rested on the fact that warheads and delivery systems were stored separately and were
difficult to fire—and that final authority to launch a strike requires “consensus” within the
National Command Authority, which includes various ministers and the heads of all three
services, and is chaired by the prime minister. But tactical nuclear weapons deployed close to
the battlefield pose new risks. Command-and-control protocols are likely to be looser and more
delegated. If field officers retreating in the face of a conventional attack by India were forced to
decide between using or losing their nuclear weapons, a border incursion could swiftly escalate
into something very much bigger and more lethal.
warming da
The TPP will uniquely accelerate the speed of warming
Vincent 13 – David Vincent University of San Diego School of Law, 2012; B.A., University of
California, San Diego, 2009, (“THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP: ENVIRONMENTAL
SAVIOR OR CORPORATE CARTE BLANCHE?”, July 3, 2013,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2290333)//sawyer
While any increase in trade and production has potential environmental impacts, there are
several specific environmental areas to which the TPP would particularly effect
due to the current state of affairs of its potential members. Climate change is perhaps
the most serious environmental concern in the 21st century and for TPP members. A November
2012 World Bank report predicts that the world temperature will increase by as much as 4ºC by
2100 if GHGs continue to rise at current rates.157 This past century has already seen a .8ºC
increase, and while governments have vowed to make efforts to limit the increase to only 2ºC,
the report does not believe the proposed global efforts, if enacted, will be effective enough to
meet their goal.158 The current members of NAFTA, Mexico, Canada, and the United States,
represent some of the worst offenders for GHG emissions. The three North American countries
are among the top 15 largest emitters of GHGs, and in 2009 the United States alone accounted
for 18.9% of the world’s emissions.159 The past 20 years has seen emissions increase at an
alarming rate as GHGs have increased by 17, 26, and 37% in the United States, Canada, and
Mexico respectively from 1990-2005.160 While the emissions from Asian countries, excluding
China and India, are not nearly as large as the North American countries, their emerging
economies are expected to produce a very large increase in GHGs over the next couple
decades.161 Climate change is an environmental concern of the TPP because of the
increases of GHGs that are the result of trade liberalization . FTAs usually result in
the increase of exports, which requires increases in production and transportation. According to
one study, trade liberalization leads to an expected increase in exports of 3.36 percent per year,
which coincides with an increase of transport emissions and output related emissions
of 3.4 and 4.3 percent per year respectively.162 Considering the TPP covers members that
are separated by the Pacific Ocean, the increase in transport related emissions
could be especially significant as 37 percent of trade-related emissions come from
international transport.163
NAIF CP
NAIF CP – 1nc
The United States federal government should enter into negotiations with Canada and Mexico, seeking
the following:
 a North American Plan for Infrastructure and Transportation
 the elimination of rules of origin and the establishment of a common external tariff
 the establishment of a North American Commission on Regulatory Convergence
 the establishment of a fund for North American research centers
The CP solves the aff better and will capture every benefit of the TPP – but sequencing
matters. The CP creates a stronger North American negotiating position for future
trade deals
Pastor 8 – professor and director of the Center for North American Studies at American University
(Robert A, “North America or Asia? The 21st Century Choice for the United States,” 1/23/12,
http://www.canambusco.org/resources/UofMiamiPerspectives-Pastor-NA_or_Asia-FINAL.pdf)//SJF
Introduction
While the debate on the costs and benefits of globalization continues, the world economy seems
increasingly divided into three regions - a dynamic East Asia, a crisisprone Euro-Zone, and an uninspired
North America. Each region faces formidable challenges, but only North America seems unaware that, at
this time, its future competitiveness depends more on addressing its continental problems than in
relating to the other markets.
At the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit in Hawaii in November 2011, President Barack
Obama sought to hitch the stalled U.S. economy to a growing East Asia. His vehicle is the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP), a free trade proposal with eight small Asian countries. If his purpose is to balance
China or prevent it from dominating Asia economically - both sensible goals - then he's purchased the
wrong car. The TPP won't take us there. Nor will it create American jobs.
If the President Obama wants to double exports and give a positive jolt to the U.S. economy, he should
give priority to forging a seamless market with Canada and Mexico. Though he may be tempted to think
he can do TPP and North America at the same time, he should reflect on the fact that it took eight years
to accomplish a simpler task – free-trade agreements with Panama and Colombia. If, instead, he
embarked on a concerted strategy to deepen integration with Canada and Mexico, he would not only
stimulate the U.S. economy, he would strengthen our region's bargaining power with Asia.
The United States needs to think strategically and sequentially . In a world of three competing regions,
he should draw from the region of our greatest strength - North America - to help the economy, open
Asia and reassume global leadership.
A World of Competing Regions
Together, East Asia, Europe and North America constitute about 80 percent of the world's product and
trade, and most trade occurs within each region rather than between them. Even in an age of
globalization, proximity matters.
