The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Karel van Wolferen Archive
The Predators Behind the TPP
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

A major cause of contemporary political ills in the world is the misnomers that help hide what the strong and rich aspire to and already control. A perfect example of this is the ubiquitous term ‘trade’ in what the media are telling us these days about the TPP and the TTIP – the transpacific and transatlantic treaties that seek to organize business activity under one monumental umbrella of new rules. These have been peddled as trade treaties, and hence as being great for growth and jobs, happiness and social well-being. But neither the TPP, tying the United States, a bit of Latin America and a series of East Asian countries together, nor its TTIP companion that is meant to shape American-European business relations, is primarily about trade, if stimulating genuine trade comes into it at all. It is primarily about power. Two kinds of it.

One is aimed at creating global disadvantages for China’s industrial power and putting brakes on what the two formerly communist giants on the Eurasian continent are developing together. The other is power of a collectivity of large politically well-connected corporations to engage in conduct unchecked by national rules, which seen by eyes unaffected by neoliberal dogma would be recognized as predation.

An earlier attempt to accomplish that second purpose, begun in 1997 by the OECD, was more honest by calling itself the Multilateral Agreement on Investments (MAI). Under MAI rules the participating governments would guarantee foreign businesses all the advantages enjoyed by their domestic producers and services. If implemented, foreign investors in these markets could with the superior force they can muster easily have wiped out domestic players altogether, and would once and for all have made the older standard development methods, once known as import substitution industrialization, impossible. Potential competitors would become perennial subcontractors. In other words, the MAI was a most blatant move to implement neocolonialism by treaty.

No surprise then that the MAI turned ‘globalization’ into a controversial project. It triggered mass activism that had never been seen before, as the Internet could for the first time tie together international protest against business power. Anti-MAI events encouraged other anti-globalization protest movements around the world, which peaked in 1999 in Seattle, and seemed to augur a new kind of ‘people power’ element in international affairs.

Until the eleventh of September 2001. The World Trade Towers and Pentagon attacks utterly changed the political attention of virtually everyone in the world, and calamitously diverted it with another misnomer (since the “war against terrorism” is a political impossibility).

An attempt to re-introduce MAI-like arrangements with the Doha Round of negotations under the auspices of the WTO has remained dead in the water, but with the TPP we may now be on the verge of precedents that will establish mainly American financial and other corporations above the legal systems of whichever country participates.

In 2006 Singapore, Brunei, New Zealand and Chile wanted to enhance trade cooperation and came up with the initiative for a TPP. That traditional effort for eliminating tariffs appeared laudable and innocuous enough. But Washington, nurturing schemes for regional economic hegemony, saw a chance to capture the initiative. It enticed Australia, Peru, Vietnam and Malaysia to join as well. Once Congress had endorsed related free-trade agreements with Korea, Colombia and Panama, the TPP became the most important component in a scheme for a Pacific–Asian business playground on which, if Japan could be made to join as well, US corporations could be the bullies.

The most striking aspect of the eight years of TPP negotiations has been their utter secrecy. Only about 600 ‘cleared advisors’ – most of them linked with the businesses that stand to gain – have had access to parts of sub agreements; and critics among them have been sworn to remain silent about what they consider unacceptable. Some former trade officials and clued-in politicians in the United States and elsewhere have publicly noted that this treaty would not have the slightest chance of making it through the legislatures of participating governments if details were out in the open. Only the ‘fast track authority’ that Congress gave President Obama earlier this year (allowing the House and Senate only to vote yes or no, without changes or amendments) gives it an even chance that it will become law in the United States.

From what we do know American negotiators have concentrated on controlling labor laws, environmental legislation and intellectual property rights, which are not normally considered priorities for improving trade. But, again, the TPP is primarily a political program. More specifically it is about about the power of large, mostly American, business institutions that already have a great deal of power – which they have bought by making politicians dependent on them. It is political because it aims to change the power relations between transnational corporations and foreign governments. It is political because it will create patterns of colonial dependence through agricultural agreements. It is political because it seeks to place the governments of the participating countries under a kind of legal discipline that has nothing to do with the rights of citizens and everything to do with the ability of strong corporations to become even stronger.

TPP details have yet to be divulged, but what we may take away from the MAI experience is that it intended rules that participating governments could violate only at their own great disadvantage. The legal stipulations in effect would have created a new element of corporate groups operating internationally beyond any kind of accountability. Hence, the MAI was not about economic development, but about wholesale power shifts in the world, as the TPP will be.

