Edsall on the TPP

I mentioned yesterday in my description of marching downtown with a mass of Seahawks fans for the Super Bowl victory parade how it reminded me of the 1999 Seattle WTO protests in terms of the sheer number of people. It turns out another momentous round of trade negotiations is currently being conducted. Popularly known by the acronym "TPP," which stands for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, it is a proposed trade agreement between 12 nations. 

If you have heard about the TPP most likely it has been negative. The negotiations have been conducted under a cloak of secrecy with even members of Congress having difficulty finding out what is on the table. What has leaked out is not good. A massive increase in intellectual property rights, a.k.a., corporate control of information, as well as a loss of net neutrality.

Yesterday the august Thomas Edsall devoted his online New York Times opinion column to the TPP. For a one-stop primer on the TPP in particular and multilateral trade agreements in general check out "Free Trade Disagreement."

I know I rave on about Thomas Edsall's columns. What I find so amazing about them is that they provide a Noam Chomsky or Ralph Nader perspective, delivered in the sober tones of an accomplished, establishment reporter, nestled right in the Gray Lady's bosom. Read the last few paragraphs of Edsall's piece and ask yourself how this differs from a Trotskyite Socialist:

On Sept. 8 last year, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts declared in a speech to the AFL-CIO: 

“Why are trade deals secret? I’ve heard people actually say that they have to be secret because if the American people knew what was going on, they would be opposed. Think about that.” 

Warren is right. Trade negotiations have, in fact, become so wide in scope, with so many losers and winners, that negotiations cannot be conducted in the open. 

The case of trade reflects a larger shift in the balance of power. As multinational or “stateless” capital diminishes the sovereignty of individual countries, including the United States, and strengthens the autonomy of international corporations, it weakens the already fragile economic security of millions of out-of-work Americans. Their plight appears to be unheeded in the world of “advisory committees.” One can only fear what comes next.