What You Need to Know About Trade
Agreements and Fast Track
April 14, 2015
Story at-a-glance
-
Fast Track gives the President the right to
negotiate and finalize a trade agreement, and then
present it to Congress for a yes or no vote. No
amendments can be made at that point
-
Trade agreements are negotiated under strict
secrecy. By the time Congress votes on them, the
deals have already been struck, and negotiations
tend to favor multinational corporations
-
Trade agreements currently under negotiation involve
“harmonizing” regulations that will affect food
safety, chemical regulations, local renewable energy
programs, and may destroy the “buy local” movement
-
It’s urgent to push Congress to oppose Fast Track,
and start a discussion about what these trade
agreements really mean for the US economy, and our
environmental and public health
By Dr. Mercola
Ben Lilliston is the Vice President of Program at the
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. In this video,
Lilliston discusses an issue that is rarely reported in the
mainstream media, and poorly understood by the general public,
namely: free trade agreements.
Free trade agreements, such as the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA), have huge implications, both in terms of our
economy and our daily lives. Lilliston began looking at NAFTA in
the early '90s when he worked with Ralph Nader.
"I have now been working at the Institute for
Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) since year 2000,"
he says. "What we do is really focus on the details of
trade agreements that are very inaccessible for the public.
They're written in legal jargon and so forth.
What we're trying to do is really break it down. What
does this mean for farmers? We're particularly interested in
that. What does it mean for rural communities?
What does it mean for public health, for the
environment, and for workers?...These are all things that
we're interested in and trying to shed a light on."
Trade Agreements Are Negotiated in Secret
One of the aspects Lilliston finds most disturbing is the
fact that trade agreements are negotiated in secret; hence it's
very difficult to engage in a public debate about them.
By the time Congress votes on them, the deals have already
been struck, and the public has no way of knowing the details of
the negotiations.
"That's why it's really important to speak out now
about it and try to raise questions, so that we can be sure
that the agreements reflect the interest of the public good
and not just a handful of private corporations who are
behind the scenes negotiating hand in hand with the US Trade
representative on these trade agreements," he says.
Fast Track is an important part of this discussion. Fast
Track, Lilliston explains, gives the President the right to
negotiate and finalize a trade agreement, and then present it to
Congress for a vote.
Under the US constitution, Congress has the right to engage
in trade agreements prior to this, and to set negotiating
parameters. For example, Congress might insist on parameters to
protect the environment or public health.
But under Fast Track, Congress more or less relinquishes this
right (and responsibility), letting the President negotiate at
will instead. And, once the agreements are completed, you can no
longer make any amendments. Congress simply votes for the
agreement or against it, in its entirety.
"This makes it very difficult for members of Congress
to vote against a trade agreement because there will be an
enormous amount of pressure. The agreement's already been
agreed upon. It's a big deal," Lilliston says.
"It's really is about democracy as we view it."
Adding to the difficulty is the fact that even members of
Congress are limited in getting a full understanding of the
details of the agreement they're voting for. They're only
allowed to read the agreement in a special room, and they're not
allowed to bring in any aides, experts, or trade legal lawyers
they might need to decipher the text. Moreover:
"They can take notes, but they can't bring the notes
out of the meeting with them. They have to leave them there.
This is how secret this trade agreement is," Lilliston
says.
Current Trade Agreements Under Negotiation
Right now there are two huge trade agreements being
negotiated, both of which will have a major impact on the US
economy and other aspects of public and environmental health:
- Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) which involves the
United States and 11 other countries around the Pacific Rim.
Japan, Malaysia, and Vietnam are some of the bigger
countries involved
- Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)
which is an agreement between the US and Europe
There’s a lot at stake here, as these two trade agreements
are negotiating rules around medicines, local food programs,
food safety programs, and even labor rights. According to
Lilliston, there’s simply too much at stake to allow the
President to negotiate these agreements on his own, and not be
able to amend the agreements once completed.
"Fast Track really says... take it or leave it,
basically. This is our major concern about Fast Track. We
think it's really important to oppose Fast Track, to really
put pressure on the President to make these agreements
public, and to have a public debate about them before
they're completed and not after they're a done deal,"
Lilliston says.
Trade Agreements Lower and Destroy Regulatory Standards
Interestingly, the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership both largely deal
with regulations. If you're like most people, you probably think
about trade partnerships as agreements that increase trade.
But these two agreements are largely about creating
"regulatory harmonization" among participating nations.
Basically, they seek to set up the same regulatory
infrastructure in all countries involved in the agreements. As
explained by Lilliston:
"What that means is the same kind of food safety
rules, the same kind of rules around chemical regulation,
the same of rules around genetically modified organisms
(GMOs), for example; the same rules around intellectual
property and medicines, and the same rules around financial
regulations.
