THE HATED anti-working class, pro-privatisation ‘Trans-Pacific Partnership’ deal was pushed through yesterday, in the teeth of opposition.
Leaders from a dozen countries agreed the trade deal which now effects 40% of the world economy. It is a deal that has been fought every step of the way by trade unions around the world. The five year negotiations for the TPP took place in secret and is now agreed. TPP’s full 30-chapter text will not be available for at least a month.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership deal must now be ratified by US Congress. Months of final drafting, analyses and debate lie ahead as US president Obama cannot sign the accord until Congress has its 90 days to review the pact’s details. The other 11 countries must also approve the deal in their own countries.
The ALF-CIO, the US equivalent of the TUC said: ‘The Obama administration and the leaders of 11 other Pacific Rim nations – Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and Japan – have been negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Free Trade Agreement since 2010.
‘The AFL-CIO provided the Obama administration with ideas to improve US trade positions so that they work for the 99%, not just the 1%. Unfortunately, it is become clear that the TPP deal will not create jobs, protect the environment and ensure safe imports. Rather, it appears modelled after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a free trade agreement where the largest global corporations benefit and working families are left behind.
‘While the administration touts the TPP as a job-creating, wage-raising enterprise, it has not made public any employment or sectoral impacts study. The administration hasn’t provided information as to how the TPP will promote manufacturing more effectively than current US trade policy and the global corporate agenda continues to make demands for deregulation, privatisation, tax breaks and other financial advantages for Big Business while shrinking the social safety net in the name of “labour flexibility”.’
