Per today's earlier post on the mysterious new trade accord, Matt Stoller got ahold of a copy of it. Here's a PDF of the synopsis, and here is the detailed outline.
Not certain exactly what chain of events led to the release of these details, but congratulations to Stoller for getting his hands on it. It's important.
Hardest working man in the blogosphere, that guy.
Related posts:
- CIA Inspector General Report on Warrantless Surveillance Released
- Two Key Details Emerge about Mob at Now Notorious Lloyd Doggett Town Hall
- CIA IG Report to be Released June 19; More Torture Revelations Coming?
- Dear Trade Associations, Why do You Despise the Workers?
- Reid, Wyden, Baucus Reach Agreement on Version of Free Choice Amendment
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
zed?
Zed.
Hi Jane.
Jane Hamsher @ 2
Nonny nonny boo boo! ;})
Dumb luck again.
Jane Hamsher @ 2
laughing you missed the zed by that much
Suzanne @ 5
You can’t get the zed on your own post. That is cheating.
I was peeking over at TNH and came back and thought I had already read that post earlier(?) I refreshed and realized it was an update.
Wow! Impressive journamiliz-blogging by Stoller. Has anyone plowed through the detailed document yet, to tell us what it means? Oh, I see Matt sez:
Off to read.
Somehow I feel leery of ANY provision for international trade in Latin America that has a section with the acronym S.W.A.T.
Looks better than I expected according to the synopsis. I’ll be interested to hear the experts.
Good Jane, good Matt.
Somewhat interesting that there’s a provision to recognize the rights to organize for collective bargaining given this admin’s total distaste for any and all collective bargaining agreements, even in the public service unions which are quite feeble.
clichy @ 9
especially considering the source, Bush’s crew, they seem to enjoy using the deliberately ironic acronym, their little FY
Section III has a bunch of language about generic medicines, patent protection, and access to medicine, presumably written to benefit Hadassah Lieberman’s employer Big Pharma.
This needs review by specia*lists in these areas; will there be time to refer the documents to such persons before a vote is called, I wonder?
What could possibly be so important about trade with Peru, Panama, Colombia and Korea that it needs to be done so quickly and so secretly? This is a grave disappointment, and a clear transgression of the open, honest, transparent Congress we were promised.
Slightly OT, but I am wondering how we can protect ourselves from being poisoned by imports from phenomenally corrupt countries like China. That is a trade agreement that needs to be revisited.
It’s one thing to be dissapointed after purchasing a cheap Chinese product that turns out to be really shitty in use. It’s entirely another thing to eat a food or take a medicine that turns out similarly.
Take a look at IV in the details part: Government Procurement. How would such wording affect protection of workers in a similar situation as the Marianas workers? “unnecessary obstacle to trade”. What are they saying?
OT, but a good one from Digby.
Is anyone aware of the latest rebuke by our government of attempts to procure cheaper prescription drugs from across our borders?
Markinsanfran @ 14
was rummagin’ through a dusty box today and came across a couple old Melmac (aka melamine) plates, who knew we’d could eat them!
SnarKassandra @ 6
(psst. don’t tell Phoenix Woman…)
Jane,
This is important. You may want to run it again on Monday so it doesn’t get lost in the weekend (mothers day at that)time-warp.
A lot of it seems to put in reasonable conditions for trade and adherence to some global warming rule. The problem is that American corporations and businesses want to use cheap labor to get their profit. That is exactly the same mentality as importing slaves from Africa. It only benefits those with investments in the companies. This is not good for America, and it is not good for the people in the countries that are providing the comparatively dirt cheap labor. Even though they speak about decent “wages” (compared to what), they will determine fair wages based on the situation in already impoverished countries ruled by the rich elite. Haiti is a perfect example.
Jane Hamsher @ 2
What kind of Fuckery is that!!! It’s your own Post!!! And (((lol))) once again nails it!!! Hat Trick Today???
LS @ 15
IANAL nor am I a trade expert but I THINK they’re saying that…that…that it beats the hell outta me what they’re saying.
I want to think they’re saying that the country receiving goods can not require PHDs or everything be developed in clean rooms.
But it probably is meant to say that the US buyers cannot come down and mandate to Peru or Korea or whomever that outside of the child labor laws and such in the first section, that things like repetitive stress laws and requirements cannot be imposed such that it would raise the cost of the goods to equal what we would charge if goods were made here.
But that’s purely a WAG on my part.
dakine01 @ 23
That’s what I thought it said!!! :P
Elliott @ 18
Hell, I use my melmac plates all the time. I bought a set when I got my first apartment while in college in ‘73 and still have most of it. Especially since the old blue willow set I got from my folks through my sister I saw at a tourist “antique shop” selling for $25 per dinner plate and I have five, plus meat platter, three saucers, and a few other pieces.
