Close to a decade in the making, the most important trade pact in a generation moved closer to becoming a reality on Monday.
Thanks to the alphabet soup of acronyms and the byzantine path the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has taken, and the secrecy in which talks have been conducted, many people have ignored the pact. However, as a deal gets closer to being sealed, tempers are fraying and TPP is set to make its way up the news agenda.
Here is a guide through the maze.
Illustration: Mountain People
In a final round of negotiations, Pacific trade ministers from Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the US and Vietnam reached the widest-ranging trade deal in a generation, covering everything from pharmaceuticals and banking to milk. The terms of the agreement will now have to be approved by each of the TPP countries.
Who is missing?
The notable exception is China. In part, the deal is meant to tackle China’s dominance in the region. China has its own trade plans under discussion, but could one day be part of the TPP.
Will the US sign off?
It likely will — although it will not be without friction. Hoping to avoid a long, drawn-out fight over the TPP, US President Barack Obama asked the US Congress to give him Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) to negotiate the trade agreement. TPA gives the US Congress the ability to review and vote for or against a final trade agreement, but they are not able to amend it or filibuster. Getting the TPA through the congress was not easy, but after weeks of back and forth the bill was finally passed in late June.
Who is against this trade deal?
Among those speaking out against the agreement are unions, workers’ rights groups and environmentalists, all of whom have traditionally been supporters of Obama. Many in the president’s own party — including US senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren — oppose the trade deal. Free speech advocates and financial reformers are also worried about the deal.
Warren is specifically afraid that if it is passed, a future president could use the TPP to change regulations like the Dodd-Frank Act that are meant to safeguard US investors.
In a statement issued on Monday, Sanders said that he is “disappointed, but not surprised by the decision to move forward on the disastrous Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement that will hurt consumers and cost American jobs.”
“Wall Street and other big corporations have won again. It is time for the rest of us to stop letting multinational corporations rig the system to pad their profits at our expense,” he said.
He added that the agreement was akin to failed trade deals with Mexico and China that cost the US millions of jobs and vowed to do what he could to defeat the agreement in Congress.
Who supports the agreement?
Big businesses like Nike — from whose headquarters Obama controversially chose to shill for the deal — support the agreement because it would reduce the tariffs on the shoes they produce abroad and then ship to the US. For context, it is important to note that 98 percent of shoes sold in the US are imported.
They also say free trade will benefit US companies and create more jobs at home.
The deal would clarify trade rules that currently ensnare businesses large and small in red tape and would arguably make trading in the Pacific Rim far easier.
Did the corporations lobby for passage of the deal?
They sure did.
An analysis of US Federal Election Commission data showed that corporate members of the US Business Coalition for TPP donated more than US$1 million to members of US Senate campaigns between January and March, when fast-tracking the TPP was being debated.
Here is what that analysis found:
Out of the total US$1,148,971 given, an average of US$17,676 was donated to each of the 65 “yes” votes.
The average Republican member received US$19,673 from corporate TPP supporters.
The average Democrat received US$9,689 from those same donors.
Was there not another agreement that promised much the same, but cost the US jobs?
Yes. That was the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), signed in 1994 between the US, Canada and Mexico.
As Sanders said, post-NAFTA the US lost nearly 700,000 jobs and more than 60 percent of the lost jobs were in manufacturing.
Obama is really tired of people making the NAFTA comparison.
While speaking at Nike headquarters in May, he told the audience that NAFTA was a different agreement, passed 20 years ago.
“In fact, this agreement fixes some of what was wrong with NAFTA by making labor and environmental provisions actually enforceable,” he said.
He said the agreement will not cost US jobs and will raise standards for workers in countries like Vietnam, where many large US companies currently outsource work.
So who is right and what does the agreement actually say?
Well, that is the thing: No one knows. The agreement is secret. The most detail people have had so far comes from WikiLeaks, which leaked chapters on intellectual property proposals that have caused consternation online.
“If you read, write, publish, think, listen, dance, sing or invent; if you farm or consume food; if you’re ill now or might one day be ill, the TPP has you in its crosshairs,” WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange said.
Meanwhile, Obama said that the deal is not secret at all.
How?
He says that people will get to see it before he officially signs off on it.
This is what he said in May: “You’ve got some critics saying that any deal would be rushed through; it’s a secret deal, people don’t know what’s in it. This is not true. Any agreement that we finalize with the other 11 countries will have to be posted online for at least 60 days before I even sign it. Then it would go to Congress — and you know they’re not going to do anything fast. So there will be months of review. Every T crossed, every I dotted. Everybody is going to be able to see exactly what’s in it.”
What happens now?
Now, people wait for the 30 chapters of the agreement to be posted. Everyone — from lawmakers to unions to lobbyists — is eager to get their hands on a copy of the deal to see what exactly it contains.
“We ask the administration to release the text immediately, and urge legislators to exercise great caution in evaluating the TPP,” Richard Trumka, president of AFL-CIO, the largest labor union federation in the US, said on Monday.
After it receives the text of the agreement, Congress will have 90 days to review it before a straight yes-or-no vote. Thanks to the TPA, there will be no amendments and no filibusters.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing