Economy
Trans-Pacific Partnership: gains and losses in sight The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)’s major goal may be to promote international trade, but observers say that it could leave winners and losers in its wake. This article is put together by Angelica Buan and Elaine Cotoner.
“..TPP will hinge the US’s continued engagement in Asia, to ensure stability in the region..”
T
he Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a free-trade agreement that removes tariffs and other barriers amongst the member nations: the US, Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam, Singapore, Brunei, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Chile and Peru. The signatory group collectively holds 40% of the world’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Geographically, the partner-countries (excluding the US, Canada and Mexico), border the Pacific Ocean and have a collective population of 800 million people. The TPP is an expansion of the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPSEP or P4) which was signed by Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore in 2005. Participation since then expanded and other countries started joining, starting 2008. The US was the first country to expand the group in February 2008. After years of negotiations, the final agreement, for what is dubbed as the world’s largest trade partnership, was reached recently on 6 October, with the accord signed in Atlanta, Georgia, US. TPP will hinge the US’s continued engagement in Asia, to ensure stability in the region, especially during territorial disputes, and militarism. Future at stake: protesters worry outcome Until the full implementation of the TPP in 2018, as well as full disclosure of the specifics of the deal, speculations will continue to haunt industries. What concerns protesters are the several controversial aspects in TPP, which reports say are restrictive and may adversely impact several key industries. The Investor-State Dispute Settlement clause (ISDS) is a crux for the backlash against the TPP. The clause allows private corporations to sue member countries if they harm present (and future) earnings through government policies. Critics say that the ISDS will put member countries under the mercy of private companies. The ISDS clause is also present in other free trade agreements (FTAs) and has been used by companies to file lawsuits against countries. One example is US cigarette and tobacco firm Philip Morris International Inc’s pending lawsuit against the Australian government. The tobacco company sued Australia for laws that require cigarettes to be packaged in plain logo-free boxes with health warnings. The TPP negotiators seeing this flaw, hence, omitted the tobacco sector. Meaning, TPP-member countries can still continue plain-packaging of cigarettes. Tobacco is an exception and the ISDS will cover other products and industries. TPP’s ISDS clauses states that lawsuits will not be tried in a public court, but in exclusive arbitration panels composed of corporate lawyers. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) contains an ISDS clause and was used in dozens of lawsuits in NAFTA’s 21-year history. Mixed bag for Malaysia The TPP deal is expected to unlatch stiffer competition, even amongst its member countries. NOVEMBER / DECEMBER 2015
21