The Trans-Pacific Partnership Is A Huge Step Toward World Government

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a so-called trade agreement that is being pushed by President Obama, as well as the Council on Foreign Relations. Twelve countries are involved in the negotiations: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam. On the surface it’s supposedly a trade agreement that will boost the American economy. However, the TPP in reality is about much more than trade: it is about the relinquishment of sovereignty to the United Nations.

Secrecy surrounds the TPP. Members of congress have only been able to view the document in secure reading rooms3. Although the Senate has the authority to approve treaties with a two-thirds vote, “the executive branch has managed to resist repeated requests by members of congress to see the text of the draft agreement and has denied requests from members to attend negotiations as observers.”2 And because it is much more than a trade deal, and “existing and future American laws must be altered”2 to conform with the terms of the deal, the American people should have the right to see what it consists of… However, “the administration has also rejected repeated demands by outside groups that the nearly complete text be publicly released”2. Does this sound like “the most transparent administration in history”?

Under the TPP, multi-national megacorporations would be able to sue federal, state and local governments before a UN tribunal:

The TPP draft text proposes creating tribunals that could overrule the decisions of our state and federal courts, as well as our local, state and federal laws- and our state and national constitutions. This is already occurring under similar tribunals established by the NAFTA and WTO agreements.4

It would grant “broad powers to multinational companies operating in north and south Americas, and asia” and “companies and investors would be empowered to challenge regulations, rules, government actions and court rulings- federal, state, or local – before tribunals organized under the World Bank or the United Nations”3. Does this mean hypothetically if Merck does not like a state-level vaccine regulation they may sue that state government before a U.N. tribunal? If the Saudi Star does not like a regulation in an African country against forced relocation, can they sue that country in front of a World Bank tribunal? This Republic of Truth article will remind you of the corruption of the World Bank and its role in forced relocations. “Even local policy changes could send the government to a United Nations-sanctioned tribunal”3. As Senator Charles Schumer of New York said, “savvy, deep-pocketed foreign conglomerates could challenge a broad range of laws we pass at every level of government, such as made-in-America laws or anti-tobacco laws”3. This is a clear risk to United States sovereignty, and would look like global fascism, in which global megacorporations and world government combine to suppress the liberties of citizens in any sovereign country.

In all, according to public citizen’s global trade watch, about 9,000 foreign-owned firms operating in the United States would be empowered to bring cases against governments here. Those are as diverse as timber and mining companies in Australia and investments conglomerates from China whose subsidiaries in Trans-Pacific Partnership countries like Vietnam and New Zealand also have ventures in the United States.3

Any dispute that arises with a megacorporation, from patents to regulations, would be adjudicated “under rules set by either the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes [a branch of the World Bank] or the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law”3. Do you trust world government to look after the best interests of you and your family? Or do you agree with Thomas Jefferson when he said “the government closest to the people serves the people best”?

In order to get the TPP in place as quickly as possible, Richard Haass, the president of the CFR, advocates for what is called Fast Track or Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), saying “without it, the agreement would collapse, the victim of endless amendments”. TPA is an “extraordinary and rarely used procedure” in which Obama “could sign the agreement before congress voted on it, and congress’s post-facto vote would be under rules limiting debate, banning all amendments and forcing a quick vote”2. Ron Kirk, until recently Obama’s top trade official, agrees with Haass in giving Obama fast track power, saying without it such opposition would be raised “it could make the deal impossible to sign”2. Fast tracking an agreement that gives away United States sovereignty to a world government is something only dreamed of before by George Orwell and a small minority of concerned citizens. Now, it is something openly pushed for by governments, corporations and media.

The World Bank, the CFR, and Robert Zoellick are pushing for the TPP and Fast Track. The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), where disputes would be adjudicated under the TPP, is housed at the World Bank’s headquarters complex in Washington D.C.

The ICSID receives its funding from the World Bank and the ICSID’s governing Council is chaired by the president of the World Bank. So the proposed TPP tribunals are, in essence, a means for transferring judicial authority over vast areas of domestic law to “arbitrators” picked by the World Bank- and the central bankers and the giant commercial/investment bankers that run the World Bank.4

So the corrupt World Bank, connected to forced relocations into tightly controlled megacities, would gain more power from the TPP. Which is why the former president of the WB and longtime CFR member Robert Zoellick is pushing for the TPP and fast track:

Zoellick, together with other former and current colleagues at Goldman Sachs, the CFR, and World Bank, is prominent player in the “free trade” power lobby that is now urgently pushing the TPP, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and Trade Promotion Authority (TPA, aka Fast Track). He authored, for instance, an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal entitled, “Leading from the Front on Free Trade,” which carried this subtitle: “Republicans should make the case for Trade Promotion Authority, not fear giving it to President Obama.” Zoellick’s WSJ op-ed was a full-throated cheer for TPP/TTIP/TPA.4

The CFR’s advocacy for the TPP and TPA can be seen in Haass’s op-ed in the New York Times and his rushing onto the set of Morning Joe to tell host Joe Scarborough to cover it.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is much more than a trade agreement. As proven here, it threatens the sovereignty of the United States and the Constitution, and must be stopped. Most Americans have never heard of the TPP. Hopefully this article leads to more awareness of the agreement and how it affects all of us.

1: Constitution of the United States Article 2, Section 2

2: Wallach, Lori, and Ben Beachy. “Obama’s Covert Trade Deal.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 02 June 2013. Web.

3: Weisman, Jonathan. “TPP Seen as Door for Foreign Suits Against U.S.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 25 Mar. 2015. Web.

4: Jasper, William F. “TPP Power Grab: World Bank, Goldman Sachs, CFR.” The New American. The New American, 01 Apr. 2015. Web.

You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.