During the past 15 years, the regions have performed somewhat differently than most people think.
Parts of East Asia have achieved the highest growth rates, but as a whole, the region's share of world
product declined from 25 percent to 22 percent. The European Union's share increased from 26 percent
to 28 percent. Most surprising, the gross product of the three countries of North America soared from
30 percent of the world in 1994, as NAFTA was implemented, to 36 percent in 2001. Since then, it has
declined to 29 percent, but it remains the largest economic bloc of the three.
Faced with the most urgent crisis, the European Union has taken the boldest, most long-term approach.
Instead of fragmenting or retreating to unilateralism, the region is forging a fiscal union that will
discipline its members' budgets while investing in the region's future. When faced with a financial crisis
in 1997, Asia assembled a stabilization fund and began negotiating free-trade agreements within the
region.
In contrast to Europe and Asia, the leaders of North America took a few timid steps toward constructing
an edifice on a NAFTA base, and then they retreated. In 2005, President Bush and his Mexican and
Canadian counterparts proposed a "Security and Prosperity Partnership" (SPP). The SPP contained a
broad set of goals to harmonize regulations, improve border efficiency and deepen integration using
dozens of interbureaucratic working groups. When the SPP was criticized by the right for undermining
U.S. sovereignty, and by the left for being too solicitous of business at the expense of workers, Bush lost
interest in it. In 2008, with SPP languishing, the World Trade Organization (WTO) talks stalled and Asia
negotiating regional agreements, Bush's Trade Negotiator Susan Schwab joined representatives of four
small open economies that were negotiating the TPP. Neither the TPP nor the SPP flourished, and when
President Obama was inaugurated, he discarded the SPP, put the TPP in limbo, and placed trade policy
in the deep freeze.
After the Republicans won the House of Representatives in 2010, Obama rediscovered the need for a
trade policy and negotiated a compromise with Congress to approve the Panama, Colombia and South
Korean free-trade agreements with a trade adjustment assistance package. Then, as host of the APEC
Summit, the president decided to retrieve the TPP and feature it as the meeting's crowning
achievement.
Unfortunately, the policy seems to be driven more by headlines – the rise of China and the fall in jobs –
than by a systematic assessment as to which strategy – TPP or economic integration in North America –
was more likely to help the American economy. There is no evidence that the Administration ever did
such an analysis. If it had, it would have learned that it over-estimated the TPP and under-estimated
North America.
Four of the eight TPP countries – Singapore, Australia, Peru and Chile – already have free trade
agreements with the United States. The other four – Brunei, New Zealand, Malaysia, and Vietnam –
have very small economies. All eight countries have a combined gross product of about one-seventh of
Canada and Mexico.
What is the TPP? Michael Froman, the deputy national security advisor for economic affairs, who was
formerly with Citigroup and has played a leading role in the Obama Administration in giving priority to
Asia and the TPP over North and Latin America, called the TPP "among the most important and historic
developments in international trade in recent years."1 He described the TPP's "unique" qualities as
being "comprehensive," meaning it would eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers; address cross-cutting
issues, like regulations and the digital economy; and encourage competitiveness, development, and
small business. Of course, these qualities are not unique to TPP; they are part of NAFTA and other freetrade agreements. The TPP would be the first U.S. trade agreement with Asian-Pacific countries, and it
would be unique if it eliminated all trade barriers without exceptions, but that is a dubious proposition.
On the eve of the November 2011 APEC Summit in Hawaii, Japan said it wanted to consult about
participating in the negotiations on TPP, and Mexico and Canada followed with a similar announcement.
Japan is probably trying to keep one foot on both sides of the Pacific, and Canada and Mexico are trying
to defend what they had gained from NAFTA. Including these countries will undoubtedly slow down the
negotiating process and could preclude an agreement. Japan and Canada would have to dismantle very
high barriers on agriculture, as would the United States, but it is doubtful that any of them could
overcome the pressures of their farm lobbies, particularly if Europe shows no interest in reciprocating.
If the TPP’s purpose is to put pressure on China to open its market, that won’t work for four reasons.
Some of the TPP provisions pressed by the United States, e.g., on government procurement and
neutralizing state-owned enterprises, are aimed at China, which will not accommodate Washington.
Second, the United States is already open to Chinese goods, and so why would China change these
policies in exchange for what it already has? Third, the other eight countries are very small and also
open to China.
And fourth, one week after the APEC Summit, China joined Japan and South Korea to announce steps to
expedite a free-trade agreement among themselves and with the ASEAN countries. In brief, China
already trumped the United States.
The North American Option
In trying to explain to his fellow Americans the importance of APEC, Obama noted that 61 percent of all
U.S. exports are sent to these twenty-one countries. He neglected, however, to mention that more than
half of that goes to just two countries – Canada and Mexico. Few Americans realize that the two largest
markets for U.S. goods are not China and Japan, but Canada and Mexico.
