The Trans-Pacific Partnership - A Research Essay

Share Embed


Descrição do Produto

Daria A. Gyi UCL ID: 1000034 Monash ID: 28051262

Internal Assessment Task 4: Research Essay

The Trans-Pacific Partnership Draft: 7th October 2016 Final: 14th October 2016

The Trans-Pacific Partnership | MUF0131

List of Acronyms TPP

-

Trans-Pacific Partnership

TTIP

-

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

FTA

-

Free Trade Agreement

NAFTA

-

North American Free Trade Agreement

WTO

-

World Trade Organisation

UN

-

United Nations

WHO

-

World Health Organisation

ISDS

-

Investor-State Dispute Settlement

MNC

-

Multi National Corporation

2

The Trans-Pacific Partnership | MUF0131

Background on Free Trade and Free Trade Agreements As a result of globalisation, trade barriers have seen a decline as well as more economies integrating; due to demands for more fair and just governance by such nations many global institutions for governance have been created since the initial League of Nations in 1919 such as WTO, UN, WHO et cetera. Likewise, more globalisation led to the creation of ‘free trade’ and ‘free trade agreements’ (FTA); due to the growing demand for more international trade as countries found it difficult to maintain a state of autarky with lack of growth, income and resources. Currently 635 FTA’s exist, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership (WTO, 2016). FTA’s generally see to the reduction or elimination of quotas/tariffs and are ultimately for the benefit of the general public and consumers; more consumption, more variety and reduced prices. However, in recent years FTA’s have led to no benefit for ordinary people but act as cash cows for the corporate sector and bigger economies taking advantage over smaller ones.

3

The Trans-Pacific Partnership | MUF0131

(Source: Hovet, 2015)

The Trans-Pacific Partnership - As We Know It The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a free trade agreement made up of 12 countries: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, USA and Vietnam and is the largest since NAFTA - the largest failing FTA [refer to appendix] (DePillis, 2013). The key outcomes as stated by the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade are: opening new trade & investment opportunities, create new jobs, further integrate economies and promote & facilitate regional supply chains (ADFAT, 2016). The TPP was initially a four way agreement called ‘P4’ between Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore until USA joined and added more members to the pact due to the fear of China’s growing power economically (BBC, 2016). The TPP is also the companion agreement of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the USA and the EU (BBC, 2016). If the TPP proves successful, the benefits include a high boost in global trade & opening of protected economies, greater employment opportunities, higher standards of living and it will also seek to govern rights on non-physical intellectual goods/services. On the other hand concerns include loss of consumer sovereignty, the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) policies, more

4

The Trans-Pacific Partnership | MUF0131

pharmaceutical monopolies, loss of workers’ rights, loss of copyrights and threats to biodiversity (AFTINET, 2015).

Expected Positive Outcomes of the TPP Currently the TPP will affect some 18,000 tariffs as well as account for 61% world trade together with the TTIP, by eliminating tariffs it will enable firms to move into new markets as well as gain more from existing markets (Hufbauer & Cimino-Isaacs, 2015). For New Zealand alone it is expected to add $2.7 billion to the economy by 2030 and cut tariffs by $259 million (Sheperd, 2016). For the consumers, ‘cut prices and improved range of quality of goods and services’ - Gary Hufbauer an International Trade Expert from the Peterson Institute for International Economics (Dominguez, 2016). Protected economies such as Japan and Vietnam will benefit from more liberty and freedom as well as more trade with foreigners increasing their aggregate demand, providing more jobs and better wages. Vietnam’s GDP is expected to rise by 11% in the next 10 years once the TPP takes effect; the apparel industry to boom by 50% and seafood too will improve once the current tariffs of 6.4-7.2% are eliminated (Bondreau, 2015). Another important value in today’s world is intellectual property rights and the TPP will be the first agreement to provide rights for such enterprises and trade; regulations to protect consumers from fraudulent and deceptive commercial online activities and rules to make sure government’s don’t overrule cross border data-flows will take shape (Min, 2015). As said by US Secretary of State John Kerry - it is a truly “21st century agreement” (Hill, 2014). Other pros include bringing more parity by having an agreement with some of China’s key trading partners which will raise regulations and standards putting pressure on China to meet them and stop China from impeding MNC’s, similarly will it put pressure to improve standards in less developed members such as Vietnam (GlobalNet21, 2015).