These are shifts that suit the colonizing schemes of large American corporations, their sales and production abroad having reached gigantic proportions. Foreign markets are are about the only thing left offering promising prospects for recently evolved methods of profit making in the current phase of American late capitalism, while the domestic economy remains in the doldrums.

The political class of the Asian participants and the Europeans, who watch from the sidelines with the companion TTIP treaty in the back of their minds, fall back on the lines of seduction first penned some two centuries ago by David Ricardo about unfettered trade being always good for everyone. But Ricardo and his followers were talking about free trade in goods, which rather amazingly still serves as a model to emulate in our times when questions of liberalization are raised – fatefully with regards to the lifting of regulations that kept order in the world of international financial transactions. If genuine markets in goods were to determine profits, American businesses would hardly have a chance internationally, since they do not manufacture that much at home anymore. Hence corporate hopes are vested on two areas opened up in participating countries by the TPP: rents and ‘financial products’. Rent seekers and financial firms are the top predators, and the TPP will massively expand their hunting territory and give them fierce fangs in the bargain.

Once upon a time copyright was meant to provide protection to authors for a set number of years. Then it was applied in a broader way to works of art in general. This made sense, and was in line with the thinking behind patents for industrial inventions. But it has long since become exploitative. Attracted by an opportunity to make money without production, corporations began to to claim the rights of all manner of artistic merchandise after paying off needy creators, or they claimed the right to something that had theretofore been free, like the extraction of something with medicinal properties from plants and trees used in indigenous forms of medicine. For maximizing rent extraction a new category was created and named ‘Intellectual Property’. It had nothing to do with intellectual pursuits, and everything with property, which under rightwing influence gained an aura of sacredness. Property can be had everywhere: not only of music and films that have earned any original investments many times over, but also Indian Ayurvedic medicine formulas, images of temple paintings in South-East Asia – you name it, we are only at the beginning of this.

Public gullibility under neoliberal regimes can be measured by the ease with which the notion of ‘piracy’ has become widely accepted, along with the moral construction that taking things freely available through the Internet constitutes theft. Under ever more stringent and internationally enforced controls, films that have made their intended profit many times over in general release, on TV and with large DVD editions, are set up to be making money forever.

The Intellectual Property regime of TPP contain traps of which the countries seduced to join this twenty-first century ‘unequal treaty’ are unlikely to be aware. Much of the discussion among critics has revolved around the obviously questionable closed-door tribunals to arbitrate investor-state disputes. But other legal entanglements awaiting those who sign have as yet been overlooked. The rules demanded by the United States will create conditions for an even greater American popular culture hegemony. Local producers of popular culture products are likely to find themselves pressed to the margins in their own countries, and bankrupted by very costly litigation in which the Americans are masters. An army of lawyers may be expected to become a parasitical growth on the culture of the participating countries, with a new category of ambulance chasers inspired by the new industry of American lawyers who, on their own, ferret out possible cases of copyright infringement by unsuspecting parties, and then threaten those people with litigation unless they pay a settlement fee.

The expected Intellectual Property stipulations of the TPP related to medicine have drawn much attention, as these will enlarge the oligopoly power of Pharmaceutical companies. Global public health is likely to suffer from this, because from what is already known the new rules will lengthen the period before the use of generic drugs is permitted; and these are the only affordable medicine for patients in poorer countries. The organization Doctors Without Borders has concluded that “the TPP agreement is on track to become the most harmful trade pact ever for access to medicines in developing countries.”

It is not difficult to understand that TPP participants who have not guessed the consequences of what they will be signing will bring social misery upon themselves. It is also not difficult to understand how the TPP fits in with Washington’s ‘Asian Pivot’ as part of its Full Spectrum Dominance campaign. (A little detour: the first cabinet of Japan’s DPJ, which ended half a century of factual one-party democracy, was overthrown because its head, Yukio Hatoyama, had sought better relations with China and Russia and would not submit to the kind of bullying inherent in the TPP. Japanese prime ministers after him were scared that they might fall victim to similar Washington-directed regime change manipulation, and halted such overtures to China while facilitating a return of the LDP’s Shinzo Abe who recently had a law adopted re-interpreting the Japanese anti-war constitution to please the United States). Japan in the TPP, something that Abe is eager to bring about, would be the biggest clincher for America’s containment of China tactics. It would push Japan deeper into an American embrace over which it has little control. After intense concentration on export-led developments, the Chinese economy is evolving into a consumer oriented system and its huge middle class has lots of money to spend. Of all the world’s countries Japan is in the best position to benefit from this switch, which is one of several reasons why it ought to treasure every opportunity for improving relations with its neighbor. The TPP would hinder that process, as has precisely been Washington’s intention.

