Now this story from Huffington Post and reporters Zack Carter, Amanda Terkel and Ryan Grim is fascinating on several levels, the most major one of which is how the reporters have extrapolated Hillary's current stance from her previously published words in her autobiography Hard Choices that warned against the Investor State Dispute System in the pact and then infer that she must be against the TPP today for the same reasons.
Here's the story to read for yourself - please read and then let's discuss.
Hillary Clinton Opposes Major Obama Trade Policy
Note that the headline and the first sentence of the story are both in the current tense - the headline says HRC "opposes" and the first sentence in the story says she "is opposed to a critical piece" of the TPP which it then defines as the the ability the pact confers on corporations to sue nations over laws and regulations that could limit profits.
AS many are aware, the component referred to is the part of the TPP which has ignited the most vociferous objections from those against the trade agreement - the Investor State Dispute System.
The story then quotes the relevant section from Hard Choices:
Currently the United States is negotiating comprehensive agreements with eleven countries in Asia and in North and South America, and with the European Union. We should be focused on ending currency manipulation, environmental destruction, and miserable working conditions in developing countries, as well as harmonizing regulations with the EU. And we should avoid some of the provisions sought by business interests, including our own, like giving them or their investors the power to sue foreign governments to weaken their environmental and public health rules, as Philip Morris is already trying to do in Australia. The United States should be advocating a level and fair playing field, not special favors. (Emphasis added.)
(Note: the bolding in the quote and the parenthetical comment "emphasis added" were not added by me and were original to the Huff Post story)
The article then goes on to note that President Obama is locked in a heated argument with those opposed to the agreement (like Elizabeth Warren) who have cited their grave concerns with the ISDS. Grim then quotes President Obama's comments in a conference call in which he calls the concerns "bunk"
"In a lot of countries, U.S. companies are discriminated against, and going through their court system would not give them relief," Obama told reporters on a conference call last week. "The notion that corporate America is going to be able to use this provision to eliminate our financial regulations and our food safety regulations and our consumer regulations -- that's just bunk. It's not true."
I will interject right here that IMO, the President's debunking is the bunk. No one is saying that American corporations can gut OUR financial regulations or OUR food safety regulations and OUR consumer regulations, but that is not even close to what anyone is saying in their objections and it is a complete deflection and misrepresentation. What the pact does is allow FOREIGN corporations or foreign subsidiaries of American companies to sue the US in the event that
future laws and/or regulations might cut (gasp!) into potential profits. And, it gives American companies the same ability in countries where they would be foreign entities.
No one is making up this threat - it has happened and is happening. I will cynically say that few care when a Western company attempts to assert its will on poor or Third World countries but OMG - Phillip Morris right this moment is attempting to sue the Australian government for new tobacco regulations that imposed plain packaging and health warnings. Gosh, that might cut into Phillip Morris profits! It's an outrage!
Now I know I'm just a lowly uninformed peon, but might I inquire who and when it was that determined that for-profit corporations are intrinsically guaranteed the RIGHT to profit? Regardless of new information that might arise in the future that could require some product or practice to be curtailed or subject to additional regulation in the light of new science or research? Isn't that the breaks of fate and the free market? I'm curious why this is the New World Order corporate standard when similar rights promoted for individuals such as living wages and guaranteed incomes are derided as the wildest forms of communism/socialism and wealth transfer by indolent worker parasites siphoning money and assets from their corporate overlords. When did the protection of the coffers of corporations trump the health and safety of the citizens of the world?
Why cannot the corporations go through the established judicial systems of the host countries? The President states that the reason is due to "prejudice" against the US. What prejudices exist globally against responsible companies who provide employment and treat their workers fairly and respect the environments of their host countries?
The article was informative in explaining that WTO trade pacts do not use the ISDS but rather require the two nations to square off before WTO adjudicators. I find that fascinating because I would imagine it would be difficult for a nation to argue for less rigorous regulation or safety for another country than what it finds acceptable for itself. That seems like a better system, IMO.
I think the Huff Post reporters here have engaged in pot-stirring as far as the TPP and HRC and PO are concerned, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. Through this story they have boxed in Hillary a bit, because if the ISDS remains as a central point of the TPP, she will be accused of flip-flopping on her stance in order to curry favor with Obama if she does not maintain her original objections. If she does oppose the TPP based on the ISDS, she will be squarely in line with the Warren wing and others who see the TPP as a threat to the sovereign power of nations.
I am not aware of HRC doing anything at this point except for attempting to thread the needle and making oblique commentary without coming down squarely on one side or the other. I don't think she can continue that stance too much longer without looking like a waffling equivocator. She's going to alienate one side or the other at some point, she might as well just rip the band-aid off.
If you are unfamiliar with the Investor/State Dispute System, I encourage you to read what Public citizen has to say: Investor-State Attacks: Empowering Foreign Corporations to Bypass our Courts, Challenge Basic Protections and to do other Googling and reading as well.