The TPP - An Acronym for ‘The Race To The Bottom’, No Human Rights, Privatisation & MNC Takeovers To begin with for many years the TPP was negotiated in secrecy and most controversial parts only published by Wikileaks, when asked President Obama who has requested it be

5

The Trans-Pacific Partnership | MUF0131

fast-tracked responded “​If you are negotiating with 12 countries and there's no space for everyone to agree on the deal ... then it would never get done” (Spetalnick, 2015 & DePillis, 2013). A large dispute is against ISDS policies which enable foreign companies to sue local governments if local laws/policies change giving MNC’s especially more power to exploit natural resources, damage the environment and reap benefits of cheap labour as court cases go on, which normally go on for a while, and at the end even gain compensation from local governments which in fact is all taxpayer money: the Philip Morris case (refer to appendix). Economist Joseph Stiglitz argues that this is ‘the wrong side of globalisation’ as the focus of FTA’s was to reduce tariffs but now shifted to “non-tariff barriers” only on interests of MNC’s to maximise profits (Stiglitz, 2014). The race to the bottom has led to 20 million Americans currently unable to get jobs and also for those currently employed it is a constant battle to earn sufficiently and have job security, with the TPP more jobs will be outsourced to cheaper labour countries like Vietnam for apparel and Japan for automobiles (Stiglitz, 2014). The problem with the TPP is that it promotes practices that outsourced products are cheaper therefore people can buy more and this poses a threat to bargaining power of products produced in developed countries such as Australia and America leaving people with lower incomes. What’s worse is that the TPP aims to privatise many state owned enterprises and these are key disputes countries like Malaysia and Singapore had when signing this agreement, it aims to have anti-monopolistic policies and competitive practices to ensure fair prices however this may actually work the other way by providing unsavoury services to civilians especially as essential services have no substitutes (Elms, 2015). Human rights is another value violated by the TPP, it will initiate patent rights to exclusive pharmaceutical firms for over twenty years, therefore these firms can charge high prices for longer periods of time blocking other from making the same medicines at cheaper competitive prices, this then makes affordable healthcare unavailable to even more people especially in countries like USA where healthcare is already not state provided and for countries like Australia where it’s state provided these are increasing costs for the governmen - ultimately burdening the taxpayer further (AFTINET, 2015). Another rule

6

The Trans-Pacific Partnership | MUF0131

imposed by the TPP is that patent/copyright/trademark products may not parallel be circulating in one country and then be exported to another, this means that vital necessities such as drugs which are heavily patented may not be circulated out of the TPP (Schott, Kotschwar & Muir, 2013). Other problems with the TPP include the favouration of MNC’s over local SME’s, lack of protective labour rights and vague rights on protection of biodiversity and the environment but instead puts corporate interests first (Sifton, 2015 & Betts, 2015).

Reflecting on the Better of the Evils The TPP demonstrates potential to provide economic growth, provide jobs, increase general wellbeing as well as protect intellectual and other rights of corporations however at the sacrifice of government/state autonomy, consumer sovereignty and violations of human and environmental rights. The nature of the TPP is unclear but inclined towards something negative also as it was negotiated in secrecy for so long. It is equally arguable that stepping away from an opportunity to create a unique and strong economic fort in many aspects is evil and making a backward step towards further development - however so much is put at stake especially in the interests of ordinary civilians, it is pure evil to turn one’s back on humanity at the tempt of money. It is really a matter of picking the better of the evils.

