Trans Pacific Partnership

I am extremely concerned about draft provisions in the "Trans Pacific Partnership" which is currently being negotiated in secret by the US with other countries.  As a whole, I believe the entire thrust of this agreement is toward diminishing the power of duly elected governments (both locally and nationally in the US) and in other countries, in favor of the power of the owners of large, multi-national corporations who are accountable only to their shareholders, in principle, and their executives, in practice.  I assume that Senator Durbin generally and uncritically ascribes to the notion that "What's good for GM is good for America", but if there is some room in his conscience for the vast damage and decay that has befallen many American people by this systemic abdication of democratic power, then clearly the TPP agreement will cause some alarm.

I know that possible efficiencies that could be created by some of the ideas behind the proposals in the TPP that I have read about. I think there are investments that could be made to the mutual benefit of all parties, but which are thwarted by the uncertainties or capriciousness of foreign (and domestic) governments.  But there is no prudent basis for concluding that all such investments which are profitable to the investor and investee are in the public interest and that local governments should have no grounds to regulate or restrict certain business activities which harm a community.  On the whole, I would strongly prefer that we err on the side of giving a democratic unit the benefit of the doubt as they attempt to balance the interests of their members and the economic effects of varying policies, even if this may, with some regularity, lead to non-optimal utilizations of capital.

For a list of specific provisions in the draft TPP that I object to, this article is relatively concise: http://www.yesmagazine.org/new-economy/trade-rule-illegal-favor-local-business-tpp-leak-wikileaks
1. Favoring local ownership is prohibited.
2. Corporations must be paid to stop polluting.
3. Three lawyers will decide who’s right in secret tribunals. (This already is the case with NAFTA. Read more here, if you are not already familiar, as John Kerry was not before he voted on NAFTA: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/18/us/review-of-us-rulings-by-nafta-tribunals-stirs-worries.html )
4. Speculative money must remain free
5. Corporate interests come before national ones

Given the financial, technological, and military power of the US, I would expect that the TPP will, on the whole, increase the wealth and income of the US more than it hurts it, as US investors sue and intimidate foreign governments who attempt to create or enforce regulations that protect their citizens (such as we have in the US, to some degree). However, I do not believe the US government should take it as its mission to "disrupt" other countries sovereignty for the purpose of marginally increasing the profits of US businesses. That's colonialism, plain and simple. Whatever material depravations US citizens may suffer as of present will not be remedied by the deregulation of foreign markets. I think it is entirely reasonable and responsible for us to assume that our well-being is a matter of our own efforts and agreements and to not assume that people in faraway lands will contort their economic systems to benefit us.

In a perfect world, I would like to see Senator Durbin forcefully and repeatedly denounce the TPP and its fundamental purpose, and to call on President Obama to explain to the country why this is of any benefit.  Short of that, I will continue to despair.