All this is easily understood. But it still leaves us with the puzzle of why Asians as well as Europeans, whose EU trade commissioners have been mouthing the same job creating nonsense around the TTIP that has come with the TPP, appear unable to tackle intellectually the dominant power aspects of these treaties. Perhaps because they exist in a world of their own that is politically sterilized by current economic suppositions. More generally, the concept of power (not influence with which it is often confused) receives a stepmotherly treatment in popular as well as serious writing, and the social science denizens of academia are entirely at sea with it. Mainstream economics is ahistorcal on purpose and hence has no room for power, which has helped continue the fateful division of political and economic affairs into separate realms for discussion that has long served the interests of power elites.

Since the political dimension to economic arrangements in the United States remains hidden in most discourse because political and economic reality are routinely treated as separate realms of life, few notice that what is justified in the United States by casting it in terms of the market at work, is frequently the result of heavy political involvement and interference. Politically well-connected American corporations, paying for the election expenses of Congress members who determine their fate, need not fear ‘market forces’. If the banks responsible for the credit crisis of 2008 and the subsequent world-recession that is still with us, had not been lifted out of ‘the market’ by the state, they would no longer exist. Powerful corporations have been allowed to swallow the state; they have as the power sensitive economist James Galbraith calls it, created a ‘predator state’, which they of course exploit for their own expansion. There is no frame of reference with which we can more convincingly define the TPP.

• Category: Economics • Tags: Free Trade, Neoliberalism, TPP 
Hide 26 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. LondonBob says:

    Free trade, always worth reviewing Sir James Goldsmith’s opinions.

    From what little leaks we have heard these two treaties sound as bad as the secrecy and drafters involved would imply.

    • Replies: @Si1ver1ock
  2. Junior [AKA "Jr."] says:

    GREAT article! Thank you for writing this Mr. Wolferen and helping to bring much needed attention to this disaster in the making. The MainStreamMedia’s total silence on this issue is deafening.

    This trade deal is a global corporate coup d’etat of America. It is ALL about our national sovereignty, which will NOT exist if Congress passes it. This TPP is the Judicial Branch of a World Governance that will be run by International Corporation Tribunals with NO allegiance to America and whose rulings will take precedence over US laws.

    This TPP trade deal hands our national sovereignty over to International Courts through ISDS tribunals. The highest court in this land will no longer be the Supreme Court. The highest court in this land will be the International ISDS tribunals with absolutely NO accountability to US citizens at ALL.

    • Replies: @Hrw-500
  3. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Great Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    The Chinese Fifth Column is breeding on Native Born White American Living and Breeding Space. The Chinese Fifth Column bought, and now owns the “US” Congress.
    Now you understand the political economy behind TPP…

    • Replies: @Traveler
  4. A lot of experience of politics and politicians has not led me to trust those negotiating the TPP even though I know Australia’s minister in charge of TPP negotiations well enough to respect him.

    The author seems puzzled that the US has managed to sell the TPP to so many countries (even if not yet to Congress). But that’s not puzzling if you think of the politics and psychology involved. Each negotiating party is going to have something they can boast about even if it is as feeble a claim as having got access to the US market opened up for Australian sugar and beef producers over a considerable number of years.

    The author does sound well informed but it would be a help if he fleshed out the evidence of actual as opposed to presumed motivations. For example, as one who is suspicious of provisions for investor state dispute resolution (and conscious of the very expensive case brought by Philip Morris against the Australian government im Hong Kong) I can nonetheless understand why business might want protection against straightforward or devious government action which changed the goal posts or upset the level playing field. I have little faith in US lawyers and courts and most other countries’ systems would probably be worse if governments decided to behave deviously and damagingly to honest investors.

    As the author notes, and Laurence Summers did before him, there is little freeing up of trade in the TPP but there are other objectives pushed hard for as in the case of Intellectual Property. The ridiculous length of Copyright protection is the real scandal. Already the “Mickey Mouse” clause that Disney got into the 2004 US-Australia (so called) Free Trade Agreement has given rise to an unjustified extradition of an Australian who had never been to the US where he got the usual banged-up-till-plea-deal coercive treatment. The author is undoubtedly right that what is proposed will make the weak the prey of legal leeches imposing burdens of cost that they cannot bear.

