Writing American Laws in Geneva

“They’re making this stuff up. No trade agreement is going to force us to change our laws,” President Obama claimed in May 2015 in response to critics’ warnings that the Trans-Pacific Partnership could subvert U.S. regulations.

Unfortunately for Obama, free trade agreements like the TPP can and do force the U.S. to change its laws.

An issue of semantics in the extreme, the claim that no supranational entity is going to physically or even legally force the U.S. to change its laws is technically correct. But it is technically correct in the same way that it’s correct to say no one is actually forced to pay the mafia protection money. In reality, you must act or face dire consequences. In the case of trade, the threat is clear: Change your laws or pay up to countries that just won a complaint against you.

In December 2015, as part of the omnibus spending bill, Congress repealed the Country Of Origin Labeling law. It did so after the World Trade Organization authorized over $1 billion in annual sanctions against the U.S. until the rule was repealed.

The broad bipartisan support for the law, which mandated that beef, pork and lamb products carry labels detailing the meat’s country of origin to protect the American consumer, meant nothing to Canada and Mexico. They challenged the law for creating an unfair trade barrier to their ability to sell meat in the U.S. market.

[lz_bulleted_list title=”WTO Dispute Settlements at a Glance” source=”www.wto.org”] 124 complaints launched against U.S.|Most frequent complainants are E.U., Canada, South Korea, China, Mexico, and Brazil|At least 40 complaints so far resulted in amendments to U.S. law or practice|In five cases, WTO authorized complainants to take retaliatory action against U.S. for failing to obey rulings[/lz_bulleted_list]

The World Trade Organization ruled against the U.S. in May 2015. In December it finally authorized the imposition of sanctions against the U.S. by Canada and Mexico, which in turn spurred congressional action.

Unfortunately for America, allowing American consumers to make informed choices about beef and pork products isn’t the only thing that has been declared a violation of free trade.

In November 2015, the WTO ruled in favor of Mexico in a challenge to America’s “dolphin-safe” labeling for tuna. “Dolphin-safe” refers to fishing methods that do not endanger dolphins. In place since 1990, these labels on tuna products contributed to a 97 percent drop in tuna-fishing-related dolphin deaths in the Pacific, according to the Sierra Club.

But mandating dolphin-safe labels is a “technical barrier to trade” according to the WTO. In the world of free trade deals, the American public’s desire to consume ethically-sourced tuna is trumped by Mexico’s desire to make money off the American public, Flipper be damned.

In 1994, a GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) panel, the WTO’s predecessor, ruled against U.S. Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency laws. The E.U. complained that America’s fuel efficiency standards were more difficult for European car manufacturers to meet, hence the U.S. regulations violated GATT’s rules barring preferential treatment to a particular market.

In 1998, the WTO ruled against section 609 of US Public Law 101–102, which prohibited the import of shrimp harvested with technology that may adversely affect certain sea turtles, after the legislation was challenged by India, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Thailand. The U.S. amended the law accordingly.

[lz_related_box id=”97291″]

The U.S. Clean Air Act was also altered at the behest of the WTO. The 1990 legislation, which mandated that oil refiners reduce olefin levels in gasoline by 1995, included a provision allowing for a three-year grace period for domestic companies to comply with the new regulations. The law was challenged by both Venezuela and Brazil, and the WTO ruled in their favor.

Indeed, free trade agreements effectively render illegal much legislation meant to support U.S. industries over foreign competitors. A “Buy California” bill was vetoed by then-Gov. Gray Davis due to concerns that its passage “could result in costly legal challenges, retaliation by other states and nations, and bid protests from those claiming the preference should be granted and those objecting to it.”

So-called free trade deals are anything but free. By entering into binding international agreements designed to eliminate as many barriers to free trade as possible, countries like the United States are effectively forced to surrender their economic national sovereignty in the name of cooperation.

Laws desired by the American people and drafted, voted on, and enacted by their elected representatives become subject to the approval of foreign governments and foreign corporations, should they revolve in any way around the subject of international trade.