7

The Trans-Pacific Partnership | MUF0131

Additional Thoughts on the TPP The NAFTA, the TPP and the TTIP are definitely very alike, what’s most notable is the fact that they are all creations of the USA. The TPP brands itself as “Made in America”, marketing it’s way into the hearts of millions of American’s as a truly American product. A product it certainly is. The TPP demonstrates America’s desperation to undo itself of many trade deficits, since 1976 they have been running on trade deficits due to high consumer products and oil imports (Trading Economics, 2016). America fears one country alone - China. Hence why the TPP does not include China, simply because they are looking for other markets where they can strengthen their position without falling in debt to more countries. Currently America buys goods on China’s current account whereas China recycles this money and buys off America’s capital account, so a home that once belonged to an American man is now in the hands of a Chinese. America will continue to buy their goods and China will continue to supply more goods then buy up more American assets with the dollars in hand; property, shares and companies et cetera and in time all of America will be in their hands. It only makes sense for the Americans to retaliate and create FTA’s in their favour giving them the income and security they need alas the TPP and TTIP was born.

8

The Trans-Pacific Partnership | MUF0131

References Australia Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2015, ​Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, viewed 5 October 2016, http://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/tpp/Pages/trans-pacific-partnership-agreement-tpp.asp x Australian Fair Trade & Investment Network (AFTINET) 2015, ​TPP: Corporate power versus peoples’ rights, viewed 5 October 2016, http://aftinet.org.au/cms/trans-pacific-partnership-agreement-tpp-tppa-2 BBC 2016, ‘TPP: What is it and why does it matter?’, ​Business, 27 July, viewed 5 October 2016, http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32498715 Bett, C 2015, ‘TPP 101 : A Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement Primer - For an American audience’, Scoop, 29 May, viewed 5 October 2016, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1505/S00147/tpp-101-a-trans-pacific-partnership-agree ment-primer-for-an-american-audience.htm Boudreau, J 2015, ‘The Biggest Winner From TPP Trade Deal May Be Vietnam’, Bloomberg, 8 October, viewed 5 October 2016, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-08/more-shoes-and-shrimp-less-china-r eliance-for-vietnam-in-tpp Carlsen, L 2013, ‘Under Nafta, Mexico Suffered, and the United States Felt Its Pain’, ​The New York Times, 24 November, viewed 10 October 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/11/24/what-weve-learned-from-nafta/undernafta-mexico-suffered-and-the-united-states-felt-its-pain DePillis, L 2013, ‘Everything you need to know about the Trans Pacific Partnership, ​The Washington Post, 11 December, viewed 5 October 2016, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/11/everything-you-need-toknow-about-the-trans-pacific-partnership/ Domiguez, G 2016, ‘The prons and cons of the Trans-Pacific Partnership pact’, ​Deutsche Welle, 4 February, viewed 5 October 2016, http://www.dw.com/en/the-pros-and-cons-of-the-trans-pacific-partnership-pact/a-1859714 9 Elms, D 2015, ‘TPP Impressions: Competition And State Owned Enterprises (SOEs)’, Asian Trade Centre, 17 November, viewed 6 October 2016, http://www.asiantradecentre.org/talkingtrade/2015/11/17/tpp-impressions-competition-and -state-owned-enterprises-soes GlobalNet21 2015, ‘​The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) will increase trade, but will it undermine democracy, public services, and the environment?’, ​Netivist, viewed 5 October 2016, 9

The Trans-Pacific Partnership | MUF0131

https://netivist.org/debate/tpp-pros-and-cons Government of Canada 2016, ‘North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)’, Canada.ca, 11 March, viewed 10 October 2016, http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/nafta-alen a/index.aspx?lang=eng Hill, J 2014, ‘ISDS: the devil in the trade deal’, ​ABC Radio National, 14 September, viewed 5 October 2016, http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/isds-the-devil-in-the-tr ade-deal/5734490 Hovet, K 2015, ‘US And Eleven Other Nations Reach Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement’, ​Immortal News, 5 October, viewed 10 October 2016, http://www.immortal.org/18183/us-eleven-nations-reach-trans-pacific-partnership-agreem ent/ Hufbauer, G C & Cimino-Isaacs, C 2015, ​How will TPP and TTIP Change the WTO System?, e-book, Oxford University Press, Oxford, viewed 5 October 2016, http://jiel.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/3/679.abstract Hurst, D 2015, ‘Australia wins international legal battle with Philip Morris over plain packaging’, ​The Guardian, 18 December, viewed 6 October 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/18/australia-wins-international-leg al-battle-with-philip-morris-over-plain-packaging Min, C Y 2015, ‘10 benefits the Trans-Pacific Partnership will bring Singapore’, ​The Straits Time, 16 November, viewed 5 October 2016, http://www.straitstimes.com/business/economy/10-benefits-the-trans-pacific-partnershipwill-bring-singapore Schott, J J & Kotschwar, B & Muir, J 2013, ‘Understanding The Trans-Pacific Partnership’, Peterson Institute for International Economics, viewed 6 October 2016 https://piie.com/publications/chapters_preview/6727/04iie6727.pdf Sheperd, S 2016, ‘At a glance: The pros and cons of the TPP’, ​Newshub, 3 February, viewed 5 October 2016, http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/at-a-glance-the-pros-and-cons-of-the-tpp-2016020318 Sifton, J. 2015, ‘Sure, TPP Is 'Win-Win'... Unless you care about human rights’, ​The Diplomat, 12 May, viewed 5 October 2016, http://thediplomat.com/2015/05/sure-tpp-is-win-win-unless-you-care-about-human-rights/ Spetalnick, M 2015, ‘Obama defends TPP secrecy, says now is chance for debate’, Reuters, 20 November, viewed 5 October 2016, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-trade-tpp-usa-idUSKCN0T91GQ20151120

