What do you really know about the TPP?

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)

Bruce Hudson has been listening to the many critical voices of the TPP. The latest release from the United Nations inspired him to share his views.

United Nations is concerned about human rights

In a report released earlier today, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed concern over adverse impact of free trade and investment agreements on human rights:

“While trade and investment agreements can create new economic opportunities, we draw attention to the potential detrimental impact these treaties and agreements may have on the enjoyment of human rights as enshrined in legally binding instruments, whether civil, cultural, economic, political or social. Our concerns relate to the rights to life, food, water and sanitation, health, housing, education, science and culture, improved labour standards, an independent judiciary, a clean environment and the right not to be subjected to forced resettlement." (Original release)

"Leaders of TPP member states" by Gobierno de Chile  14.11.2010 Gira a Asia.  Licensed under CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

I want to be one of the first to agree with the sentiments of the United Nations, that any erosion of human rights like they mention above should be fought at every quarter. But something doesn't fit here. Are the leaders of USA, New Zealand, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam actually proposing introducing an agreement that will result in such a travesty? Will they effectively commit political suicide?
Something is very wrong with this picture. At their very worst, politicians of the few countries I know do not commit political suicide. This is consistent across the board, from the very best, to the most corrupt, politicians universally want to hold onto power.

Something simply doesn't fit

I was taught as a child by my teachers that Christopher Columbus' crew thought the world was flat. Since then, I have spoken to many people from Russia to United States, from England to Argentina who were taught the same lesson. You might say that the "fact" that they feared dropping off the edge of the world was well established. Except it wasn't. Because it wasn't a fact. Instead, it was the invention by writer Irving Washington, in his novelization of Columbus in the early 19th century.

Why am I writing about Columbus? Because it proves the point that sometimes, just sometimes, it's not the emperor wearing any clothes, it's the people. Don't get me wrong, I do support the concerns in the UN release above. However, I do not support it's application with regards to the misinformation that seems to spiral into the absurd. For example, the recent claim that the TPP is a US invention designed create corporate slaves of the other 11 nations. In the US, Claims are being made that the TPP is a ploy by socialist and communist nations to exert their control over US domestic policy. I do feel qualified to comment, as I have been following international trade agreements for a little over a decade, and at times have worked directly to meet the requirements of technical trade barriers.

Secrecy

Yes there is some secrecy with regards to the TPP. However, in the hysteria that seems to surround the agreements, the secrecy has grown to include provisions that haven't even been written.

For example, we know in the TPP there are provisions on currency manipulations, but don't know the exact final details, it's likely, given the public information by member states, that final agreement to these new provisions have yet to be reached. The possibility for 'insider trading' if you will, is very real and some secrecy is legitimate.

Further, most agreements of this type are not made public before the parties agree. The TPP will still need scrutiny and ratification by the normal political process. This process is well established for all member nations.

Wikileaks

I was recently party to a conversation against the TPP. "Wikileaks" one said. Two others nodded in approval, as if a huge point had been made. Sometimes hyperbole is spread by journalists interviewing journalists with their authoritative diction, while harboring alternate views and insufficient qualifications to grasp the true meaning of highly exciting breaking news of leaked documents. There is a real danger to form opinions on incomplete and sometimes irrelevant information.
A quick check will show that though there is some secrecy, there is a surprising amount of official information available, including government websites like Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada. Statements are made there claiming the Canadian government has made efforts to keep the Canadian public informed. That is evidenced by their calls for submissions, the provision of information relating to the government's position.

A considered and educated voice

In searching for an independent and considered voice, I found what seems to me to be a good summary of the TPP from economics Prof. Francis Ahking from the University of Connecticut:

"TTP’s objective is to promote free trade and investments among its partners by removing barriers such as tariffs and quotas. But TPP’s coverage is much broader than previous trade accords, as it also covers currency manipulations, state-owned enterprises, regulatory protocols, and intellectual property rights, to name just a few. The proposed agreement is an outgrowth of the 2006 Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement between Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, and Singapore. The U.S. began talks with these countries in 2008, to liberalize trade in financial services. Those talks evolved into negotiations for the TPP. Currently, besides the U.S., seven other countries are seeking to join the partnership: Australia, Peru, Vietnam, Malaysia, Mexico, Canada, and Japan. Several other countries have expressed varying degrees of interest but are not parties to the negotiations." (UConn Today David Bauman interview)

A copy of the 2005 agreement on which the TPP is based can be found on the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade official website here.

