Originally published on the CGS blog on May 9, 2015.
Every year the second Saturday in May is recognized as World Fair Trade Day. This day highlights the importance of Fair Trade as we as a global community work together to address issues such as poverty, workers’ rights, human rights, and economic and environmental issues in the midst of international trade. Such issues have the most impact on those who have no seat at the table, no voice in international negotiations—our most vulnerable communities.
As many around the world celebrate today, twelve countries (Australia, Brunai, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam) are in the process of trying to finalize the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The TPP is an international trade deal that will potentially impact 40 percent of the world’s GDP. That’s 26 percent of the world’s trade. It is aimed at broadening opportunity for trade throughout the Asia Pacific region. For Americans, this means enabling US businesses to expand abroad and international companies to bring their business to the US.
This deal has been in negotiations since 2005, having stalled multiple times throughout the years. There is now a push in Congress to pass legislation on Trade Promotion Authority (TPA)—what has come to be known as Fast-Track. Passing the Fast-Track legislation would give President Obama the legal authority to push the TPP through Congress, allowing members only a yes or no vote without the opportunity to add amendments to the deal.
Many in government are rightfully apprehensive about this agreement, specifically the Fast-Track legislation. Those such as Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) are lambasting the deal for its secrecy, and for the effect it is bound to have on citizens and small businesses alike. Concern has been raised over the treatment of workers globally—such as in the case of Nike workers in Thailand—as well as the ability of international corporations to sue within international tribunals rather than US courts. This concern crosses party lines, with the majority of Democrats opposed to the deal.
These sort of concerns center on the ability of signatory nations to protect their workers, uphold standards of human rights and maintain control over the environmental impact of businesses. With such secrecy surrounding the TPP, it is no wonder many are worried these considerations are not being taken seriously.
Just this week Senator Warren sent out an email detailing the potential fallout from the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), the policy within the TPP which would open the door to such lawsuits. She gave examples where global corporations took their cases to international courts in order to bypass regulations they felt interfered in their businesses practices. Among the examples given were a mining company that was denied permits to mine in Nova Scotia and a French company suing the Egyptian government after a raise in the country’s minimum wage.
Yet, as Katrina Vanden Heuvel explains,
the president’s foes aren’t arguing against globalization or trade; they are arguing that the rules that govern our trade and investment strategies have been rigged by global companies and banks to benefit themselves, not American workers.
International trade deals in and of themselves are not necessarily bad. In fact, there are many great things about international trade, including the ability of small businesses to find markets in far away countries and trade agreements that allow them to conduct successful business there. The problem arises when the impact on civilians and workers is overlooked as a result of the money to be made by big business.
This is not just a problem for American workers, though. This is a problem for workers in each of the twelve countries potentially signing on to this deal. Hannah Brennen and Burcu Kilic recently published an article detailing how the intellectual property stipulations in the TPP will very likely impact agriculture and food security, particularly in the poorer regions.
According to Brennan and Kilic,
new TPP language will prohibit farmers from saving and exchanging many varieties of seeds—a practice vital to the livelihood and welfare of traditional farming communities—and most likely increase multinational control of the farming industry in TPP nations.
In short, the real trouble for small farmers lies in patented plants formulas. This will open the door for major corporations to control the seed market, and thus what local farmers are able to grow, impacting food security and welfare for many. We have already had a taste of this in the US with corn and soybeans, as was highlighted in Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma.
Additionally, there are also questions as to what happens to those living in the unincorporated territories of signatory governments. A prime example would be Rapa Nui, A territory of Chile known to most of the world as Easter Island. Should the TPP go through, the island would be subject to its regulations but have no legal recourse to fight for its own interests. A statement was issued to the United Nations in February 2014 highlighting the impact such a trade deal would have on the island. Easter Island is a major tourist destination, and as such is a lucrative site for global business.
According to the statement,
The TPP creates conditions for investors to build ports, expand the already large airport, and privatize our land and resources using Chilean military forces and kangaroo courts to protect their investments. The TPP and other State-driven investment agreements continue to alienate us from our indigenous lands by binding us to transnational corporations through agreements signed by the state of Chile, and not by the Rapa Nui people who are the proper rights-holders.
Imagine the fallout for local business and citizen welfare if an entire region was taken over by global corporations.
The concerns highlighted above are merely the tip of the iceberg. There is so much at stake in this deal, and so little is known by those with the most to lose. Thanks in part to Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), this is the first time in history human rights are being included in such a trade deal. Unfortunately, due to the secrecy surrounding the particulars of the deal, it is unclear what, if anything, that means.
The reality is that when deals involving this much money are pushed through with this much secrecy, it’s not the businesses who will pay the price. It’s the citizens who were not even given a chance to learn about the deal before it went through. It’s the small businesses that must now compete with global enterprise. It’s the small farmers who must now find new ways to farm. It’s the low-wage workers who will find themselves at the mercy of those who very likely do not have their best interests at heart.
As we recognize World Fair Trade Day, let’s take a moment to consider whether or not the TPP is in line with the spirit of Fair Trade. If it’s not, what’s our next step?