Moreover, the expansion of trade with our neighbors has a more favorable impact on the U.S. economy
because a much larger portion of our imports from them are actually composed of our exports to them.
Both Mexico and Canada have become very open economies. As they grow – and both have grown
faster than the United States in the last two years – our exports grow. In 2010, the United States
exported almost three times as much to Canada as to China and almost two times as much to Mexico as
to China.
Our total trade with our two neighbors in 2010 exceeded $1 trillion – 30 percent more than with China
and Japan. More importantly, the best markets to expand U.S. exports are not in Asia but with our
neighbors. For every additional dollar that our neighbors buy from abroad, about 80 cents are spent on
U.S. exports, and for every additional dollar that we import from our neighbors, a large proportion –
over 40 percent – is actually our exports to them. We no longer just trade products; we make them
together.
Unawareness of our neighbors’ importance may explain why the Obama administration chose the TPP
over North America, and it may also explain why President Obama proposed a “Buy American” provision
in his jobs bill in 2009. That was a violation of NAFTA, and after negotiating for more than a year with
Canada to change the provision, the president repeated the same mistake in the summer of 2011 with
his second jobs bill. If the president understood the importance of Canada and Mexico, he would have
proposed a “Buy North American” provision, and instead of a U.S. Infrastructure Fund, he would have
suggested a “North American Infrastructure Fund.” Both of those provisions would do more to stimulate
the U.S. economy and create jobs than TPP.
North America was a formidable region by 2001, just seven years after NAFTA. By then, trade tripled
among the three countries, the number of U.S. jobs expanded at historic rates, and the region’s share of
the world product increased from 30 percent to 36 percent. However, rather than move forward on a
new, more complex agenda, the three governments turned their attention elsewhere. By 2009, the
growth in trade and investment among the three countries of North America declined by more than
half, and North America’s share of the world product dropped.
In retrospect, North America peaked in 2001 because of new security-related barriersinstalled at the
border because of 9/11, Chinese commercial power and a lack of investment in infrastructure. But the
main reason is the lack of imagination and leadership of the three leaders of the United States, Canada
and Mexico. Rather than negotiating a common approach to the North American agenda, the three
governments reverted to unequal and ineffective dual-bilateralism, with the United States negotiating
the same issues separately with Canada and Mexico.
The United States and Canada issued "Action Plans" on the border and on regulatory convergence on
December 8, 2011. A week later, the United States and Mexico issued a similar plan on the border, and
they will issue a similar plan on regulations in a month. The truth is that the plans are actually "Inaction
Plans," or rather, they set terms of reference for numerous studies on the two subjects to be completed
at the end of 2012. Secondly, the plans with Canada are quite similar to those with Mexico, except that
Mexico's plan includes some specific decisions on expansion of border crossings and facilities, and the
Canadian plan omits any reference to the most important and longest-lasting border problem, the need
for a second bridge between Windsor and Detroit. Instead of duplicating their work, U.S. officials would
have used their time more efficiently if they had forged a continental approach to similar or shared
problems. To make the U.S. more competitive with Asia, we need to change the conventional paradigm
of "North America." We need to think "North American" rather than "Buy American." Instead of altering
our tax policies to encourage investment in the United States, we should promote investments in the
continent. If we shift "our mind's eye," as Albert Einstein once put it, new opportunities in North
America will open, but there are also a few steps that we could take that would put us on the right road:
• The three transport ministers of Canada, the United States and Mexico should negotiate a North
American Plan for Infrastructure and Transportation – to create new trade corridors that would extend
from Canada to the south of Mexico, building roads and communications that would strengthen the
region's economies and commerce. This would be the centerpiece of a true continental market.
• The three leaders should eliminate costly "rules of origin" – an inefficient tax estimated at over $500
million per year – and establish a common external tariff. The common revenues should then be used to
establish a "North American Investment Fund," whose principal goal would be to fund, with
supplements from the three governments, the North American Plan for Infrastructure and
Transportation.
• The three governments should establish several lean institutions, including a North American
Commission on Regulatory Convergence; a North American Advisory Group that would do research and
provide options for the three governments to improve competitiveness and security in North America;
and a North American Inter-Parliamentary Committee (combining the U.S.-Canadian and U.S.-Mexican
Parliamentary Committees) to ensure that the elected representatives of the three countries are
consulted at every stage of the process.
• The three leaders should provide scholarships for students to study in each others’ countries and a
small, annual fund of $10 million to support North American research centers. These Centers could
provide ideas and education to counter fears and erroneous information and to build interest in a North
American community.
