Democracy Now!のインタビューで、スティグリッツがTPPを批判している(H/T Economist's View)。スティグリッツは以前からこの記事などでTPP批判を展開しているが、今回のインタビューで改めて自分の論点をまとめている。

The trade agreements of the past were mainly focused on lowering tariffs. And as tariffs came down, you got more intense competition. Consumers benefited from access to goods at lower prices. Tariffs are pretty low now. And the areas where they are not low are what we call sensitive areas, political forces are very strong. TPP is not going to lower the tariffs on most of those. So it’s not going to be—that’s not the center of what this new trade agreement’s about. It’s going to be about things like regulation. And there, the alignment is a little different. Corporations on both sides of the Pacific have an interest at lowering regulatory standards—to protect the environment, to protect consumers, to protect workers, to protect health. But ordinary citizens, our society, will suffer. So you can get corporations on both sides pushing an agenda that will be increasing corporate profits at the cost of the well-being of people on both sides of the Pacific.


Let me give you one example of—two examples of things that are, you know, very critical in this agreement. Access to generic medicines. You know, the huge disparity in prices between the cost of production and what they’re charging used to be just for AIDS drugs; now it’s for cancer drugs, other drugs—life-saving drugs. And this agreement will make it more difficult to have access to those life-saving drugs.
Another example. There are these provisions that have nothing, really, to do with trade. They’re called investment protection, investment agreements. But they’re not really—they’re sold as protecting property rights, making the economy more efficient. We’re trying to put the same thing in an agreement with Europe. Europe’s reaction is: "What are you talking about? We have as strong property rights as you do in the United States." It’s not about property rights. And the fact that we’re putting it in the European agreement shows that. What it is about is undermining regulatory protections.
So one example of what’s going on in a provision that’s basically the same in Uruguay. Uruguay president met with Obama just recently, and he raised this issue, because it’s very, very important. Uruguay has been concerned about the impact of cigarettes on the health of their citizens. Cigarettes cause people to die. Cigarettes cause people to have health problems, which use a lot of resources. So just like Mayor Bloomberg has been pushing to kick cigarettes, so did Uruguay. WHO praised it. World Health Organization said, "You’re doing exactly the right thing." Philip Morris is suing Uruguay under an investment agreement. It says, "This interferes with our basic right to sell products to kill people." It’s like the Opium War 150 years ago, where the West went to war because China said, "We don’t want opium," and we said, "That interferes with the basic right to trade."
もう一つの事例は、実際には貿易と全く関係の無い条項が入っている、という話です。それは投資保護、投資協定と呼ばれています。しかし実態は違います。それらは財産権を保護し、経済をより効率的にする、と喧伝されています。同じ条項を欧州との協定に盛り込もうとしたところ、欧州の反応は「何を言っているのだ? 我々にはあなた方米国と同じくらい強力な財産権がある」というものでした。本当の狙いは財産権ではないのです。欧州との協定にそれを盛り込もうとしたことにそのことが表れています。規制による保護を弱めることが本当の狙いなのです。


AMY GOODMAN: So what’s the U.S. response, with the Uruguayan president meeting with Obama? I mean, here in the United States we have severe restrictions around cigarettes.

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Change the topic, you know, going back to the importance of trade. You know, it’s the platitudes about the importance of trade and not looking at the details of how American people and people in the countries around the world are going to be affected by these trade agreements. You know—


ウルグアイの大統領がオバマ大統領に会った時の米国の反応はどういったものだったのでしょうか? 米国内では煙草に関して厳しい規制が敷かれていますが。


But evidently, the corporations have had access to a lot of the details of the provision. It’s just not civil society, the rest of our society—not even Congress. So, it gives you a feeling that what’s going on is a deal. The corporations make campaign contributions. The corporations get a deal that increases their profits. And citizens, the environment, health, both sides of the Pacific, suffer. And that’s why I’ve been skeptical.
At the very least, we need a open debate about each of the provisions. And we aren’t going to get that if we don’t have transparency. We won’t get that out of fast track, because what fast track says: You take the package as a whole. And then you put everything together, and everybody says, well, yes, but we—you know, you get all the forces on one side, anybody that objects to that provision about cigarettes, and say, "Well, you have to understand we’ll fix that later. But the gains are too great to sacrifice the whole deal." I think we need to have a discussion of each of the provisions before, not in this fast-track provision that says you can’t amend it.