While America is glued to cable TV's gusher-cam and luxuriating in rightful fury at BP's obvious negligence, the Obama administration is quietly negotiating a brand new, eight-nation free trade agreement that, believe it or not, from what I can discern, could please most liberals.
Called the Trans-Pacific Partnership ("TPP"), the agreement is in the second-round of negotiations this week in San Francisco, and has on its five-day agenda free trade caveats that liberals have been pushing for almost two decades, including:
- Labor standards and workers' rights
- Sanitary measures
- Environmental protection and conservation issues
- Boosting small businesses
- Protecting intellectual property rights
Presentations to and participation in the eight-country TPP negotiations occurred this week by such diverse "stakeholders" as:
- PETA, Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club
- The U.S. Chamber of Commerce
- States of South Carolina, Vermont and the Oregon Fair Trade Campaign
- California Farm Bureau Federation, National Farmers Union, American Farm Bureau Federation
- National Milk Producers Federation, American Sugar Alliance, National Pork Producers Council
Twenty-six U.S. corporations, including WalMart, have reportedly already signed on to the Trans-Pacific Partnership , and, per AFP news agency, "Nearly 100 US companies and business groups" have urged the Obama administration to conclude TPP negotiations by November 2011... which is extremely fortuitous timing of good economic news for Obama's 2012 reelection campaign. Of course.
Liberal objections to free trade have never been about the concept of trade itself. As outlined at Pros & Cons of Free Trade Agreements, liberal objections center on, among other factors:
- American job losses in the millions
- Bush trade pacts were bad economic deals for the U.S.
- Exploitation of workers in foreign countries
- Degradation of the environment in foreign countries
If President Obama can effectively address these free trade agreement problems, well... the TPP could be wonderful economic news for the United States.
After all, if conservative libertarian think-tank CATO is griping that the President and Congress would "be free to insert... labor and environmental standards and generally assert their will," there must be something very, very good and constructive about this agreement.
To my surprise, I feel genuinely hopeful. And God knows, given the horrible Gulf of Mexico oil-spill mess, we can all use some hope these days.
Read about President Obama's eight-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership at Pros & Cons of Free Trade Agreements.
Comments
Liberals are living in a fantasy world if they think other countries, like Vietnam, for example would ever agree to the conditions you mention. The whole point of trade is comparative advantage – for example, Vietnam has a comparative advantage in labor costs while the US has a comparative advantage in technology. Levels of employment and GDP per capita increase with international trade, though not necessarily within the same sectors.
Free trade agreements are good for the US economy and employment, labor union talking points not withstanding. Take the free trade agreement with Colombia negotiated by the Bush Administration. Right now, 95% of all Colombian exports to the US were already tariff free, while most US exports to Colombia are subject to tariffs. The trade deal, which would remove those Colombian tariffs, has been blocked by Democrats in Congress on orders from their labor union masters. Never mind that the only ones being hurt are American workers.
Liberals and labor union chiefs are willing to maintain their fiefdoms and score political points at the expense of thousands of jobs for American workers.
Well Deborah -you’ve managed to surprise even me (don’t know why but I degress…) with your short sighted liberal mindset. You’ve never really looked hard at “our” presidents mishandling of this spill in the Gulf. Yes BP should be help accountable and should pay for the clean up, yet the Federal Government (our Federal Government) sends aid in the form of… -lawyers!? Wow -typical liberal: let’s sue somebody ’cause we have not compunction to act any other way. President Obama is a Kenyanian born (see the YouTube video of his wife saying in Barack’s home country of Kenya) communist who hates this country like all you liberals. You don’t get your way so you make laws that enslave all of us to your will. (9th District Circuit anyone) You say liberalism protects all people but the only thing I’ve ever heard a liberal do is complain about how nothing is good enough.
This Gulf disaster could have shown Obama’s leadership skills yet all it showed is how good he is at meeting with people and setting the Fed up to blockade LA and making it worse. And not only that -when did our dear President first mention the spill -about ten days after it happened. BP should be held responsible but this Chicago, thug style political bullying pales to anything people of your ilk said about the evil Bush/Cheney empire. Open your eyes, cause lady, you are blind.
If liberals really cared about cleaning up the oil spill, they would have the President waive the Jones Act, which unions use to keep out foreign shipping. Until the Jones Act is waived, it is actually illegal for foreign owned oil cleanup ships to operate in the Gulf of Mexico.
Liberals and the President are outraged and will do anything to clean up the oil spill, unless of course it has even a symbolic negative effect on their labor union masters.