Certification: How The US Demands Even More Concessions After Trade Agreements Have Been Signed And Ratified
from the enough-is-never-enough dept
The battle raging over the fast track bill is essentially one about control: who gets the final say over so-called trade agreements like TPP and TAFTA/TTIP. If the US President is not given trade promotion authority, it is possible that Congress will demand changes to the negotiated text; with fast track, it will be a simple up or down vote. That’s also the situation in other countries participating in the negotiations: once the text is agreed upon, they can essentially accept it or reject it. However, a group of senior politicians in five of the TPP nations point out that after those votes, the US can still demand further concessions from its partners thanks to a process known as certification:
Senior parliamentarians from five countries negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement have signed an open letter urging their political leaders to protect their nations? sovereignty from the United States’ process of certification.
The US withholds the final steps that are necessary to bring a trade and investment treaty into force until the other party has changed its relevant domestic laws and regulations to meet US expectations of its obligations under the agreement. In the past, US ‘expectations’ have gone beyond what is in the actual text, and even included matters that were rejected in negotiations.
US officials can define another country’s obligations; become directly involved in drafting that country’s relevant law and regulations; demand to review and approve proposed laws before they are presented to the other country’s legislature; and delay certification until the US is satisfied the new laws meet its requirements.
In other words, even though other nations might think that after their agreement and ratification of the text, everything is fixed, the US reserves the right to come back and demand changes to domestic laws and regulations so as to ensure that the implementation is as it wishes. That’s no mere theoretical option: it has been used against both Peru and Australia recently. In the latter case, the US was unhappy with the legislation enacting the Australia-US free trade agreement (AUSFTA), and demanded that Australia bring in a supplementary law that actually went beyond the terms of AUSFTA. Even then, the US reserved its right to take legal action if it felt that Australia had still not gone far enough.
The publication of the open letter (pdf) to the political leaders of the TPP nations is a timely reminder that however much sovereignty they might be willing to give up during the negotiations for the sake of supposed gains, the US may want even more concessions — without, of course, granting other countries the same prerogative.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Filed Under: certification, promises, regulations, tafta, tpp, trade deals, ttip, us
Comments on “Certification: How The US Demands Even More Concessions After Trade Agreements Have Been Signed And Ratified”
The question that needs to be asked
Why does any country continue to be so incredibly stupid as to sign anything with the USG?
Really, I understand, in negotiations both sides are focused on one thing only: getting the best deal for them. But no-one, bar none, is so willing to screw over their ‘partners’ than the USG, and other countries ignore this at their own risk.
(Also, as if we really needed yet another reason that these ‘trade’ agreements need to die…)
Re: The question that needs to be asked
It’s because they are “negotiating” while looking down the barrel of a gun. If the U.S. doesn’t like your gov’t, you get a new gov’t.
Re: The question that needs to be asked
Negotiators are bribed separately. Confidentiality is necessary to keep the bribes smaller than the spoils: once you have to grease the public themselves for access to their pockets, it’s unlikely that you’ll carry off net winnings.
and people today in Peru and Australia think their votes have any importance?
Re: Re:
And people today thinkt heiur vote has ny importance?
FTFY.
It’s getting to the point where the only ‘correct’ response is to kill all the rich. For the safety of the planet, and the masses.
Re: Re: Re:
Well, it does happens every few decades. Its been a while since the last one but they are really pushing it.
As for the US, with the economy bleeding from a thousand holes ofcourse they are desperate.
Re: Re: Re:
The problem with the idea of killing people to save the planet is that it is very old and is in EVERY elite book
(like Malthus, Galton Darwin, Club of Rome, UN, …)
And THEY SAY it makes more sense to kill the massess,
because of math.
So if under the current power scheme you are ok with killing humans to save the planet, you are asking the elite to fulfill their plans and kill you.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They’re working on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_HVyoT2PgM
Huh
It’s becoming less and less surprising that these trade agreements are kept secret even after ratification.
That’s not a deal, it’s a slaughterhouse. It is no wonder that the “negotiators” are not interested in having too much light cast on the deals: they are the proverbial cockroaches in the slaughterhouse.
And for hygienic reasons it is high time to figure out exactly any channels where blood is leaking through to the roaches and close them off. Those negotiators are clearly not driven by the interests of the countries purportedly paying them. So any “side” channels they feed upon most be closed down with heaviest penalties (after all, they are selling their countries out to higher bidders and are thus mercenary traitors).
At any rate, step 1 is: no secret negotiations. Vermin hates light for good reason.
One of the TPP countries has stoning to death as a legal punishment for beings gay.
Nothing like further cementing their reputation as the world’s bully instead of the protector of democracy and freedom for all
What are the possible repercussions for refusing to implement the demands? The 301 list has no consequences and should not be feared; The ammont of `lost’ investments is laughably neglectable; The US could initiate a sanctions-war but would suffer from that too; Military occupation will lack support from citizens.
On the other hand, once a single country grows a bit of spine and refuses to implement these demands, the treaty is basically dead. This could just as well turn out to be a very effective way of sabotaging the secret process of these secret treaties.
Now, where to find a country with some backbone?…
Re: Re:
Consquences:
The non US parties agreed to a treaty with this little booby trap in it. By not agreeing to change the laws as the treaty demands when the US asks for it a whole raft of punishments can be levied on the country not changing their laws to suit the US. Everything from not implementing the US parts of the treaty to going to the WTO.
Re: Re: Re:
One thing that is not discussed in this article is what happens when the tables are turned? If the USA can demand “adjustments” to local laws, how soon will it be before the other parties demand changes in OUR laws eh?
I am altering the deal. Pray I don’t alter it any further.
Wouldn’t this backfire against the US? Even if the TPP does get signed, they could just stop it by refusing “certification”?
Blackmail by any other name. It also shows that that Australian government (what a surprise, the LNP) and succeeding governments are a bunch of gutless wonders.