AT: Permutation
Doing both consumes diplomatic capital and is functionally impossible – the
negotiations will collapse if the US pursues too much
Pastor 8 – professor and director of the Center for North American Studies at American University
(Robert A, “North America or Asia? The 21st Century Choice for the United States,” 1/23/12,
http://www.canambusco.org/resources/UofMiamiPerspectives-Pastor-NA_or_Asia-FINAL.pdf)//SJF
The three leaders have shown little imagination or even interest in dealing with a continental agenda
that would regain the growth we lost. The duplicative committees that they have set up measure
progress in the amount of travel and the number of meetings that they hold rather than in results.
Some might argue that the United States should pursue both the TPP and a North American initiative at
the same time, but the fact that it took eight years for the United States to ratify free-trade agreements
with Colombia and Panama suggests there is a limit of political capital and administration attention . It
would be ideal to do both, but the politics preclude it. The decision to pursue the TPP will divert scarce
political capital and attention from North America, and to do anything significant on North America
will also require a major political effort by all three countries. So the leaders need to choose . If the
question is which strategy will generate the most jobs in the United States and make the U.S. and its
neighbors more competitive, North America should be the option.
Sequencing is vital – doing the TPP first diverts focus from North American integration
and means the CP’s negotiations will fail
Barry 5/2 – directs the TransBorder Project at CIP, the author of numerous books on U.S.-Latin
America relations (Tom, “Changing Perspectives on U.S.-Mexico Relations,” TransBorder Project Policy
Report, 5/2/13, https://nacla.org/news/2013/5/2/changing-perspectives-us-mexico-relations)//SJF
Economic Integration
Both presidents will likely commit their governments to facilitating cross-border commerce and
improving the infrastructure necessary for vibrant, profitable trade and investment. That’s important,
but Obama and Peña Nieto will be remiss if they do not first situate their discussion about economic
integration within the context of the entire region.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) of 1994 fell far short of delivering the broadly
shared economic development and employment gains promised by its promoters. It was little more than
a trade and investment agreement, whose labor and environmental side accords and associated
institutions had little enforcement power and limited reach. Even before NAFTA, the economies of
Canada, United States, and Mexico were increasing their structural integration not just in trade but also
in such now highly integrated sectors as energy resources, electricity, agriculture, and manufacturing
(including highly integrated automotive and aviation production). Since 1994 regional trade has tripled
and foreign investment increased six times. Mexico is the second largest importer of U.S. goods,
following Canada; moreover, the United States is by far the leading market for Mexican exports.
Both Mexico and the United States are currently engaged in another economic liberalization initiative
called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), involving more than a dozen other nations, mostly Asian but
also including Chile and Canada. Many of the concerns and criticisms about the corporate-driven
character of NAFTA are also highly relevant to the TPP negotiations. However, the main problem of the
new, Asia-oriented focus of U.S. and Mexican trade/investment initiatives is the failure to appreciate,
leverage, and improve the highly integrated North American economy. The Obama and Peña Nieto trade
teams should recognize the mutual benefits of including Canada in talks about smart borders, trade
infrastructure, educational visas, security perimeters, immigration, and further economic liberalization—
as should the Canadian government.
Presidents Obama and Peña Nieto should embrace the concept—and the reality—of a North American
community (a concept heralded by Robert Pastor and other scholars and visionary policy analysts)
shaped by demographic trends and economic integration. Whether structured or not by new regulations
and institutions, the emergence of a North American community is evident in existence of some 30
million Mexican Americans in the United States.
The NAFTA institutions such as the North American Development Bank and the North American
Commission for Environmental Cooperation as well as such important bilateral initiatives as Border 2020
(which emerged from the 1983 La Paz environmental agreement) should not be left to wither away, but
seized upon as the building blocks of a more sustainable regional community that extends beyond
economic liberalization. Such institutions are among the first steps of recognizing and shaping the southnorth community. Focusing on Asia is looking away from our own region’s complementarity and
common future.
2nc CP solves top level
The CP establishes a North American negotiating bloc that makes subsequent trade
deals negotiable on more favorable economic terms – solves every aff advantage
better than the TPP
Pastor 13 – Professor and Founding Director of the Center for North American Studies, American
University (Robert A, “Shortcut to U.S. Economic Competitiveness: A Seamless North American Market,”
Policy Innovation Memorandum No. 29, http://www.cfr.org/north-america/shortcut-us-economiccompetitiveness-seamless-north-american-market/p30132)//SJF
In looking abroad to promote economic growth, the United States need go no further than its two
closest neighbors, Canada and Mexico. But the three governments have failed to pursue collaborative
efforts to address a new generation of issues that were not anticipated by the 1994 North American
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Instead of tackling new transnational problems such as regulatory
harmonization together, the United States and its neighbors reverted to old habits of bilateral, ad hoc
negotiations. Instead of forging a unified competitiveness strategy toward the European Union and East
Asia, each government has negotiated on its own. The three North American governments should create
a seamless market, one in which it is as easy and cheap for a Chicago merchant to sell products in
Monterrey as in San Francisco. This requires negotiating a common external tariff, eliminating
restrictions on transportation and services, funding new continental infrastructure, and fostering a
sense of community among the publics of the three countries that will also enhance the region's
influence in negotiations with Asia and Europe. One estimate suggests that the benefits to the three
countries would exceed $400 billion.