[M]ultinational corporations are involved in these
negotiations, through trade advisory committees. They want
one system of a regulatory environment where it makes it
easy for them, where a product is approved here is also
approved there...
Now, what we've seen over and over in trade
agreements of the past is that this kind of harmonization of
regulations, where you find one common standard, really
lowers the standards. What they're finding is the lowest
common denominator of a standard, so that everyone can meet
it. It pushes regulations down."
Trade Agreements Give Corporations Legal Power to Oppose
Regulations
The lowering of regulations is a major concern, especially
when it comes to environmental- and public health safety. If the
standard is lowered via a trade agreement, a country must lower
its current regulations or standards or potentially face legal
challenges.
Both of the trade agreements currently under negotiation
grant corporations special legal rights, and if a corporation
feels a nation's regulation violates one of these trade
agreements, they can legally challenge the regulation. As noted
by Lilliston:
"They can say, 'We set up our business operation this
way based on this regulatory environment, and you've gone
back on your word that you made in those trade agreements,
so we are suing you. We want to get expected profits back as
payment.'
It's called the Investor-State provision... [and] it
grants corporations special legal rights under trade
agreements. It really poses a major threat over new
regulations and even with the existing trade agreements. We
fear that this will be used as a hammer against regulations
that protect public health through the environment."
Another major issue in these trade agreements relates to
rules of procurement. For example, the US has many farm to
school programs in place to support local farmers and local
businesses, but public programs like these can be challenged by
a foreign corporation saying, “We’re not eligible for that
program, and that’s illegal under the trade rules.” As crazy as
that sounds, that’s a very real concern. As noted by Lilliston,
“the ‘Buy American’ provisions, which are very common in
public procurement programs right now, could be under threat
under trade rules.” Many states also have their own
environmental regulations in place to protect human- and
environmental health. These too could be challenged by these
trade agreements.
"These trade agreements want to set one standard, so
they're not going to have any state-based standards that are
stronger than the national standard," Lilliston
explains. "This particularly comes up in the case of
GMO labeling where we're seeing all these states in
United States pushing for GMO labeling. Vermont... Maine,
and Connecticut have passed laws. There's a lot of momentum
behind that.
These agreements would say, ‘No, you can’t do that at
the state level. Sorry. We need one standard through all the
countries involved.’ Basically, it’s kind of an end run
around those state-based [initiatives] that have been very
important in pushing for GMO labeling. These are the kind of
things that we’re really troubled about.”
How Trade Agreements Can Impact Public Health Safety
The trade agreements also affect public health safety.
Europe, one of the trading partners in the Transatlantic Trade
and Investment Partnership agreement, has in some cases stronger
public health protections than in the US, which they stand to
lose under this agreement. As noted by Lilliston, Europe has
written into their law something called the precautionary
principle. If there’s scientific uncertainty with regards to the
safety of a product, it will not be permitted onto the market.
“There are 80-something pesticides that are approved
here in the United States that are not approved in Europe,
and largely, that has to do with the precautionary principle
there and how they apply it,” Lilliston says. “This
has been a major target of the US government in this
negotiation with Europe. They want to get rid of the
precautionary principle in Europe. I think for people in
United States, the precautionary principle is a very
important one and one that we want to advance more here in
the United States in our regulatory system. So, really what
these agreements are doing is tying our hands to improve our
own regulations.
The more we learn about not only chemical exposures
but other exposures through our food system and how that
impacts health, we believe that regulations should evolve
based on that. The more we find out about GMOs and how they
are causing problems in the field for farmers, we think
regulations should step in and say, ‘Okay, maybe we
shouldn’t approve those anymore’... We think [these trade
agreements] will limit our ability to protect public health
in the future.”
Here’s another example: While
neonicotinoid pesticides—which have been linked to the
decimation of bee populations—are not regulated in the US, they
have been banned in the European Union in order to protect
pollinators. Pesticide companies have not taken kindly to the
ban, and are pushing for the US-EU trade deal to lower the
standard in order to get pesticide-treated seeds back into the
EU.
Naturally, this would also prevent the US from creating more
stringent regulations against this hazardous pesticide in the
future, which is the exact converse of what needs to happen! The
EU saw quick improvements in bee populations when neonics were
withdrawn, and reintroducing them is clearly not in the best
interest of public or environmental health. This is a very
important issue, as bee colony collapse disorder isn't just
about protecting one species of insect. It's about protecting
the ecosystem and the human food supply! It's about protecting
the future of mankind...
Take Action to Stop Fast Track!
So what can we do to stop Fast Track and start an open
discussion about these trade agreements? Lilliston believes the
most important thing to do right now is to contact your member
of Congress and tell them to oppose Fast Track.
