Paul Krugman on TPP -- and why my trust in the president has been shaken

Paul Krugman (New York Times, 5-21-15) writes that:

"One of the Obama administration’s underrated virtues is its intellectual honesty. . . .  The truth is that, in the policy areas I follow, this White House has been remarkably clear and straightforward about what it’s doing and why.

"Every area, that is, except one: international trade and investment.

"I don’t know why the president has chosen to make the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership such a policy priority.  Still, there is an argument to be made for such a deal, and some reasonable, well-intentioned people are supporting the initiative. 

"But other reasonable, well-intentioned people have serious questions about what’s going on. And I would have expected a good-faith effort to answer those questions. Unfortunately, that’s not at all what has been happening. Instead, the selling of the 12-nation Pacific Rim pact has the feel of a snow job. Officials have evaded the main concerns about the content of a potential deal; they’ve belittled and dismissed the critics; and they’ve made blithe assurances that turn out not to be true. . . .

"First of all, whatever you may say about the benefits of free trade, most of those benefits have already been realized. A series of past trade agreements, going back almost 70 years, has brought tariffs and other barriers to trade very low to the point where any effect they may have on U.S. trade is swamped by other factors, like changes in currency values.

"In any case, the Pacific trade deal isn’t really about trade. Some already low tariffs would come down, but the main thrust of the proposed deal involves strengthening intellectual property rights — things like drug patents and movie copyrights — and changing the way companies and countries settle disputes. And it’s by no means clear that either of those changes is good for America. . . .  

[There then follows some details about patents and copyrights, which benefit Big Pharma and Hollywood, but which worry world health organizations that it would make medicines unaffordable in developing countries.   Other concerns of critics have to do with changes in how disputes between countries can be settled.]

"Critics like Senator Elizabeth Warren warn that this could compromise the independence of U.S. domestic policy — that these tribunals could, for example, be used to attack and undermine financial reform.

"Not so, says the Obama administration, with the president declaring that Senator Warren is 'absolutely wrong.'  But she isn't.   

"As I see it, the big problem here is one of trust.

"International economic agreements are, inevitably, complex, and you don’t want to find out at the last minute — just before an up-or-down, all-or-nothing vote — that a lot of bad stuff has been incorporated into the text. So you want reassurance that the people negotiating the deal are listening to valid concerns, that they are serving the national interest rather than the interests of well-connected corporations.

[Krugman doesn't mention this, but others have.   At the same time that senators are allowed to read the bill but forbidden to discuss it with advisers or the media, lobbyists for interested corporations have actually participated in writing the bill.]

"Instead of addressing real concerns, however, the Obama administration has been dismissive, trying to portray skeptics as uninformed hacks who don’t understand the virtues of trade. But they’re not: the skeptics have on balance been more right than wrong . . . .

"It’s really disappointing and disheartening to see this kind of thing from a White House that has, as I said, been quite forthright on other issues. And the fact that the administration evidently doesn’t feel that it can make an honest case for the Trans-Pacific Partnership suggests that this isn’t a deal we should support."

*   *   *

I have to agree with Paul Krugman on this -- at least until we find out more about what the trade agreement would actually do.   President Obama's behavior on this has been more than disappointing.   I have had my trust in him shaken.   Knowing not only how complex a multi-national agreement like this can be, but also that it may involve other issues of national security that must remain secret, I am reluctant to denounce a president I had trusted.   But that trust has been shaken, to say the least.

If I were in the Senate, I would be standing with Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown on this.   At least don't be so ready to approve the fast-track procedure that will allow the administration to submit the final agreement for quick yes/no vote until it has had more open debate and public input.

Ralph