CTuttle @ 22
EX-CU-USE ME-E-E-E! Check that first name again Bra!
dakine01 @ 23
Actually, I thought it might be saying here’s all these rules, blah, blah, blah, but if fixing things presents an “obstacle to trade”, then nevermind don’t fix it. I really have no idea what they are saying either.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 17
I think it got voted down Thursday. At least one excuse is news stories about how some of the ephedra supplements or such coming from China had contaminants.
LS @ 27
That’s probably a part of it.
The new melmac is Melamine. Actually very nice.
If it can’t be understood by intelligent non-lawyers then maybe it needs to be re-written? Or just simply dropped completely?
dakine01 @ 25
Blue Willow Melmac! that must have been the top of the line. My find today was pink rosebuds. Pretty, but nothing special, not Blue Willow.
I don’t have much to say other than to question why Speaker Pelosi would attach her name to this. Is she looking to have her good name flushed down the toilet?
LS @ 27
that sounds about right, though.
Loo Hoo @ 30
My set was called when it was sold melamine made from melmac
It infuriates me that Congressional documents, written in my name, are not written so I can easily understand them. Makes me wonder what they are hiding under all that legalese.
OT: Oh my…these GOP guys sure like sleepovers:
http://www.rawstory.com/showar…..t-rep.html
way off topic—- new post about Olbermann’s award
Elliott @ 32
No No No. Two different sets. The melmac set is yellow and orange with roses and such. Very light/summery/lunch time set-up.
The Blue Willow is the old fashioned supper dishes made of glass (don’t want to call it china which it is not that fine but glass)
I don’t want some kind of trade agreement language to give an out to Delay and Abramoff regarding the Marianas. This document applies to Panama and Colombia, but still. I don’t like where this could go.
Great job on this by David Sirota and Matt Stoller along with FDL and the blogosphere at large. I agree that there needs to be a democratic process in a democracy – even though full, fair and open debate is slower and messier than making backroom deals. That goes for Iraq too. A vital union of oil workers there, in Basra, has issued a plea to the United States Congress:
http://www.basraoilunion.org/
[With thanks to Omaha Steve at DU]
Is this Blue Willow melmac?
mod embedded link
dakine01 @ 39
Oh sorry, I was picturing Blue Willow Melmac. hey, maybe there is Blue Willow Melmac.
I love all the blue and white chinas (speaking of international trade think of the history of trade with China for china, see we’re not off topic at all)
dakine01 @ 11
Not just “this administration.” The Republicans have always felt that way, and Reagan came to office with union busting as his number-one agenda. It started with the air traffic controllers.
pow wow @ 41
Whoa, thanks.
Loo Hoo @ 42
Wigwam @ 44
that was ruthless
*comment deleted at commenter’s request*
My department picked up several former FAA Air Traffic Controllers as police dispatchers. To them, police dispatching was a lot less stress. They were fired by Ray-gun.
Wigwam @ 44
Too true. And IIRC, PATCO had backed Ray-guns in ‘80.
P J Evans @ 31
No, in their eyes it means they have been wildly successful.
Jane Hamsher @ 2
What kind of Fuckery is that!!! It’s your own Post!!! And (((lolo))) once again nails it!!! Hat Trick Today???dakine01 @ 1
My Bad!!! *g*
Suzanne @ 49
(apologies in advance for frivolous comment, hard weekend with students…)
They do know that it is still “National” airport to all who were offended by the name change. Myself included.
CTuttle @ 52
Saw your note downstairs about your Wahine graduating and congrats on that. Are your others at Hilo as well? What are the majors?
Sorry, I accidentally turned to FOX NOISE and DANGERSTEIN is flaming dirty friggin hippie bloggers.
Frank33 @ 55
Those are my favorite kind of bloggers!
Dakine, not yet, one’s in Hilo High, and the baby is in Hilo Inter!!! Thanx!!!
LS @ 15
That government procurement & contractors involved in that procurement are exempt from laws protecting workers & wages, when those workers are in foreign locations.
Nasty sh@t; goes right to the core of what drives this whole globalization thing.
New Thread
After the commencement, my Mom and Grandma, took us all out to eat!!! It was truly an inspirational Ohana moment!!! Four generations!!! A Matriarchal moment for posterity, as my wife purportedly wears the pants in the family!!! ;)
opps at # 58: that word following “nasty” became a link/e-mail address. meant it just as a censor character.
DANGERSTEIN update: Hmm..He wants a “compromise” on “free trade”. Plus he says those DFH bloggers are doing the same thing Tom Delay did. Using Corporate money illegally and selling out his office for bribes??
