Can the US Dictate Trade Rules?

[MineralMan]

The TPP, for good or bad, is the result of a negotiation among several nations. Each of the participating countries has its own economic issues and more. They're very different. So, this TPP agreement has been in negotiation for years. Is the US the lead nation in those negotiations? Are we able to dictate terms in a negotiated multinational agreement?

I don't know the answer to that question. My assumption, though, is that changes to the agreement must be accepted by all of the nations that will sign it. That may well be the reason for both the secrecy and the need for Congress not to clutter the agreement with additions, amendments and changes. That may be why the "fast track" thing is necessary, since it forces an up or down vote on the completed agreement.

I don't know what the TPP says. I haven't seen the thing in its current form, the result of all those negotiations among individual countries. It may well be a terrible agreement, or it might include things that will result in good results for the participating nations. I don't know. I'm not in any way an international commerce expert.

It does, however, stand to reason that any changes demanded by one of the countries who will be signing this will have to be approved by all the other countries. I suspect that is the reason for the whole fast track business. I can't imagine all of the additions and amendments our lovely, Republican-controlled Congress would try to plug into it.

If that happened, the whole thing would have to enter a new phase of negotiation, I'm sure.

Maybe a yes or no vote is the only input Congress can actually have here. Once it's out there and can be studied, I'll have a better idea of what that vote should be. Right now, I have no idea.

[AuntPatsy]

1. Your last sentence is all you needed......nothing more was and is as important...

[MineralMan]

2. Well, thanks for your reply.

It kicked the thread.

[AuntPatsy]

3. I'm sorry if that sounded flippant, it was I promise not my intent....

I'll kick it again

[CK_John]

4. We are not even dealing directly with all the players since China is seating on the side line.

I doubt we are taking the lead since we are dealing with 5 billion comsumers vs our 300 million. We need them more than they need us.

We thought them well.

[MineralMan]

5. The core of my question is about Fast Track.

If the US unilaterally changes TPP, I assume it would have to be renegotiated. Letting the Congress alter or add to TPP, as they surely would, would lead to even more negotiations, I would think.

My assumption is that the concern about this is the reason for Fast Track authority. Congress would only be able to approve or reject the entire thing, as negotiated.

[CK_John]

9. Yesterday was just the vote to discuss fast track which they will now do

until the GOP get the memo to shutup, sitdown and vote for fast track.

[cali]

6. In brief, yes. We're the lead nation and more than that

though that may be changing.

There have been some bitter complaints about U.S. dominance at the negotiating rounds. The ones I've seen appear to come chiefly from Australia and Vietnam- for very different reasons.

That said, I do understand the need for Trade Promotion Authority. Should Congress make amendments that don't dovetail with what's been worked out, it's back to the negotiating table. Rinse and repeat. You may or may not be aware that TPA is much more than legislation that simply dictates an up or down vote on trade agreements. Congress holds a lot of power with TPA legislation as to governing principles and specific goals in all trade agreements negotiated under TPA authority.

So yeah, the TPA is the only workable way to pass trade agreements. I oppose it. Why? Because I've read analysis of the current TPA and can see where it falls down, because it lasts for 6 years and we have 17 or so trade agreements in the USTR pipeline. I don't want to see a Repub president with that power. And because I think there's plenty of evidence that the TPP is not a good agreement. I oppose the TPA until it lays out clear progressive objectives for future trade agreements


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026670206

[MineralMan]

7. Well, if that's the case, I'm even more interested in reading

it in its final form. It looks like we might have a chance to do that. There will be much to weigh, I'm sure, in seeing what the balance actually is. I will form no real opinion of TPP until I and others can see it as a whole.

[cali]

8. It's certainly your perogative to be cautious and eschew

the extant leaked chapters and other documents and records that give us a damning if partial picture of the whole. I'm glad that Professor Stiglitz and so many other individuals and organizations chose not take such an approach.

I think it's shortsighted not to avail yourself of the information that's available but... a chaque son gout.

As for reading it, it will be thousands of dense pages. You'll need expert analysis from sources without a vested interest in passing it and guides to the language used, in order to make heads or tails of it. You can, right now, read the tpa and analysis of it.

I sincerely hope you don't get the chance to read it via passage of TPA. Of course, that's not needed to release the draft which is nearly completed or those portions that are completed. President Obama would merely have to remove its National Security highly classified status and release it.