    • Replies: @Mithera
  5. Wally says: • Website

    Free trade does not require an “agreement”.

    The secrecy behind this says it all.

    What are they hiding from the public?

    “The most transparent administration in history” Oh yeah.

  6. TPP = Trans-Pacific Plunder

    All this is easily understood. But it still leaves us with the puzzle of why Asians as well as Europeans, whose EU trade commissioners have been mouthing the same job creating nonsense around the TTIP that has come with the TPP, appear unable to tackle intellectually the dominant power aspects of these treaties.

    As Upton Sinclair once explained, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

  7. Rehmat says: • Website

    The so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has nothing to do with establishing trade partnership with foreign countries. It’s a political bill authored by AIPAC to protect illegal Jewish settlements by forbidding signatories of TPP to boycott Israeli goods.

    The bill with its hidden clauses gives the US president the power to negotiate the TPP trade deal without public scrutiny – require the president make combatting any boycott of the Zionist entity a principle trade objective and would require the president to report to Congress on any business that are participating in such boycotts. Watch a video below in which a US official explains TPP’s ‘secret clauses’.

    Interestingly, the language of the bill specially includes “territories controlled by the state of Israel” – that is, territories occupied by the Jewish army during June 1967, which no country in world including United States, recognizes as part of Israel.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  8. These political accords prove why businesses need to seek protection from unpredictable and changing politicians and whimsical populaces.

  9. @Rehmat

    Seriously? All that trouble for diamonds and pharmaceuticals?

    • Replies: @Rehmat
  10. Rehmat says: • Website
    @Willem Hendrik

    @Hendrick – How funny you expect people to believe a crook who claims he is not a crook!!

  11. Mithera says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    “even though I know Australia’s minister in charge of TPP negotiations well enough to respect him.”
    You lost all credibility with that one statement.You respect a man who is actively working to shaft us. You sound like a pseudo- intellectual to me.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  12. Olorin says:

    “Once upon a time copyright was meant to provide protection to authors for a set number of years. Then it was applied in a broader way to works of art in general. This made sense, and was in line with the thinking behind patents for industrial inventions. But it has long since become exploitative.”

    Another way to put this is that you have civilizations, cultures, genomes, and regimes that are grounded in producing actual things, and those that are grounded in profiting by turning those things into abstractions.

    The conversion of everything into real estate and a rentier regime is well covered by Michael Hudson.

    Unfortunately he doesn’t seem to have awakened yet to HBD issues.

  13. Neither China nor Russia will participate in the TPP. Will the TPP have any meaning after the collapse of the Anglo/Zio Empire? If not why worry about it?

  14. Welcome back to the world of commentary Mr van Wolferen. You have been absent too long. As a Dutch resident would you now like to turn your analytical eye to the farcical report of the Dutch Safety Board into the shooting down of MH17?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  15. @James O'Neill

    I ask this in no combative spirit; merely to find out if there is someone I can rely on: have you read the whole report and if not how much of it and why not the rest?

    Who were the actual people from Holland, Russia, Ukraine, Belgium, Malaysia and Australia (I think I have that list right) involved in making the report a d do you see a problem about their qualifications?

    • Replies: @James O'Neill
  16. @Mithera

    If you have sobered up from the drink you used to settle your temper after a bad day you might care to switch on logic and even end up apologising. Just some of the clues….

    “Working to shaft us[sic]”. Who is “us”? You may think TPP bad for America although the case has been long since made that the globalisation which has sent manufacturing offshore was the product of much earlier policies. But there are many countries involved with, you as an insular American may be surprised to learn, different interests and different perspectives.

    You don’t seem to construe plain English very well if you can’t see what my “even though…” qualification implies added to the plain truth that only the obtuse, stupid or drunk could overlook, namely that a person can be, indeed normally is, respected for qualities if character like honesty so that there is not much implied about a person’s ultimate contribution to the good of (some part of) mankind – and the relationship to “credibility” is tenuous to say the least even if you use of “credibility” as you did was better than a clumsy solecism.
    PS You don’t sound like a pseudo-intellectual and I doubt if you could if you tried because you wouldn’t recognise high standard intellectualism if you came across it though I should qualify that if your silly and offensive comment was indeed alcohol fuelled.

  17. @Rehmat

    This sounds mad to me. I have trouble taking seriously someone whose grasp of the relevant terminology us so slight.