The Case For a North American Market
With rising competitive pressures from overseas and weak growth at home, the quickest external route
to economic recovery and enhanced competitiveness is to stretch the U.S. market to include 113 million
Mexicans and 34 million Canadians. The Obama administration has made it a priority to complete the
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with Asia and has announced its intention to launch a new U.S.-European
Union Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. But the administration has neglected its two
neighbors despite the fact that their combined product is more than six times that of other TPP
countries and that U.S. exports to them exceed those to the EU. Mexico and Canada are already the
United States' two largest export markets, its two largest sources of energy imports, and in the case of
Mexico, the largest source of immigrants. The three countries also make products together. Unlike U.S.
trade with most other countries, roughly 25 to 40 percent of the value of U.S. imports from Canada and
Mexico comes from components made in the United States, and then assembled into finished goods in
one of the two countries. Closer integration would translate into a more efficient supply chain and
improved competitiveness. With labor costs in China rising to those in Mexico, and the cost of
transportation across the Pacific increasing, a North American supply chain is not only more efficient
than an Asian route, but it could also become a strong export platform to Asia. Moreover, if the United
States seeks a unified approach to trade negotiations with Mexico and Canada, Asia and Europe will
recognize that Washington has other options, and prospects for concluding transpacific and
transatlantic trade deals would likely improve . For example, in the 1990s, world trade talks were
stalemated until NAFTA was signed.
The NAIF will expand trade with Asia and get China on board – it provides a better
model for global trade than the plan
Pastor 8 – professor and director of the Center for North American Studies at American University
(Robert A, “North America or Asia? The 21st Century Choice for the United States,” 1/23/12,
http://www.canambusco.org/resources/UofMiamiPerspectives-Pastor-NA_or_Asia-FINAL.pdf)//SJF
A North American Strategy to Asia
The best path to freer trade in China and Asia is, paradoxically, for the United States to start in North
America and create jobs and double exports by collaborating on transportation, education and
infrastructure.
A reinvigorated North America is more likely to get China’s attention, just as NAFTA in the 1990s
persuaded Europe and Japan to complete world trade talks. Moreover, if the three governments of the
United States, Canada and Mexico, representing three levels of power and development in the world,
decide to approach China together on issues related to currency, unfair trade practices and climate
change, North America has a far better chance of success than if each nation pursues each issue on its
own.
The United States was able to play the role of world leader in the Second World War because President
Franklin D. Roosevelt had spent the previous eight years repairing U.S. relations with Latin America with
his "Good Neighbor Policy." By the time he dispatched U.S. Armed Forces to Europe and Asia, the United
States was not just secure in its hemisphere, but Mexico and Brazil decided to fight alongside our troops.
The world is different today. We are not fighting over territory; we are seeking ways to compete for
markets using global rules. But one important thread of continuity is that our ability to project power
depends on the security that comes from having friendly and supportive neighbors. In the global
economic contest, we need a modern partnership with Canada and Mexico in order to achieve
economies of scale at the continental level.
America's choice in the 21st Century is not Asia or North America; it is a choice of strategy and
sequence. We should start in North America and build a Community that will benefit not just our three
countries but provide us leverage in Asia and a model for a better world.
