Free Trade?

Reader comment on: Kerry's Finest Hour

Submitted by Sam (United States), Sep 29, 2016 19:35

Kerry's was a good speech. He started out with some nice historical stories and used the phrase free trade. But, throughout the remainder of his speech, not once did he characterize TTP as a free trade agreement. Simply because it isn't and because free trade does not exist. In fact, free traders are known by a rather derrogatory term: smugglers.

All trade is controlled by tariffs, quotas, regulation or a combination of the three.

Where sophisticated trade deals like TTP and TTiP are concerned, the outcome will be very far from securing free trade. Rather, they are parties coming together and agreeing to harmonize rules and standards and also agreeing to cooperate in the framing of new rules in the future..

Thus, restrictions are not removed. They are simply harmonized, so they no longer constitute barriers to trade FOR THOSE WHO CAN AFFORDTHE COMPLIANCE COSTS, AND FOR THOSE WHOSE SYSTEMS ARE SOPHISTiCATED ENOUGH TO ENABLE CONFORMITY WITH OFTEN ARCANE AND COMPLEX REQUIREMENTS. This is by no measure free trade.

Rather than apply the misleading description of "free trade area" to TTP, it would bee more appropriate to call it what it is: common regulatory area.

Thus, who writes the regulations and why becomes critically important.. For TTP and TTiP this was done in secret by persons unknown with intentions unknown and with no public input or debate. If TTP is ratified, the rules and regulations Kerry mentions in passing will supercede those democratically enacted by state and national legislatures.

Kerry makes no mention at all of trade dispute adjudication and resolution. Trade disputes will be adjudicated by tribunals made up of unknoiwn people appointed by parties to the agreement. Their decisions will supercede all US judiciary from the Supreme Court down. (Chief Justice John Roberts has warned that trade arbitration panels hold the alarming power to review a nation's laws and effectively annul the authoritative acts of its legislature, executive and judiciary. These arbitrators can meet anywhere in the world and sit in judgement on a nation's sovereign acts.)

In effect, this "trade agreement" will create a supranational legislature and supranational judiciary of unknown makeup and unknown intent and precious little input from the governed.

In short, we don't need behind-closed-doors agreements to deal with restraints on trade. Intergovernmental agreements emphasizing transparecy and accountability are a better option, especially if priority is given to trade facilitation as well as harmonization.

If those remaining tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers are the target, we need to break away from the tired old mantras to understand what we're dealing with. With TTP what we end up with is not free trade but managed trade - and the better the management the better the results.

Trump and (maybe) Clinton correctly oppose TTP, but for the wrong rreasons.

---

Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.

Comment on this item