10

The Trans-Pacific Partnership | MUF0131

Stiglitz, J 2014, ‘On the wrong side of globalization’, Opinionator, 15 March, viewed 5 October 2016, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com//2014/03/15/on-the-wrong-side-of-globalization/ Tienhaara, K 2015, ‘The dismissal of a case against plain cigarette packaging is good news for taxpayers’, ​The Age, 20 December, viewed 6 October 2016, http://www.theage.com.au/comment/the-dismissal-of-a-case-against-plain-cigarette-packa ging-is-good-news-for-taxpayers-20151218-glrb53.html Trading Economics 2016, ‘United States Balance of Trade 1950-2016’, ​Trading Economics, viewed 10 October 2016, http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-trade University of Pennsylvania 2014, ‘NAFTA, 20 Years Later: Do the Benefits Outweigh the Costs?’, ​Knowledge@Wharton, 19 February, viewed 10 October 2016, http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/nafta-20-years-later-benefits-outweigh-costs/ Wallach, L 2016, ‘Public Interest Takes a Hit Even When Philip Morris’ Investor-State Attack on Australia Is Dismissed’, ​The Huffington Post, 1 May, viewed 6 October 2016, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-wallach/public-interest-takes-a-h_b_8918010.html World Trade Organisation (WTO) 2016, ‘Facts and figures’, ​Regional Trade Agreements: Facts and Figures, viewed 5 October 2016, https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/region_e/regfac_e.htm

11

The Trans-Pacific Partnership | MUF0131

Appendix NAFTA - What came out of it? The North American Free Trade Agreement began on January 1st 1994 with aims of creating the largest free trade agreement in the world at the time and improving prosperity economically for all three members of the trilateral agreement - Canada, Mexico and USA (Government of Canada, 2016). Overall the GDP combined was $8 trillion in 1993 and in 2015 was at $20.6 trillion (Government of Canada, 2016). Despite such big figures, unemployment and lowered standards of life are more visible effects. NAFTA enabled highly subsidised American corn to enter Mexican markets, this severely affected smaller local farmers as they couldn’t compete with such low costs of production hence driving some 20 million people to suffer from ‘food poverty’ as described by Laura Carlsen, a director from America’s program at the Centre for International Policy (Carlsen, 2013). ‘Food poverty’ has led to 25% of the population living without basic food access and 20% of all Mexican children malnourished (Carlsen, 2013). An impact on the USA as a result of NAFTA was job loss, especially in the high-wage manufacturing sector as many companies found themselves relocating to cheaper Mexican wages: ‘the U.S. share of all North American automotive jobs, which dropped from 64.5% in 2000 to just 53.4% in 2012. By 2012, 39.1% of all automotive jobs in North America were in Mexico, up from 27.1% of such jobs in 2000’ (University of Pennsylvania, 2014). Other side effects of the NAFTA include: farmers losing land to MNC’s which supported their families for generations, consumers lose to the battle of overused chemicals and GM crops produced by MNC’s, environmental harm and irreversible damage such as gene pollution in crops, more poverty which leads to more crime, drugs, arms & human trafficking and illegal border crossings et cetera and the list goes on (Carlsen, 2013). Ever since, the Obama administration promises of restructuring the terms of the NAFTA as well as push for more FTA’s such as the TPP.

