There's a reason
Pope Francis has condemned "free trade" pacts like the Trans-Pacific
Partnership.
By
Pope Francis waxed radical on several big issues in his speech to Congress last September. He condemned the arms trade, called for climate action, and challenged lawmakers to protect the most vulnerable among us.
It
was wonderful. But for some reason, there was one looming issue Francis chose
not to confront: the Obama administration’s corporate-friendly trade agenda.
I
wish he had.
Just
weeks after the pope’s historic visit, the United States and 11
other countries announced an “agreement in principle” on the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, or TPP — a huge “free trade” pact that could undermine crucial
labor and environmental protections in countries making up 40
percent of the world’s economy.
The
Vatican’s thinking on the matter is no secret.
When
the pope visited Bolivia in July, he delivered an unmistakable
invective against economic policies that exploit the world’s poor.
“Neocolonialism,” Francis said, “takes on different faces” — including “some
treaties named as ‘free trade.'”
Archbishop
Silvano M. Tomasi, for example, calls the TPP “asymmetric”
against poor countries, since it requires them to loosen laws that protect
local workers and consumers in exchange for trading with richer countries like
the United States.
Doctors
Without Borders and other groups have argued that the TPP will reduce poor
countries’ access to life-saving medicines, weaken food safety, coddle the fossil fuel industry, and make
it harder to rein in
Wall Street and the rest of the global financial casino.
Yet
the Obama administration still insists on calling
the TPP “the most
progressive trade deal in history.”
And
indeed, an official summary of the agreement — the full version is still top-secret
— offers up some nice-sounding commitments to shared prosperity,
sustainability, and gender equality. But if you check the fine print, you’ll
see that the pact only promotes “voluntary cooperative work in these areas.”
Compare
that to the guaranteed perks big corporations would get,
including “the basic investment protections found in other investment-related
agreements.”
Those
“basic protections” are exactly what make agreements like the TPP so dangerous.
These measures allow corporations to sue governments for enforcing any laws —
including common-sense health, safety, and environmental protections — that
might affect a company’s bottom line.
Take the El Salvador case that’s been in
the World Bank court’s dock for six years. Under terms set by the Bush
administration’s “free-trade” agreement with Central American countries, the
multinational Pacific Rim-Oceana Gold company tried to sue the small country
for some $300 million.
Why?
Because El Salvador banned poisonous gold mining along a river that supplies
over half of its drinking water. Pacific Rim essentially argued that investment
rules favored its right to mine over Salvadorans’ right to clean water.
Under
NAFTA rules, meanwhile, Canada is being sued for revoking fracking permits and making
medications like anti-depressants more widely available. And Mexico has paid
out over $200 million worth of penalties to rich corporations like Cargill.
Farther
south, tobacco giant Philip Morris is suing Uruguay for $25
million, claiming that the health warnings the country requires on cigarette
packs violate a similar investment treaty.
No
wonder, as Francis warned in Bolivia, “transnational companies are becoming
stronger to the point that local economies are subordinated,” leaving smaller
countries “powerless to carry out development projects in the service of their
populations.”
The
TPP would make this common practice for nearly half the globe. That’s why it
must be stopped.
The
pope knows it. Politicians from Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump know it. Even Hillary Clinton, who once called the TPP “the gold standard in trade
agreements,” says she knows it now, too.
It’s
a pity the pope didn’t try to talk some sense into U.S. lawmakers about trade
deals. But it’s not too late for him and others to make the moral case against
the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Manuel
Pérez-Rocha is an associate fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies. An
earlier version of this op-ed appeared at FPIF.org. Distributed
by OtherWords.org.