SnarK: Keep up the good work! You should be very proud of your citizen/activism/journalism.
On first reading:
Enviro protections not secure
Same problem as WTO:
all else subordinated to the abstract value of “trade”
So any law or regulation which prevents someone somewhere from making every possible penny can be challenged and tossed aside.
This is the same framework as NAFTA/ CAFTA / WTO / MAI.
II. Provisions on Environment and Global Warming
A Enforcement of Multilateral Env. Agreements (MEA’s)
1 “Parties must adopt, implement, and effectively enfore…obligations under each of the following MEA’s…:”
so far, so good – “CITES, Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances, Inter-American Tropical Tuna Convention”
Hey – the dolphins are safe from tuna nets – what’s not to like?
“2. The obligation in (1) is subject to the FTA dispute settlement chapter, and there shall be an inconsistency if the failure to uphold the obligation affects trade or investment.”
Gotcha, Flipper.
We can enforce our environmental laws unless they cost someone money.
4. “In the event of any inconsistency between the FTA and the (MEA obligations), a Party shall seek to balance obligations under both agreements, but this shall not preclude a Party from taking a particular measure to comply with its MEA obligations, as long as the measure’s primary purpose is not as a disguised restriction on trade.”
Flipper, you’re drowning in the nets. Unless you’ve already died of blood loss after your bill was ripped off.
In the High Church of Free Trade, you shall have no other law before profit.
Remember MTBE – the gas additive that leaks underground and spreads into groundwater?
When California tried to ban MTBE, the Canadian manufactures sued under NAFTA.
For a billion dollars.
Restraint of trade, don’t you know.
No worries. Everyone knows California has more water than it needs. What’s an aquifer – or two?
No place to hide. Not for dolphins, not for us.
The High Church of Free Trade sees all.
[sorry for repeat; mangled first comment…
mods, if you could delete my 48 that would be great. thanks.]
“Looks better than I expected according to the synopsis. I’ll be interested to hear the experts.”
Are you kidding me? Aren’t these the same talking heads who have given us disaster after disaster!
This is a George Bush trade agreement. We don’t need to know anymore, as that alone guarantee’s it’s a disaster!
pow wow @41
whaddisay?
Brother Awwad visited SEIU Local 715 and other unions around the country on the 2005 USLAW tour. His message then was ‘end the occupation’. He leads in Basra now in part because he led against Saddam before. I’m so happy to see this post.
BTW, another USLAW tour of Iraqi unionists is coming soon.
Thank you and OS there in his AFSME shirt.
This sums it up:
kirk murphy @ 63
kirk wrote,
“Remember MTBE – the gas additive that leaks underground and spreads into groundwater?
When California tried to ban MTBE, the Canadian manufactures sued under NAFTA.
For a billion dollars.”
as a canuck, i’m appalled that the greedy bastards on our side were content to sue at the expense of the environment. we sure aren’t perfect. as for that billion, well, george bush got it. after the u.s. ignored ruling after ruling by the nafta board, and every other court available with jurisdiction in the softwood lumber dispute over illegal tarriffs, our snot sucking conservative government settled for four of the five billion owing. that stray billion went to the white house, with no oversight by congress regarding its use for “beneficial purposes” or some such codswallop.
be assured that there are lots of canadians scared about the implications of these secret deals. looks like some of the provisions will wipe out affordable medicines for seniors and the poor up here. to say nothing of our resources being opened up to the u.s. with no regard for domestic needs. one of the big fears here is that deregulating energy sector exports would create the freezing in the dark scenario. we have no protections mandating a priority to meet domestic needs.
essentially, if the u.s. sees canadian petroleum as a means to reduce offshore dependence, we would be unable to withhold, even to meet domestic heating needs in winter. i look forward to analysis by those wiser than i and i believe there is more to come on this “agreement” and none of it good for anyone but the robber barons.
kirk murphy @ 63
Wow, you’re wrong in so many ways I don’t even know where to start with that. Methanex lost that lawsuit, and the court ordered them to pay over four million dollars in fees to the US Government as punishment for filing a frivolous NAFTA claim. The system worked. The fight is over now. The hippies won. Your example actually does a pretty good job of showing how trade agreements DO NOT interfere with national sovereignity, which completely contradicts the point your post was trying to make. Congratulations..
The CA MTBE ban took effect on Jan 1 2004- so today there is no MTBE in California gas, but you can bet your bottom dollar that it’s still in the tapwater throughout most of the state. AAAAAAnd, the reason MTBE was added in the first place was to comply with federal clean air emissions standards. That’s a mind-boggler right there, ain’t it? We wouldn’t be worrying about the water pollution if someone hadn’t gotten so hot and bothered about the air pollution.
