Communist Party of Australia  

Home


The Guardian

Current Issue

PDF Archive

Web Archive

Pete's Corner

Subscribe

Press Fund


CPA


About Us

Why you should ...

CPA introduction


Contact Us

facebook, twitter


Major Issues

Indigenous

Unions

Health

Housing

Climate Change

Peace

Solidarity/Other


State by State

NSW, Qld, SA, Vic, WA


What's On

Topical


Resources

AMR

Links


Shop@CPA

Books, T-shirts, CDs/DVDs, Badges, Misc


 

Issue #1619      November 20, 2013

TPP: US reasserts its role as world’s bully

In a leaked negotiation document about ongoing trade negotiations, it becomes clear that the United States is still asserting its role as the world’s master of self-entitlement. A document leaked from the negotiations was published by WikiLeaks. It concerns the monopolies and exclusive rights we know as copyrights, patents, trademarks, and so on. While the contents of the proposed trade agreement – the Trans-Pacific Partnership – are certainly interesting, not to say very alarming. It’s even more interesting to see how the United States keeps asserting its industry interests over the world under the false flag of “free trade.”

This process started with Japanese cars in the 1970s. As people in the United States started shunning Detroit’s cars in favour of Toyota, policymakers in the US realised that the country’s age of industrial competitiveness had effectively come to an end, and sought new ways to keep the United States at the top of the food chain, competitive or not. The result was as audacious, daring, and provocative as it was successful: redefine “value,” “industry,” and “production” in a series of lopsided interstate contracts masqueraded as “free trade” deals that would make sure the United States kept being paid by the rest of the world.

The first of these “free trade” deals – more accurately described as Industrial Protectionism (IP) – was the agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which stands at the heart of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Its champion had been then-CEO of Pfizer, Edmund Pratt, who wanted to prohibit people in the third world from using their own raw materials and pharmaceutical knowledge in their own laboratories and plants to cure and treat their own people’s diseases. He wanted to force them to buy from Pfizer or die trying. Millions died as a result of the success of the TRIPS “free trade” agreement and the WTO.

There is no word for this type of behaviour short of “evil”.

As the TRIPS agreement on IP was being negotiated, every industry interest in the United States chimed in and wanted their piece of the pie. Hollywood’s movie industry, the record industry, everybody. This new leaked trade agreement – that has absolutely nothing to do with free trade, but with the upholding of exclusive rights and monopolies that limit free trade – builds on the previous TRIPS agreement; it harshens it and deepens it.

The divide between the United States and other countries on the unfairness of the aggressively pushed “United States uber alles” agenda is very clear. It’s almost enough to read the introduction, where the vast majority of participating countries have proposed this language, to safeguard our common cultural and scientific legacy:

“The objectives of this chapter are ... to maintain a balance between the rights of intellectual property holders and the legitimate interests of users and the community in subject matter protected by intellectual property; protect the ability of Parties to identify, promote access to and preserve the public domain; ensure that measures and procedures to enforce intellectual property rights do not themselves become barriers to legitimate trade.”

The United States blanketly opposes all of it. There shall be no balance, there shall be no promotion of monopoly-less trade (which, ironically, is anybody’s normal definition of free trade). There shall only be exclusive rights, which are typically held by the United States.

Also, the legal language is deliberately convoluted – the United States wants to give Hollywood the right to shut people off from the internet (and therefore most of their citizens’ rights) without due process, but this is hidden deep down in legal mumbo-jumbo. How many would recognise the terms “injunctive relief” or “liability conditions” as depriving citizens of their freedoms of speech, press, and assembly? I fear many people would be shocked once they realised what the legal language means – but at that point, it will be much harder to stop this idiocy.

This agreement is not about free trade. Copyright and patent monopolies, by definition, are the opposite of free trade; they are exclusive rights preventing free trade. This agreement is about asserting trade monopolies held by the United States and forcing everybody else to pay protection money or go to jail for disrespecting the powers that be.

This is not free trade. This is racketeering. And it is disgusting. 

RT

Next article – Madagascar runoff elections in December

Back to index page

Go to What's On Go to Shop at CPA Go to Australian Marxist Review Go to Join the CPA Go to Subscribe to the Guardian Go to the CPA Maritime Branch website Go to the Resources section of our web site Go to the PDF of the Hot Earth booklet go to the World Federation of Trade Unions web site go to the Solidnet  web site Go to Find out more about the CPA