Hillary Clinton claims she is against the tpp. I might believe her if she said she opposes the treaty because nafta has been a farce and is responsible for hundreds of thousands of job leaving the U.S. for low wage Mexico while the labor and environmental parts of the treaty have been violated and flat out ignored. Pres Bill Clinton signed the treaty after it was ratified by congress, Hillary Clinton knows what nafta has done to the American economy, and should have been against nafta from the start, no matter her position as Sec of State. Her loyalty should have been to the American people, not just Pres Obama. For her to to change her opinion on the tpp now is pandering to the bold progressive wing of the Democratic Party and confirmation Bernie Sanders is a serious challenge to her run for the presidency. Check out Bernie2016 to learn about Bernie's long standing opposition to the tpp. From +PolitiFact followed by the +Democracy Now! report on the tpp & +Wikipedia report on the tpp ....
Hillary Clinton flip-flops on Trans-Pacific Partnership
Since the start of her 2016 campaign, Hillary Clinton hasn’t taken a strong position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal -- saying she would reserve judgment until the deal was finalized.
Well, the negotiations recently came to a close, and Clinton promptly announced that she opposes the deal.
"As of today, I am not in favor of what I have learned about it," she said in an Oct. 8 interview with PBS Newshour’s Judy Woodruff, adding, "I don’t believe it’s going to meet the high bar I have set."
This stance has some people scratching their heads, because she praised the negotiations while serving as secretary of state.
We thought we should take a look back and see how Clinton’s position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has evolved. She has addressed the trade deal on a number of occasions since official negotiations started in 2010 (CNN counted at least 45 comments), so we’ll note her most representative remarks in chronological order.
Here are some of the words she used to describe the TPP before she left the State Department in 2013: "exciting," "innovative," "ambitious," "groundbreaking," "cutting-edge," "high-quality," "high-standard" and "gold standard." She also publicly encouraged more nations to get involved, such as Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia, and she expressed hope that the negotiations would wrap up by the end of 2012.
As a presidential candidate she has used more hedging language, for example saying she has "some concerns," and now she has said she outright doesn’t support the deal as it stands.
While some pundits have painted Clinton’s transition as political -- an appeal to liberals who oppose the deal -- she might have legitimately changed her mind. It’s possible the deal looks dramatically different than it did at the early stages of negotiations, when Clinton was at the State Department. The negotiations have been conducted in secret, so it’s hard for us to assess that ourselves. Also, as secretary of state, she represented the Obama administration, which remains wholeheartedly in favor of the deal.
"I still believe in the goal of a strong and fair trade agreement in the Pacific as part of a broader strategy both at home and abroad, just as I did when I was secretary of state," Clinton said in an Oct. 7 statement. "I appreciate the hard work that President Obama and his team put into this process and recognize the strides they made. But the bar here is very high and, based on what I have seen, I don't believe this agreement has met it."
It’s up to voters to decide how they feel about her changed stance on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but we rate Clinton’s reversal as a Full Flop.
Researched by: Lauren Carroll
Edited by: Angie Drobnic Holan
Subjects: Trade
ROBERT WEISSMAN: Well, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the TPP, is a collection of provisions that amount to a wish list for giant multinational corporations. It’s really as simple as that. And the most important industry in the whole deal was the pharmaceutical industry, which is why the USTR, the U.S. trade representative, insisted on putting in the provision that Zahara was talking about. It’s why the agency was willing to hold up the entire deal to try to extract more concessions for Big Pharma.
You know, as your viewers and listeners know, this is a deal that was negotiated in secret over a period of five years—secret from the American public, secret from the public in the countries that were negotiating, but not secret from the giant corporations who it aims to benefit. The USTR has a system of advisory committees, so it shows text and runs ideas by corporate representatives from almost all affected industries. So, in general, it’s reasonable to say that corporate America knew what was going on all along. And they absolutely knew, in the waning days of the negotiation, where USTR made clear they were in constant conversation with industry representatives about what they were discussing. They were not in constant conversation with people like Zahara or consumer groups or labor unions or environmental organizations. And as a result, we have a deal that comes out that prioritizes the needs and demands of multinational corporations, gives them special rights, gives them special powers, and entrenches a failed development model and a failed trade model, which we can reasonably call NAFTA on steroids.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a trade agreement between several Pacific Rim countries concerning a variety of matters of economic policy. Among other things, the TPP will seek to lower trade barriers such as tariffs, establish a common framework for intellectual property, enforce standards for labour law and environmental law, and establish an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism.[4]
The stated goal of the agreement is to "enhance trade and investment
among the TPP partner countries, to promote innovation, economic growth
and development, and to support the creation and retention of jobs."[5] TPP is considered by the United States government as the companion agreement[6] to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), a broadly similar agreement between the United States and the European Union.