So now the MTBE has been replaced with ethanol so that the gas will still meet federal gas standards. Ethanol has a much lower energy density than gasoline, which means you can’t get as many miles out of a gallon of 10% ethanol gas as you can from gas with no ethanol in it. California gasoline is the most expensive per gallon, most expesive per-mile for a given car, and the most damaging to your car of any gas in the country.
And as far as filing a lawsuit: I could sue you tomorrow for a billion dollars- that doesn’t mean that you’ve done anything wrong, or that I deserve any money. I have to prove it first. That’s how the law works in the United States.
pretty shaved ape @ 67
And they say oil and water don’t mix.
We want both.
Pretty shaved ape, you sure nailed it on the softwood timber scam. my nation no longer recognizes treaty obligations.
ps – love your Lake name
A fellow posted a diary at DailyKos saying that he had the trade agreement documents, and had mailed them to people he knew. He was trying to get them out. He claimed that the Dems got nearly 100% of everything they wanted.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/12/135136/571
Tekel, thanks for your kind observations.
I do apologize for my error: didn’t mind my B’s and T’s.
Silly dirty fucking hippie that I am, I had confused to evil lethal toxic gasoline additive MTBE with the foul deadly poison gasoline additive MMT.
As I was living in Santa Monica when the water tasted funny…from the wells later found to be contaminated by MTBE – I was more focused on the poison my body and I have come to know.
We in California didn’t see much of MMT
Silly dirty fucking hippie that I am, I’d also confused the rat-fucking ghouls at Methanex (noble advocate of the evil lethal toxic MTBE) with the weasel-buggering undead suits at Ethyl
(proud daddy of foul deadly poison MMT).
Must have been all the MTBE in my Santa Monica water.
I cited the wrong case, but correctly described NAFTA’s lethal consequences:
My bad.
Oh – and Tekel?
While Methanex made sacrifice to the Free Trade Cult, California had another year of MTBE.
And that sacrifice?
Our flesh
But hey, let’s look at all the goodies the Free Trade Cult bring to Canada with Ethyl Corp’s lovechild, MManganeseT
O Canada! Ain’t the Free Trade Cult a gas?
I’m going to do more homework on this, but on the surface my suspicion is that the environmental protocols in this proposal are designed in large measure to further subvert Kyoto and other mandatory measures on carbon emissions/feedstock change, which while not binding on the US, is binding on the other countries. To determine whether this is the case, one has to detailed evaluation of each of the environmental undertakings referenced and, in particular, Montreal… overall, this appears on the surface to have the net effect of advancing the notion that voluntary standards for environmental protection, as decided by the US, should take relevance over mandatory systems that exist outside of the context of the FTA but within the international obligations of our counterparties. Again, more work is needed, but I DO NOT think this is innocuous at all.
dakine01 @ 50
Sigh. Some people have no “class consciousness.”
The daughter of a friend of mine was on welfare in 1980. She supported Reagan because he’d get the undeserving off of welfare and that way there’d be more for her. ;-)
To this day most people consider Reagan a sweet but stern, grandfatherly figure.
From the Times: “A Winning Deal on Trade”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05…..3sun2.html
dakine01 @ 50
If we’ve learned anything from this administration it is that they like playing word games a la Orwell. Black is white, up is down. I’d read this thing replacing every favorable provision with its exact opposite to see the real intent in the document.
Why was everything done in secret? Is there another document somewhere that wasn’t able to be grabbed and shared with everyone?
As far as unions go, I will never believe that this administration would endorse the rights of workers anywhere to organize for better conditions. The only reason a Bush would want workers to organize would be to get them in one place to drop a grenade in their midst.
From Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution:
“Merchants and speculators demanded the extermination of the Bolsheviks and – freedom of trade. They raised their voice against all restrictions upon trade whatsoever, even those which had been introduced under tzarism….”
Even trade restrictions which the tzar had instituted were anathema, and the tzar was no flaming progressive! It’s always about freedom of trade with these people so that once a market has been saturated and the economy is in the crapper “trade” can be conducted somewhere else….there’s always another sucker to be fleeced. If everyone would keep that in mind these trade bills would be crystal clear in language and intent.
There is something sinister behind the curtain in this document.
I am leery of anything that the Bush Administration agrees to. I need someone to go through point by point of this agreement and point out the dangers of it. There were some interesting comments given here (in the midst of the voluminous amount of irrelevant material), but I would like to hear an experienced analyzer of WTO-tainted agreements describe what we need to stress to our congressmen to fix.
test