12

The Trans-Pacific Partnership | MUF0131

The Philip Morris Case A famous example of the ISDS policies in effect is the Philip Morris tobacco company case, in which they took to courts the Australian government for changing cigarette packaging regulations in 2011, they went to international tribunals to claim compensation for losses of their subsidiary operations in Hong Kong (Tienhaara, 2015). Australia and Hong Kong had a bilateral agreement signed in 1993 once regulations changed in 2011 forcing all cigarettes packets to significantly brand the health hazards of smoking, Philip Morris Asia Limited challenged the Australian government and filed action against them using investor-state dispute settlement policies that a ban of their trademark packaging is a breach of the Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement between Hong Kong (Hurst, 2015). Australian Senator Peter Whish-Wilson describes this event as Australia “dodging a bullet” but nevertheless still signing agreements that give ​“the right to sue us for making laws that might impinge on a foreign corporation’s profits” in reference to the TPP (Hurst, 2015)​. ​Despite Philip Morris losing this case it still cost the Australian taxpayers over $50 million, including paying three ‘judges’ who were actually private lawyers roughly $375 an hour throughout the four year court ordeal (Wallach, 2016). The effects of this case led to other countries holding back their changes in policies regarding cigarette packaging such as New Zealand, who waited to see Australia’s outcome (Wallach, 2016). Whilst this was going many other countries, especially in the EU, had successfully implemented similar policies as interests in protecting public health outweigh corporate interests and ISDS policies don’t exist. It is clear that ISDS policies pose a threat on local governmental jurisdictions and can be costly as well. ​Similarly, many other MNC’s can sue governments for altering environmental policies, labour regulations et cetera especially when governments require standardised labelling and increases in food safety standards (AFTINET, 2015).

13

The Trans-Pacific Partnership | MUF0131

Bibliography ‘Critics’ concerns about the Trans-Pacific Partnership are overblown’ 2015, ​The Washington Post, 4 Feb, viewed 3 October 2016, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/critics-concerns-about-the-trans-pacific-partners hip-are-overblown/2015/02/04/91dd4df2-abdc-11e4-9c91-e9d2f9fde644_story.html Goodwin, M & Burr, D ​The Trans Pacific Partnership and "Free Trade", Economix, viewed 3 October 2016, http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/ It’s our future 2012, ​The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA), viewed 3 October 2016, http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/what-is-the-tppa/ Ivanovitch, M 2016, ‘US trade deficits are killing growth and profits’, ​CNBC, 18 April, viewed 10 October 2016, http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/18/us-trade-deficits-are-killing-growth-and-profits.html Office of the United States Representative 2016, ‘The Trans-Pacific Partnership’, Executive Office of the President, viewed 10 October 2016, https://ustr.gov/tpp/ Orphanides, A 2015, ‘Joseph Stiglitz on the Trans-Pacific Partnership: "This Is A Big Deal"’, ​Truthout, 19 March, viewed 4 June, http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/29740-joseph-stiglitz-on-the-trans-pacific-partnership -this-is-a-big-deal ‘Trans-Pacific Partnership’ 2015, ​Wikipedia, wiki article, viewed 3 October 2016, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership Vidot, A 2015, ‘Trade Minister Andrew Robb says Trans-Pacific Partnership deal could be struck within weeks’, ​ABC Rural, 5 Feb, viewed 3 October 2016, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-05/andrew-robb-believes-trade-agreement-could-beweeks-away/6071672 Worstall, T 2016, ‘That China Trade Deficit Comes Back To The US: $110 Billion Into Real Estate Alone’, ​Forbes, 16 May, viewed 10 October 2016, http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/05/16/that-china-trade-deficit-comes-back-t o-the-us-110-billion-into-real-estate-alone/#2f363c542fae

14

Lihat lebih banyak...

Comentários

Copyright © 2017 DADOSPDF Inc.