Historically, 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 2006. Beginning in 2008, additional countries joined the discussion for a broader agreement: Australia, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, the United States, and Vietnam, bringing the total number of participating countries in the negotiations to twelve.
Participating nations set the goal of completing negotiations in 2012, but contentious issues such as agriculture, intellectual property, and services and investments caused negotiations to continue for significantly longer.[7] They finally reached agreement on 5 October 2015.[8] Implementation of the TPP is one of the primary goals of the trade agenda of the Obama administration in the United States of America.[9] Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper expects "the full text of the agreement to be released in the next few days, with signatures on the finalized text and deal early in the new year, and ratification over the next two years."[10] Although the text of the treaty has not been made public, Wikileaks has published several leaked documents since 2013.
A number of global health professionals, internet freedom activists, environmentalists, organised labour, advocacy groups, and elected officials have criticised and protested against the treaty, in large part because of the secrecy of negotiations, the agreement's expansive scope, and controversial clauses in drafts leaked to the public.[11][12][13][14][15]
Other countries and regions interested in TPP membership include Taiwan,[21] the Philippines,[22] Laos,[23] Colombia,[24] Thailand,[25] and Indonesia.[26] According to law professor Edmund Sim, many of these potential countries would have to change their protectionist trade policies in order to join the TPP.[27] Other potential future members include Cambodia,[28] Bangladesh[29] and India.[30]
The most notable country in the Pacific Rim not involved in the negotiations is China. According to the Brookings Institution, the most fundamental challenge for the TPP project regarding China is that "it may not constitute a powerful enough enticement to propel China to sign on to these new standards on trade and investment. China so far has reacted by accelerating its own trade initiatives in Asia."[31] However, China may still be interested in joining the TPP eventually.[32]
Brunei—a member of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation
(APEC) since 1989— has played an important role in the formation of the
earlier trade agreements that led up to the creation of TPP in 2005. In
2000 Brunei hosted the pivotal meeting of APEC where discussion began
and later the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) in July 2002.[39]
By 2001 New Zealand and Singapore had already joined in the New Zealand/Singapore Closer Economic Partnership (NZSCEP). The Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (Trans-Pacific SEP) built on the NZSCEP.[40]:5
During the 2002 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Leaders' Meeting in Los Cabos, Mexico, Prime Ministers Helen Clark of New Zealand, Goh Chok Tong of Singapore and Chilean President Ricardo Lagos began negotiations on the Pacific Three Closer Economic Partnership (P3-CEP).[40]:5 According to the New Zealand Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade,[40]:5
The original TPSEP agreement contains an accession clause and affirms the members' "commitment to encourage the accession to this Agreement by other economies".[41][43] It is a comprehensive agreement, affecting trade in goods, rules of origin, trade remedies, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, technical barriers to trade, trade in services, intellectual property, government procurement and competition policy. Among other things, it called for reduction by 90 percent of all tariffs between member countries by 1 January 2006, and reduction of all trade tariffs to zero by the year 2015.[44]
Although original and negotiating parties are members of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the TPSEP (and the TPP it grew into) are not APEC initiatives. However, the TPP is considered to be a pathfinder for the proposed Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP), an APEC initiative.
After the inauguration of President Barack Obama in January 2009, the anticipated March 2009 negotiations were postponed. However, in his first trip to Asia in November 2009, President Obama reaffirmed the United States' commitment to the TPP, and on 14 December 2009, new US Trade Representative Ron Kirk notified Congress that President Obama planned to enter TPP negotiations "with the objective of shaping a high-standard, broad-based regional pact".[53] On the last day of the 2010 APEC summit, leaders of the nine negotiating countries endorsed the proposal advanced by US President Barack Obama that set a target for settlement of negotiations by the next APEC summit in November 2011.[54]
In 2010, Canada had become an observer in the TPP talks, and expressed interest in officially joining,[55] but was not committed to join, purportedly because the US and New Zealand blocked it because of concerns over Canadian agricultural policy (i.e. supply management)—specifically dairy—and intellectual property-rights protection.[56][57] Several pro-business and internationalist Canadian media outlets raised concerns about this as a missed opportunity. In a feature in the Financial Post, former Canadian trade-negotiator Peter Clark claimed that the US Obama Administration had strategically outmaneuvered the Canadian Harper Government. Wendy Dobson and Diana Kuzmanovic for The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, argued for the economic necessity of the TPP to Canada.[58] Embassy warned that Canada's position in APEC could be compromised by being excluded from both the US-oriented TPP and the proposed China-oriented ASEAN +3 trade agreement (or the broader Comprehensive Economic Partnership for East Asia).[51][52][59]
In June 2012, Canada and Mexico announced that they were joining the TPP negotiations.[60][61][62][63] Mexico's interest in joining was initially met with concern among TPP negotiators about its customs policies.[56] Canada and Mexico formally became TPP negotiating participants in October 2012, following completion of the domestic consultation periods of the other nine members.[64][65][66]
Japan officially joined the TPP negotiations on 23 July 2013. According to the Brookings Institution, Prime Minister Abe's decision to commit Japan to joining the TPP should be understood as a necessary complement to his efforts to stimulate the Japanese economy with monetary easing and the related depreciation of the Yen. These efforts alone, without the type of economic reform the TPP will lead to, are unlikely to produce long-term improvements in Japan's growth prospects.[67]
In April 2013 APEC members proposed, along with setting a possible target for settlement of the TPP by the 2013 APEC summit, that World Trade Organisation (WTO) members set a target for settlement of the Doha Round mini-package by the ninth WTO ministerial conference (MC9), also to be held around the same time in Bali.[68]
This call for inclusion and co-operation between the WTO and Economic Partnership Agreements (also termed regional trade agreements) like the TPP comes after the statement by Pierre Lellouche who described the sentiment of the Doha round negotiations; "Although no one wants to say it, we must call a cat a cat (failure is failure)...".[69]
A set of draft documents that were leaked in late-2013 indicated that public concern had little impact on the negotiations.[70] They also indicated there are strong disagreements between the US and negotiating parties regarding intellectual property, agricultural subsidies, and financial services.[71]
A spokesman for Australia's Trade Minister Andrew Robb confirmed on 1 August 2015, that a conclusion had not been reached during the Ministerial Meeting in Hawaii, U.S., in late July 2015. Robb told the media that Australia had made progress on sugar and dairy matters, but the balance that the Australian government was seeking had not yet been finalized.[72]
After the 19th round of formal meetings, negotiations stopped taking
the form of official rounds, but other meetings, such as Chief
Negotiators Meetings and Ministers Meetings, continue.
As of 2013 the TPP sought to address issues that promote: "*Comprehensive market access by eliminating tariffs and other barriers to goods and services trade and investment, so as to create new opportunities for workers and businesses and immediate benefits for consumers.