It solves every advantage substantially better than TPP integration
Pastor 12 - professor and director of the Center for North American Studies at American University
(Robert, “Beyond the Continental Divide”, The American Interest, July/August 2012, http://www.the-americaninterest.com/article.cfm?piece=1269)//WL
Asia or North America The
global economy seems increasingly divided into three main regions: a dynamic East
Asian zone, a crisis-prone eurozone and a semi-conscious North America. Each region faces formidable challenges,
but only North America seems unaware that its future competitiveness depends more on addressing its
internal challenges than in gaining access to the others’ markets. Taken together, these three regions constitute 80
percent of the world’s product and trade, and more trade passes within each region than between them. A study of 348 of the largest
multinational corporations in the world found that 154 firms were North American, with 75 percent of their sales in North America; 127 were
European, with 64 percent of their sales in Europe, and 67 firms were based in Asia, with 76 percent of their sales in that region.1
Globalization is not as important as regionalism. Just as the ability of the United States to project power
abroad depends in part on the security of its North American base, so too can U.S.-based multinationals
extend their reach into Asia and Europe backed by the power of the largest market in the world. The
United States is the single largest national market, but the combined gross national products of Canada
($1.6 trillion) and Mexico ($1 trillion) would rank them the fifth largest economy. Combined with the United States, in
2010 the three had a nominal GDP of $17.1 trillion—larger than the $16.2 trillion of the 27-nation European
Union.2 Over the past 15 years, the regions have performed somewhat differently than most people think. Parts of East Asia have achieved
the highest growth rates, but as a whole the region’s share of world product declined from 25 percent to 22 percent. The European Union’s
share improved from 26 percent to 28 percent. Most surprising, the gross product of the three countries of North America soared from 29.5
percent of the world in 1994, when NAFTA began, to 36 percent in 2001. Since then, it has declined to 29 percent, but it remains the largest of
the three. Faced with the most urgent crisis, the European Union has taken the boldest, most long-term approach. Instead of fragmenting or
retreating to unilateralism, the region is trying to forge a fiscal union that will discipline its members’ budgets while investing in the region’s
future. Whether the EU succeeds at this remains to be seen, but no one can gainsay the effort. When faced with a financial crisis in 1997, Asia
assembled a stabilization fund and is now negotiating a free-trade agreement among the ASEAN countries and the three principal economies of
China, Japan and South Korea. By contrast, the
three nations of North America took separate paths after the deep
recession of 2008. Each pursued its own infrastructure strategies and policies. The United States insisted on a “Buy
American” policy and an independent approach to the auto industry, though most cars in the United States are literally North American, being
assembled with parts from all three countries. Lily
Tomlin, the Canadian comedienne, once quipped, “Together, we are in this
alone.” That applies to North America. Successive U.S. administrations have chosen to duplicate their
work by addressing the same issues with each neighbor separately rather than addressing them more
effectively together. At the same time, the United States has been chasing a phantom in East Asia. At the APEC
Summit in November 2011, the Obama Administration put its weight behind the “Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement” (TPP), a freetrade agreement with eight countries whose combined gross product is a mere one-seventh that of
Canada and Mexico. Of course, the TPP is not a trade strategy, or at least not a serious one. Its real purpose is to
prevent China from unifying the Asian economy because it includes provisions—for example, on state-owned
operating enterprises—that China cannot accept. But that TPP strategy was pre-empted within a week of the
APEC Summit when China, Japan and South Korea joined the ASEAN countries in free-trade talks.
Whatever its actual purpose, a TPP is likely to take a long time to negotiate and yield comparatively little in
terms of additional trade. Moreover, like all trade agreements, the Administration would have to invest time and considerable
political capital to get it approved by Congress. That would be a waste of political capital compared to the North American alternative. Just
do the math: U.S. trade with Canada and Mexico in 2010 exceeded $1 trillion , 30 percent more than
trade with China and Japan. More importantly, the best markets to expand U.S. exports are not in Asia but
with our immediate neighbors. For every additional dollar that Canada and Mexico buy from abroad,
more than eighty cents are U.S. exports, and for every additional dollar we import from our neighbors, a
large proportion—about forty cents—is actually composed of our exports to them. In other words, the balance
of trade is less important with our neighbors than the overall volume, since our production and marketing arrangements are already so
The best strategy to compete against China, double our
exports and invigorate our economy is to deepen economic integration with our neighbors and to do it
together rather than apart. Unfortunately, the latter approach has prevailed since NAFTA. The three leaders
intertwined. The opposite is true of our trade with Asia.
mostly meet one-on-one in separate bilateral forums. The three North American leaders met as a group in Guadalajara in August 2009 and
pledged to meet annually, but they missed the next two years. On April 2, 2012, Obama hosted Harper and Calderon in Washington. Their
“Joint Statement” emphasized “deep economic, historical, cultural, environmental, and societal ties”, but their initiatives remained packaged in
two separate bilateral compartments.
The CP is a prerequisite to effective economic development and trade
Barry 5/7 – senior policy analyst at the Center for International Policy and director of CIP's
TransBorder Project (Tom, “Changing Perspectives on U.S.-Mexico Relations,” 5/7/13,
http://www.ciponline.org/research/entry/changing-perspectives-on-us-mexico-relations-article)//SJF
Economic Integration
Both presidents will likely commit their governments to facilitating cross-border commerce and
improving the infrastructure necessary for vibrant, profitable trade and investment. That’s important,
but Obama and Peña Nieto will be remiss if they do not first situate their discussion about economic
integration within the context of the entire region.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) of 1994 fell far short of delivering the broadly
shared economic development and employment gains promised by its promoters. It was little more than
a trade and investment agreement, whose labor and environmental side accords and associated
institutions had little enforcement power and limited reach. Even before NAFTA, the economies of
Canada, United States, and Mexico were increasing their structural integration not just in trade but also
in such now highly integrated sectors as energy resources, electricity, agriculture, and manufacturing
(including highly integrated automotive and aviation production). Since 1994 regional trade has tripled
and foreign investment increased six times. Mexico is the second largest importer of U.S. goods,
following Canada; moreover, the United States is by far the leading market for Mexican exports.
