|
Clinton went on to suggest the entry of China into the WTO would offer,
If we look back at Clinton's speech it becomes obvious who really benefited.
The failure of governments to foresee any negative impacts of offshoring manufacturing and industry has resulted in a decimation of the middle and working class in many nations.
While China has benefited significantly (economically) at least in the short term, other nations have seen their economies stripped of any meaningful industry.
While most governments race to promote 'free trade' and the opening of foreign trade and investment, few understand the consequence this has on local economies... or do they?
John Williams, an economic consultant who publishes "Shadow Government Statistics," examines the data many mainstream media outlets fail to update or question.
In a 2013 interview, Williams outlined that,
The headline unemployment figure is calculated by examining the civilian labor force and includes only people who are working or have looked for a job in the previous four weeks.
Williams points out that back in 1994 discouraged workers were counted. If you hadn't looked for work in the last two years but you were still ready and able to take a job the government counted you, but it doesn't now.
Williams estimates that if the calculation was the same or similar to what it was back in 1994, the unemployment rate would be more in line with 23%. (2)
The current "Trans Pacific Partnership" deal, which is being negotiated secretively between,
...may well be another effort to decimate the workforce in favor of multinational profits.
The "Public Citizen" organization certainly thinks so.
It believes the latest TPP is an effort to,
Sounds like one massive corporate
bail out... doesn't it!
This would empower them to privately enforce new rights and privileges, provided by the pact, by dragging governments to foreign tribunals to challenge public interest policies that they claim frustrate their expectations.
The tribunals would be authorized to order taxpayer compensation to the foreign corporations for the "expected future profits" they surmise would be inhibited by the challenged policies. (3)
From the information available it appears that the TPP will give more power to corporations to attack and litigate against foreign nations.
The late Albert Allen Bartlett, the well-respected Professor of physics at the University of Colorado (Boulder) who spoke extensively about the energy sector, suggested that,
He may well be right!
This would open up the flood gates from which foreign investors (large multinationals) could potentially sue governments if their investments were deemed to be affected by a change in a law or policy.
National regulations in areas such as,
...would be at risk of violation.
To illustrate, I will use an example of a large multinational mining company who wants to explore and drill for oil and gas in a certain environmentally sensitive area in your country.
Under the TPP agreement any restrictions which may be placed upon the company in regard to exploration and drilling may be cause for potential litigation if the "interests of the conglomerate" could be affected. The national government of the particular country would have to either fight the litigation (tax payer funded of course) or simply give in to the company and let them do whatever they like!
In effect, any TPP deal would jeopardize national sovereignty and potentially wreak havoc on the environment.
There would be no precedents or appeals, so decisions could be inconsistent, yet could have the ability to undermine national laws. Some argue that The TPP is being driven by the U.S. in an effort to further the interests of American corporations and American workers after seeing its industry and economy decimated by Chinese dominance over the last decades.
It might be a way of embedding trade between these countries to ensure China does not become more economically dominant throughout the Pacific and Asia.
However, I can't help but be reminded of the words of the prominent economist and professor at the School of Public Policy, Herman Daly, who argues that,
The mantra of,
...has misled countries into supporting free capital mobility and global integration.
"Globalization" (national
disintegration) was an actively pursued policy, not an inertial
force of nature. It was done to increase the power and growth of
transnational corporations by moving them out from under the
authority of nation states and into a non-existent "global
community." (5)
These are holding us back from true progress, not the kind multinationals seek in the exploitation of resources, people and the environment, these are the erosion of democracy, integrity, and national sovereignty.
These are up for grabs… not just some
dodgy agreement…
|