    What “bill” (sic)?

    There is a draft treaty it seems and the secrecy of the negotiations rouses suspicion but there is no bill before any legislature unless you are referring in a confused way to the President getting fast track authority for what may eventually be the treaty to be voted on.

    There seems to be some confusion in the linked article between the TPP and the similar proposed deal with Europe. It is indeed very diificult to see Malaysia agreeing to outlaw BDS.

  18. @LondonBob

    Great video thanks the the post.

  19. TPP is a snare to entangle other countries in the La Brea Tar Pits of America’s Intellectual Property system.

    A good way to circumvent Intellectual Property is through Eminent domain

    The property may be taken either for government use or by delegation to third parties, who will devote it to public or civic use or, in some cases, to economic development.

    How about a column that explores the idea of extending Eminent domain to Intellectual Property?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  20. SOPA is part of TPP. hahahahahaa.

    how do you like it now guys? fuck the govt.

  21. rod1963 says:

    If the TPP is a legit treaty and not a invitation to a economic and cultural ass r**ing, it would be open to public scrutiny. It’s not and that’s a serious concern. Because it means the political and corporate elites are planning something bad for us.

    • Agree: Junior
  22. @Si1ver1ock

    Thank you for planting an idea. Australia’s federal government would be constitutionally bound to pay adequate compensation (“just terms”) if it compulsorily acquired property of any kind. So it could presumably find some constitutional head of power to justify use of Australia’s equivalent of eminent domain for any IP but would then have to pay judicially assessed compensation which would at least give some weight to future profits foregone on the assumption that e.g. the IP could have been taken advantage of in Australia – in the case of drugs because they would be approved for government reimbursement. But…. no such constitutional restrictions apply to the states. Any protection would have to be written into the treaty. I suspect that it has been thought of….

  23. @Wizard of Oz

    @Wizard of Oz. Yes, I have read the whole report and the even longer technical appendices. The report was the responsibility of the Dutch Safety Board, although they drew upon input from a number of other countries, not only the ones you mentioned but others, including the USA, Germany and Poland.

    It is not the qualifications of the report writers that is the problem. They chose to include some material and more importantly exclude other material. Some refused to provide relevant data, and the most important of these was the USA who refused to provide its satellite data. The Russians were more forthcoming, eg. their 21 July 2014 press conference, and the previously classified material from the BUK manufacturer, but I think the evidence strongly suggests that they have not released all their data either.

    One of the unspoken issues is the agreement of 8 August 2014 between Australia, Belgium, Netherlands and Ukraine that provided that nothing would be in the report that all four (and later Malaysia) countries did not agree with. That gave the prime suspect, Ukraine, an effective veto.

    One of best sources of material on this issue is John Helmer’s website, Dances with Bears which I suggest you read carefully.

  24. Hrw-500 says:

    Speaking of coup d’état, I spotted that video althought it’s not TPP related but he might have some interesting points.

    • Replies: @Junior
  25. Junior [AKA "Jr."] says:

    Thanks for sharing that video, Hrw-500. It is definitely interesting stuff.

    I’ve actually seen that video along with a bunch of other Brother Nathaniel’s videos, but you have to take everything that he says with a grain of salt because of his misdirection of blaming the Jewish religion and the fact that he tries to stoke anti-semitism instead of blaming the real culprit. The political ideology of Zionism. Just like Alex Jones and David Icke who both will give you truths or half-truths and then take it to whole other levels of Crazy to make it seem like the truths are un-true, Brother Nathaniel is controlled opposition.

    To me, what gives him away as a double-agent, along with his misdirection, is that he wears TWO crosses around his neck that are highlighted in the beginning of EVERY video by a flash.

    Two crosses = a double-cross

    Some may call me crazy and say that I’m making strained connections, but I’ve never seen an Orthodox Christian wearing a double-cross and I don’t think that it’s mere coincidence that he highlights them in every video. He’s entertaining and brings up some good points, but I don’t trust him and his misdirecting double-crossing ways.

  26. Traveler says:
    @War for Blair Mountain

    What a load!!! The only one (and at home by mass killing its citizen with crazy police forces) creating havoc in the world with their monstrous and genocidal policies is the murderous US of A. Killing killing killing!!!! Since the massacres of 54 millions bisons and of most Natives, little has changed in fascist amerikkkkka!
    A grotesque killing machine nowadays, not unlike nazi Germany.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Karel van Wolferen Comments via RSS
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
How America was neoconned into World War IV