Both Mexico and the United States are currently engaged in another economic liberalization initiative
called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), involving more than a dozen other nations, mostly Asian but
also including Chile and Canada. Many of the concerns and criticisms about the corporate-driven
character of NAFTA are also highly relevant to the TPP negotiations. However, the main problem of the
new, Asia-oriented focus of U.S. and Mexican trade/investment initiatives is the failure to appreciate,
leverage, and improve the highly integrated North American economy. The Obama and Peña Nieto trade
teams should recognize the mutual benefits of including Canada in talks about smart borders, trade
infrastructure, educational visas, security perimeters, immigration, and further economic liberalization—
as should the Canadian government.
Presidents Obama and Peña Nieto should embrace the concept—and the reality—of a North American
community (a concept heralded by Robert Pastor and other scholars and visionary policy analysts)
shaped by demographic trends and economic integration. Whether structured or not by new regulations
and institutions, the emergence of a North American community is evident in existence of some 30
million Mexican Americans in the United States.
The NAFTA institutions such as the North American Development Bank and the North American
Commission for Environmental Cooperation as well as such important bilateral initiatives as Border 2020
(which emerged from the 1983 La Paz environmental agreement) should not be left to wither away, but
seized upon as the building blocks of a more sustainable regional community that extends beyond
economic liberalization. Such institutions are among the first steps of recognizing and shaping the southnorth community. Focusing on Asia is looking away from our own region’s complementarity and
common future.
Both governments will surely point to fundamental importance of the two nations as trading partners.
Yet the trade and investment numbers fall far short in defining the identity, advantages, and challenges
of the U.S.-Mexico relationship. More than economic partners, the United States and Mexico are nextdoor neighbors and all that this proximity implies for the future welfare of both nations. Governance
measures on such issues as energy, environmental standards, immigration flows, weapons, illegal drugs,
and labor standards need to follow and shape economic integration. If there is to be a sustainable North
American community, the framework of economic integration must necessarily address the stark
regional imbalances in Mexico’s economic growth and development—with Mexico’s southern states left
further and further behind. Similarly, cheaper consumer goods made possible by liberalized trade and
investment do not compensate for stagnation of Mexican wages—averaging just over $2 an hour.
Not to be missed is the growing militancy of teachers, students, and agricultural workers in southern
Mexico, which was the defining theme of the May 1 marches in Mexico City and elsewhere. Casting a
long shadow over the summit will be the intensifying teacher-led protests over the federal reforms of
labor and education policy. Centered in Mexico’s poorest southern states, especially Guerrero, the antigovernment opposition is protesting the labor, energy, and education reforms of the Peña Nieto
government and the Pact for Mexico, which has brought together Mexico’s leading political parties over
a package of long-overdue reforms.
2nc – Mexico/Canada say yes
Mexico and Canada will say yes to the CP if Obama leads on it
Pastor 13 – Professor and Founding Director of the Center for North American Studies, American
University (Robert A, “Shortcut to U.S. Economic Competitiveness: A Seamless North American Market,”
Policy Innovation Memorandum No. 29, http://www.cfr.org/north-america/shortcut-us-economiccompetitiveness-seamless-north-american-market/p30132)//SJF
Where NAFTA Went Astray
North America was on track to create a competitive market in the 1990s. The most rapid job expansion
in recent U.S. history occurred between 1993 and 2001. This coincided with the onset of NAFTA and the
end of most trade and investment barriers between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Trade
tripled and foreign direct investment grew fivefold. But 2001 proved to be a turning point for North
America just as the outlines of a continental market were becoming visible. Growth in trade has since
declined by two-thirds and foreign investment by half.
There are multiple causes for the decline. China entered the World Trade Organization (WTO) and
rapidly expanded its exports to all three countries in North America. Post-9/11 restrictions significantly
raised the cost of moving products back and forth across North American borders. There has been little
investment in common infrastructure, resulting in long wait times at borders and slower movement of
commercial goods. But the main cause was simply the failure of leaders in the three countries to build
on NAFTA's foundation and create a seamless market.
Deepening North American integration is more productive than widening it to add more free trade
agreements (FTAs), but it will require the United States to address numerous domestic issues with its
neighbors. Regulatory requirements should be meshed so as to eliminate trade protection while also
ensuring safety and environmental concerns. National infrastructure grids—roads, railroads, electricity,
and natural gas pipelines—should be built and connected. Repetitive and unnecessary border
inspections should be eliminated. Labor market needs should be addressed on a continental basis.
