Unhappy with trade proposal


President Obama will be traveling to Asia soon. His goal: to pressure the other countries involved in Trans-Pacific Partnership trade talks to sign-off on what I believe to be a bunch of U.S. corporate demands.

This proposed 12-country NAFTA-on-steroids free trade deal is not, I believe, mainly about trade. I believe it would implement new corporate investor rights that promote job offshoring and empower attacks on countries' environmental and consumer safety laws, ban buy-local policies and raise medicine prices. No wonder other countries are objecting, and many in Congress, too.

Now the administration is trying to overcome this opposition by making foreign policy claims for why the partnership is needed. These same claims were made for past trade deals. I believe time has proven them to be false.

Whenever a president cannot convince the public to support a trade deal based on economic arguments, we end up with these same claims: absent this agreement, there will be instability abroad, our enemies will win and U.S. security will be threatened.

Don't buy the bogus foreign policy argument. It's meant to distract us from what I believe will happen: the trade agreement threatens our jobs, access to affordable medicine, the environment, and more.

The partnership and other trade deals should be debated on the merits of actual provisions, not on scare tactic and baseless foreign policy arguments. And on its merits, I find Trans-Pacific Partnership is not in our national interest.

Roxanne Chinook


Bellingham Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service