The Transpacific Partnership (TPP) text was finally released in the US for the mandatory 60-day Congressional review, plus the added 30-days before the legislation can be signed into Law. Almost immediately, proponents started chastising opponents for reintegrating their past criticism of assumptions made about the secret free trade agreement before they were able to review the 6,000-page document. Although these proponents are correct when it comes to criticizing the details of the TPP agreement before a proper analysis can be done, which it is equally inappropriate to prematurely parade around the assumed benefits of TPP, criticism targeting the structure of the agreement is valid. The simple truth is that the length of the TPP agreement makes the task of reading it a time-consuming challenge. Meanwhile, it is the policy implications of the agreement that truly matter. Understanding how the language of the text will affect new trade policies is necessary before the Peoples of TPP countries can accept the agreement. Skimming over the actual text, TPP reads more like a revision to the weak World Trade Organization (WTO) that attempts to sneak free trade into the global economy as a standard. Relying on policy commitments and pledges, TPP is far from the detailed contract it needs to be. Nearly six thousand pages may appear to be a lot, but not when it comes to coordinating trade between 12 very different economies.
Comments
UK Follows America’s Bad Example on National Security and Civil Rights: Investigatory Powers Bill11/5/2015 The Edward Snowden NSA Revelations helped bring the issue of national security overreach and corruption to the forefront in 2013. Unfortunately, the Ukraine Crisis pushed a much-needed conversation on limiting the powers of America’s national security apparatus to the backburner. Since the rise of the Islamic State as the most pressing regional security threat in the Middle East and a top global security threat, the USA Patriot Act of 2001 has been tweaked by the USA Freedom Act of 2015. Reigning in the American national security apparatus has all but disappeared from the public agenda. Although there was plenty of public outrage over revelations of US efforts to spy on Europeans, European leaders and national security officials have since reaffirmed their cooperation with the US national security apparatus due to fears of rising terrorist threats and Russian hostility. The UK’s “Investigatory Powers Bill” makes the USA Patriot Act look like it respects the freedoms all-patriotic Americans would die to defend. Instead of confronting the past and present wrongs of their own national security apparatus by addressing the need to balance national security with civil liberties, British lawmakers are essentially trying to make those wrongs retroactively legal. “Violence begets violence, and then you get leaders who are violent men. “-Robert Crumb
Middle East security hinges on the ability of regional powers to overcome traditional and cultural conflicts in order to focus on common threats to the national security of all Middle Eastern nations. What this means is that traditional revivals, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, must learn to solve conflicts through diplomatic channels. In addressing dissent and civil unrest, governments must learn to rely on political engagement as an alternative to violent crackdowns. If they do not, they will continue to inspire violence. Unfortunately, the hostility between Iran and Saudi Arabia on display at the Syrian Peace Talks in Vienna does not bode well. Expectations that the Vienna Talks would actually address the Islamic State or end the Syrian Civil were always low. After all, those fighting in Syria are the ones who will decide the fate of Syria. The Talks could, however, end the foreign intervention that is propping up the Assad regime and unify efforts to fight the Islamic State. The Vienna Talks are also significant, because they force regional powers to focus on diplomacy instead of the convenience of violence. |
Read old posts
April 2020
|