Toward a Seamless North American Market
To invigorate the three economies and forge a higher level of competitiveness, the North American
governments should undertake the following measures:
Build public support for a shared vision. North American leaders should say clearly that economic
progress depends on closer collaboration. The three leaders should speak often of the common North
American vision and community and bring it to life with symbolic steps—such as a "Buy North American"
ad campaign, instead of "Buy American." There should be more educational exchanges and support for
North American research centers.
Negotiate a common external tariff. This would permit products to cross North American borders
without any customs forms, inspection, or duty. Current "rules of origin" requirements mandate that
goods must contain a certain level of North American content to qualify for NAFTA tariff preferences,
which slows commerce and costs consumers billions of dollars.
Review and eliminate all restrictions in transportation and services. The U.S. government violated NAFTA
for more than fifteen years by prohibiting Mexican trucks from entering the United States. Although the
U.S. government finally relented last year after WTO rulings, Mexican shippers are reluctant to upgrade
their equipment without assurance that these barriers are gone for good. Other barriers include
cabotage, which prevents trucks from depositing and acquiring cargo at different points on long
journeys, and the Jones Act, which subsidizes American maritime transportation. In addition, while the
exchange of services (e.g., banking, engineering, consulting, and health care) is increasingly important,
professional certification and parochial regulations retard their growth. All these restrictions should be
eliminated.
Forge a continental plan for transportation and infrastructure. Led by each country's minister of
transportation, the countries should build new trade corridors, improve railroads and ports, and
construct a new highway that stretches from Canada to southern Mexico. Funding for the infrastructure
could come from the common tariff, which should yield about $45 billion annually. These funds would
be managed by a North American Investment Fund, which could be administered by the World Bank
with decision-making in the hands of the three governments.
Create a single North American working group on regulatory issues with a comprehensive strategy.
Currently there are two separate bilateral working groups—U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico—that
negotiate individual regulations, but they have failed to agree on a single one. A merged working group
should aim for across-the-board regulatory convergence. This means that pharmaceuticals should be
subject to uniform high standards and would not need to be retested in each country, that food imports
should be tested just once by North American inspectors, and that regulations on the size, weight, and
fuel efficiency of trucks should be the same in all three countries.
Adapt immigration policies to a wider labor market. The United States and Canada should permit their
citizens to work freely in either country. This step is not possible with Mexico until the income gap
narrows, but other steps should be taken. NAFTA visas for professionals should be easier to obtain and
extend longer for Mexicans. An expanded guest-worker program for Mexicans should be included in
comprehensive immigration reform, and to prevent abuse, biometric identification should be required
for hiring all employees.
For the United States and Canada, negotiate a new energy framework. The framework should balance
the region's need for energy security with the necessity of curbing carbon emissions. The two countries
should also develop ways to reduce the multiple-approval process for hydroelectricity transfers and
negotiate a plan for future oil and natural gas pipelines. Mexico should be invited to participate but will
probably wait until it completes domestic energy reforms.
Make antitrust policies continental. In a continental market, national efforts to break up corporate
monopolies will be needlessly duplicative and, as in the case of the telecom monopoly in Mexico,
ineffective. A concerted trinational effort would strengthen the capacity of each government to keep
North America competitive.
The Need for Leadership
There is no better path to stimulate the U.S. economy, increase U.S. competitiveness, and bolster U.S.
influence in emerging markets in Asia and Europe than by deepening integration with Canada and
Mexico. The three countries already trade more than $1 trillion in goods and services each year. A small
but vocal group in the United States opposes any further integration, but by and large the public
supports freer trade in North America. Leadership is needed from President Barack Obama, the U.S.
business community, and border states and communities. Mexico's new president has already
expressed support for bolder initiatives to integrate the continent. Canada is more reluctant, but
would not want to be left out if there was clear leadership from its neighbors . The place to start is the
next North American Leaders Summit, which Mexico will host this year. The three leaders should
articulate a clear vision and pledge to create a single continental market of mostly harmonized
regulations in which nearly all products, produce, and services would transit borders without
impediment.
2nc – NAIF solves Latin America
The CP creates an effective model for expanding trade with Latin America
Pastor 8 – professor and director of the Center for North American Studies at American University
(Robert A, “North America or Asia? The 21st Century Choice for the United States,” 1/23/12,
http://www.canambusco.org/resources/UofMiamiPerspectives-Pastor-NA_or_Asia-FINAL.pdf)//SJF
What about Latin or Central America or the Caribbean? The truth is that North America already
constitutes a coherent economic entity representing 90 percent of the hemisphere's economy and 87
percent of the trade. South America is fractured in terms of ideology and trade patterns. If the three
countries of North America can find a strategy that lifts Mexico to the first world economically, then
together, they should apply that same formula to Central America and the Caribbean as two units rather
than more than twenty countries. If that also succeeds, South America will be knocking on the door, and
the Free Trade of the Americas can be resurrected. If North America cannot succeed in Mexico, then the
model will not be attractive to the rest of the region.