Big business?

What is very clear is that the original 2005 agreement is not an initiative by the US or big business to subvert the democratic process of other nations. In the US, their release earlier today is all about the removal of tariffs, though omits that the US already has free trade agreements with several TPP member states. However the basis for this new agreement was signed in 2005, and predates the US's involvement. In reading some the leaked documents, not all of the concerns regarding the TPP being pro big business hold up, let alone are a potential erosion of human rights like in the United Nation's statement. In United Nations defense, they did say "potential detrimental impact". Most of the army of protesters, bloggers and journalists are more forthright. There are provisions that restrict corporate misadventure, and make companies more answerable to local laws. That matters little to the protesters, whose focus leaves little room for anything that doesn't fit ideologies ranging from 'human farming', to the supposed similarities to NAFTA. For some, the TPP is going to accelerate our environmental doom, in spite of being the first agreement of it's type to have provisions designed to be positive for the environment.
In fact their voices are so veracious, it may be getting in the way of any reasoned discussion of what improvements can be made to the current way international relations are conducted. In the final analysis, I don't believe that the TPP is likely to be an agreement that will diminish human rights in any meaningful way. Nor do I believe it will end the sovereignty of nations.

Where to from here?

One strong message that the anti TPP people make very validly is that things cannot continue as they are. International relations are a fact of modern life and have accelerated with the arrival of the internet. There is a well established need to not just tackle both old and new trade issues, but move beyond trade and deal with social issues and the environment. And the evidence supports that is exactly what the TPP is designed to do.
If voices are truly to gain credence when criticizing the TPP, then surely they must propose a better alternative. Otherwise we are left with the status quo, which history may prove was the worst option of all.

_____________________________________________________

Bruce Hudson has over 10 years of following international trade agreements, having worked with businesses who trade internationally for a similar time. He is founder and CEO of Gantt NZ Limited and Enzman, a small marketing company dedicated to growing client's businesses. He is currently writing a book on Information Security, due out in September 2015. He may be emailed at bruce@enzman.com.

What is a "free" trade agreement (FTA), anyway?

Cartoon source

FTAs are not the 'freedom to trade', or if it was, that horse has long since bolted. Maybe it's freedom from subsidies? It's certainly not the freedom to trade without tariffs, goods still have sales tax applied to them and attract other fees.

I have been following developments with international agreements since the late 1990s, having spent some time working directly with exporters, so have more than a passing interest.

I'm responding to the seemingly endless tirade of anti TPP articles that are we are fed by a media that seems sympathetic to a 'the cause'. A recent example is in Scoop an independent online agency, and the NZ Herald, NZ's largest newspaper.

Both would to well do mention if an article is an opinion piece, as opinions are not the best source of balanced perspectives. This is evidenced to the reference to Kelsey's article (and support of) It's Our Future's website in the Scoop article, or the increased rhetorical nature of her posts on The Daily Blog, dedicated to lobbying against the TPPA.

The writer of both articles is professor Jane Kelsey who seems to have become a 'go to authority' on the TPP, in spite of her opposition to it. Kelsey has publicly campaigned against the TPPA and is self described as anti globalization. (Is that the same as being against international trade?)  The articles are not presented as an opinion piece, the usual practice when media deviate from balanced journalism.

Relying on writers like Kesley who have a declared bias to be informed about the TPPA leaves me unimpressed. Neutral, let alone positive voices the TPPA are difficult to find, pro TPPA statements are restricted to sound bytes by politicians, who remained tight lipped about details, as they have agreed. Clearly there are some positive aspects, as the TPPA pursues simplification of international trade. It promotes all member nations to have a minimum wage (which 11 of the 12 already have), has clauses relating to the environment (having any international agreement is a big step forward).

Good inclusions include provisions on the environment, criticized because they will be difficult to enforce, a nice distraction from the fact that the existence of such provisions are a step in the right direction.

Those government leaders would hardly commit political suicide over this agreement by signing a thoroughly rotten anti people initiative that ruins democratic process - like the anti TPPA people would have us believe. Their thinly veiled inference is that government is in bed with big business - but NEWSFLASH - this agreement is about international agreement that affects the way international business is completed. For the TPPA, that unusually includes provisions to do with the environment, labor and intellectual property. And speaking of democracy, we know that governments will be ratifying the agreement - that's their job in NZ's case they were democratically elected to do.

Some countries are punitive in their application of tariffs, and more complex rules favors those companies that have the resources to overcome barriers. I know this because I have worked in teams that dealt with compliance.

So which is better, simpler international trade or more complex? The additional costs from travel to testing has not only a direct cost, but an environmental one. An example is goods that take an indirect route into a market, to avoid a tariff. Simplicity for international trade is usually better.

What's interesting is that there is criticism of secrecy, then statements criticizing details. Which is it? Can the writers have it both ways? Are the writers blind to this contradiction? Also, big points are made from data sourced public statements of negotiating positions, or worse, out of date leaked documents.

The TPPA has the potential that a more international approach can be taken, that improvements can be made to the way we do business internationally - and to that extent new ground is being broken. It is a starting point.

I sometimes try to consider exactly what "Free Trade" is - even though there are international agreements that carry that name (or label), I am left with no clear answer. Most are a simplification of trade rules, or reduction (not removal) of tariffs so that there is a level, or close to level playing field.

Most of all, what I want is more balanced reporting on the TPPA.

_____________________________________________________

Bruce Hudson founder and CEO of Gantt NZ Limited and offshoot Enzman, a small marketing company dedicated to growing client's businesses. He is currently writing a book on Information Security, due out in September 2015.

Marketing tips: learn from political activists who get it wrong

Lobbyists protesting Nestle for their bottled water.

I've been corresponding on social media with a friend who is vegan, and we've been having some very interesting discussions. (No I'm not vegan, but defend people's right to choose.) With the latest discussion, the political aspect morphed into one about being active politically.

This goes to the heart of marketing, about convincing others to take action.

The cause he invited me to sign was a petition Governor Brown to stop exporting alfalfa to Asia because of the drought. As I laid out in another blog, I wouldn't be supporting the petition anytime soon, drawing the comparison that you might as well have a petition to give Californian fish bicycles. The exact points can be made with protesting Nestle's bottled water on the basis of water use.

Part of the reason I didn't sign was that the online petition made some fundamental marketing blunders - while the facts may have been correct, the conclusions the petitioner reaches are 'extraordinary' and not in a good way. The petitioner had lost the context within the big picture, Governor Brown necessarily has to concern himself with the thing that make a big difference.

My points made, can be summed up with the following:

1. Set written objectives. Drill down to what your core objectives are, and state them clearly. Frequently assess whether or not your actions are getting you closer to your objectives.
2. Research thoroughly; spending your time on initiatives that won't make a difference is a waste of your efforts - fight the big battle.
3. Pick your battles. Stack the cards in your favor by selecting those you have a fair or better chance of effecting real change. For example, encourage non vegan people to eat less meat etc, rather than to become vegan - which is a harder sell. The harder sell can come when the customer is ready.
4. Keep high standards of information. Make sure that not only that the facts are right, that conclusions are logical, they are presented clearly and are always voiced in terms of the bigger picture - the things that are important to the customer.
5. Protect your credibility. This is extremely important. The previous three points are ultimately about protecting your credibility, so if completed with tact and respect, the stature and reach your voice has will grow exponentially, and you will be seen as someone who helps effect positive change.

An article in a Southern Californian paper does a far better job of ticking the boxes - it's a far clearer message, and asks for a realistic action. It's interesting to note that if meat and dairy consumption were reduced, then the Californian water woes would improve overnight. Reducing meat and dairy is a smaller step and a more likely of success than battling to prohibit alfalfa exports to Asia.

And there are direct parallels in marketing, as most seasoned marketers will be well aware of. Even consumers are familiar with price leaders, the amazing deal designed to wildly increase sales of discounted products, with the knowledge that once consumers have their wallet out, more purchases often follow.

Lobbyists please take note.

_____________________________________________________

Bruce Hudson founder and CEO of Gantt NZ Limited and offshoot Enzman, a small marketing company dedicated to growing client's businesses. He is also writing a book on Information Security, due out in September 2015.