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.