“We think that there will be a bill that has not been
introduced, but is expected in April. That bill will come
out, and there will probably be a lot of news about that
from April to May and maybe longer. They’ll have to work
their way through committees, then get to the floor, and be
in the House and Senate simultaneously. But this is an issue
that we need to stop right here, and that will change the
whole dynamic of these trade agreements,” Lilliston
says.
“And we can win. Most Democrats are against Fast
Track, and a lot of growing numbers of Republicans also are,
just based on constitutional grounds and democracy grounds.
I think you can even be in favor of trade and free trade
agreements, but be against Fast Track.
We think that this is a really important opportunity
to change the whole debate about trade. If we can beat back
Fast Track, we [can then] have another conversation about
what these trade agreements are about, why we’re negotiating
them... and in whose interest are they being negotiated. And
is there a way to do trade that protects public health,
protects farmers, protects consumers, and protects the
environment, rather than lowering standards for all those as
we’ve seen in the past?”
Trade Agreements and Intellectual Property Rights
Trade agreements also often include chapters on intellectual
property, which is particularly important when it comes to
medicine. As a rule, drug companies are very intent on
protecting their patents as long as they possibly can, and they
want to do this through trade agreements. If they can set the
rules through trade agreements, they can enforce their property
rights around the world. But when companies retain patent rights
for very long periods of time, it decreases people's access to
less expensive [generic] medicines.
According to Lilliston, this is a big issue in the
Trans-Pacific Partnership, because it grants drug companies
legal rights to enforce their patents, and to sue governments if
they feel like their patent is not being enforced. What's worse,
it also allows companies to patent things that most people would
agree should not be allowed to be patented, such as life forms
for example.
"This is a big deal for public health and access to
medicine, especially because, again, the negotiations are
taking place in secret. We don't know what's in the text,"
Lilliston says. "We're going by what we've seen in
the past, some public statements here and there, and a
document that was leaked [from] Trans-Pacific Partnership.
But we need to see the text. We need to understand what is
at stake in intellectual property and access to medicine
before we can even consider these trade agreements."
How Trade Agreements May Sabotage the Local Food Movement
The local food movement is a really fast-growing movement in
the United States. Not only is there plenty of evidence
supporting the idea that
locally grown foods, especially if organic, are healthier
for you, it's also an important part of local economic
development, and reducing our carbon footprint. One of the ways
in which local farmers are supported is through public programs
such as farm to school programs. These programs are still small
and need to grow, but it's an area that's gaining a lot of
momentum.
"One of the real concerns with these trade agreements
is that they're basically going to take an ax to all these
efforts to support local food production, because what they
say is that you cannot prejudice local," Lilliston
warns. "That is a fundamental tenet of these free trade
agreements. You cannot give preference to local purchasing.
Obviously, that goes beyond just food. It could be any
support for local businesses.
You set up a procurement program, where if it's a
local business competing against a national business, you're
going to give the preference to the local business. That's
the kind of thing that these trade agreements will take
away. The same thing if you're giving a preference to local
farmers... Europe has said freely and explicitly that
they're going to challenge US procurement programs once they
get this trade agreement done. That's their big goal.
We're very concerned about how these trade agreements
will impact the momentum and the growth [of local food].
Clearly, consumers want more locally produced food. Clearly,
government programs and public spending have been part of
that. We shouldn't be restricted in any way by trade
agreement to support our local farmers and local businessmen
and businesswomen."
Trade Agreements Also Undermine Renewable Energy Initiatives
The trade agreements may even put the kibosh on locally
sourced renewable energy programs because, again, the agreements
do not permit giving preference to locally produced energy. The
potential effects on the environment are manifold. One example
in which an existing trade agreement is driving environmental
destruction is the case of the Keystone tar sands.1
Under NAFTA, Canada is required to export an ever-increasing
amount of oil to the United States, so one of the major factors
driving the tar sands is NAFTA, as Canada is bound to
continually produce and export more and more oil. The trade
agreement prevents Canada from reducing production. As you may
have heard, President Obama recently vetoed the Keystone XL
Pipeline,2
and the Senate failed to override it.3
However, the company that owns Keystone may very well end up
challenging this decision under NAFTA.
"These are some examples of how trade rules really
kind of tie our hands in moving towards more clean energy
and supporting local renewable energy production,"
Lilliston says.
Tell Your Congressman to Oppose Fast Track
"Fast Track is coming up. We need people to oppose Fast
Track, and let their member of Congress know they oppose it,"
Lilliston says. If we can stop Fast Track, we'll be in a much
better position to beat back these damaging trade agreements, so
please, take a moment to contact your Congressman, and tell him
or her to oppose Fast Track. On April 18, 2015, you can also
join in Global Trade
Day -- a day of action to defeat free trade and investments
treaties.
Copyright 1997- 2015 Dr. Joseph Mercola. All Rights Reserved.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/04/14/free-trade-agreements-fast-track.aspx
|