As of December 2011 some provisions relating to the enforcement of patents and copyrights alleged to be present in the US proposal for the agreement had been criticised as being excessively restrictive, beyond those in the Korea–US trade agreement and Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).[108][109]
WikiLeaks has published draft documents on a regular basis since 2013: On 13 November 2013, it published a complete draft of the treaty's Intellectual Property Rights Chapter.[110][111] On 16 October 2014, it released a second updated version of the TPP Intellectual Property Rights Chapter.[112]
On 26 March 2015 WikiLeaks released the TPP's Investment Chapter,[116] according to which global corporations could sue governments in tribunals organized by the World Bank or the United Nations to obtain taxpayer compensation for loss of expected future profits due to government actions.[117]
In April 2015 the director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, Lori Wallach, said
Reported by CNN that one goal of TPP is to neutralize China's power in global trading and make American companies more competitive. However, in May 2013, China showed an interest in joining TPP and may see it as an opportunity for its slowing economy.[120]
According to the New York Times, "the clearest winners of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement would be American agriculture, along with technology and pharmaceutical companies, insurers and many large manufacturers" who could expand exports to the other nations that have signed the treaty.[121]
In December 2013, 151 House Democrats signed a letter written by Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and George Miller (D-CA), which opposed the fast track trade promotion authority for the TPP. Several House Republicans opposed the measure on the grounds that it empowered the executive branch. In January 2014, House Democrats refused to put forward a co-sponsor for the legislation, hampering the bill's prospects for passage.[126]
On 16 April 2015, several US Senators introduced "The Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015", which is commonly known as TPA Fast-track legislation.[127] The bill passed the Senate on 21 May 2015, by a vote of 62 to 38, with 31 Democrats, five Republicans and both Independents opposing.[128][129] The bill went to the US House of Representatives, which narrowly passed the bill 218-208, and also removed the Trade Adjustment Assistance portions of the Senate bill.[130] The TPA was passed by the Senate on 24 June 2015, without the TAA provisions, requiring only the signature of the President before becoming law.[131] President Obama expressed a desire to sign the TPA and TAA together,[132] and did sign both into law on 29 June, as the TAA was able to make its way through congress in a separate bill.[133] By June 2015, the Trade-Promotion Authority bill (TPA) passed the Senate.[134] This final approval to legislation granted President Obama "enhanced power to negotiate major trade agreements with Asia and Europe." Through the TPA, Obama could "submit trade deals to Congress for an expedited vote without amendments."[134] The successful conclusion of these bilateral talks was necessary before the other ten TPP members could complete the trade deal.[135]
Political difficulties, particularly those related to the passage of a Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) by the US Congress, presented another hold on the TPP negotiations. Receiving TPA from Congress was looking especially difficult for Obama since members of his own Democratic Party are against it, while Republicans generally support the trade talks. "The TPP and TPA pose a chicken-and-egg situation for Washington. Congress needs to pass TPA to bring the TPP negotiations to fruition, but the Obama administration must win favorable terms in the TPP to pull TPA legislation through Congress. Simply put, the administration cannot make Congress happy, unless it can report on the excellent terms that it has coaxed out of Japan.".[138] Obama received Trade Promotion Authority on 29 June 2015.
By April 2015 U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman and Japanese Economy Minister Akira Amari—representing the two largest economies of the 12-nation TPP— were involved in bilateral talks regarding agriculture and auto parts, the "two largest obstacles for Japan."[135] These bilateral accords which would open each other's "markets for products such as rice, pork and automobiles.[135] In Japan "rice, wheat, barley, beef, pork, dairy goods, sugar and starch crops are considered politically sensitive products that have to be protected."[135] During the two-day ministerial TPP negotiating session held in Singapore in May 2015, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and veteran negotiator, Wendy Cutler, and Oe Hiroshi of the Japanese Gaimusho held bilateral trade talks regarding one of the most contentious trade issues— automobiles. American negotiators wanted the Japanese to open their entire keiretsu structure which is the corner stone of Japanese economy and society to American automobiles. They wanted Japanese dealer networks, such as Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Mitsubishi, and Mazda, to sell American cars.[141] Oe Hiroshi responded that there are fewer American car dealerships in Japan because Japanese consumers prefer European and Japanese cars to American cars.[141] In Japan and Europe automobiles must pass more rigorous safety standards before they are put on the market. American "automakers self-certify and cars are tested only after they go on sale."[142]
During the late July 2015 negotiations held in Maui, Hawaii, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Michael Froman brokered an unanticipated North American-Japan side-deal with Japan, on behalf of the U.S., Canada and Mexico that "lowered the threshold" for how much of an automobile "would have to come from Trans-Pacific signatory countries" in order for it to avoid hefty tariffs when entering Canada, Mexico or the United States. This percentage dropped from 62.5 per cent under the current North American Free Trade Agreement, to somewhere between 30 per cent and 55 per cent under the July side deal.[143] