Obama hopes to enlist GOP in push for trade pact, despite Democratic resistance

[Jim Lane]

79. What we've learned (no scare quotes) is OBAMA's discreditable negotiating position

You write:

What we have "learned" from the leaks is the negotiating positions of the various parties, not what any deal looks like as no deal has been struck.

You're right that we haven't learned the final deal. If Obama has his way (getting fast-track authority), we'll learn that only at the end of the process, and when the package will be handed to Congress under a tight and mandatory timetable. That by itself is highly objectionable. If you're unwilling to criticize the agreement because you haven't seen it, will you join in what I see as the logical corollary, namely opposition to fast track?

As to the frequent refrain of downplaying the leaks as mere proposals:

1) Some of the leaks have been of current working drafts, and so, while not necessarily the final deal, reflect the product of more than two years of negotiation, and probably give a good indication of the broad outlines of what will emerge.

2) We as Americans can certainly criticize Obama when our country's very proposals would, if adopted, be harmful.

For that second point, here's a report on one leak from 2012:

The newly leaked document is one of the most controversial of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact. It addresses a broad sweep of regulations governing international investment and reveals the Obama administration's advocacy for policies that environmental activists, financial reform advocates and labor unions have long rejected for eroding key protections currently in domestic laws.

Under the agreement currently being advocated by the Obama administration, American corporations would continue to be subject to domestic laws and regulations on the environment, banking and other issues. But foreign corporations operating within the U.S. would be permitted to appeal key American legal or regulatory rulings to an international tribunal. That international tribunal would be granted the power to overrule American law and impose trade sanctions on the United States for failing to abide by its rulings.

The terms run contrary to campaign promises issued by Obama and the Democratic Party during the 2008 campaign.

"We will not negotiate bilateral trade agreements that stop the government from protecting the environment, food safety, or the health of its citizens; give greater rights to foreign investors than to U.S. investors; require the privatization of our vital public services; or prevent developing country governments from adopting humanitarian licensing policies to improve access to life-saving medications," reads the campaign document.

Source: "Obama Trade Document Leaked, Revealing New Corporate Powers And Broken Campaign Promises"

What that HuffPo article characterizes as "campaign promises issued by Obama and the Democratic Party" is actually the 2008 Democratic Party platform. No individual candidate can be assumed to agree with every word of his or her party's platform. To that extent, HuffPo is overstating. Nevertheless, if Obama, at the head of the ticket, disagreed with that statement, he could certainly have had it removed, or he could have expressed his disagreement during the campaign.

Substance aside, candidate Obama did campaign on a call for a more transparent and inclusive process in negotiating trade agreements. His handling of the TPP reflects, instead, the same corporate-friendly way that Bush dealt with trade issues. (Or maybe not. In the linked article, a representative of Doctors Without Borders Access to Medicines Campaign says that Bush was better than Obama.)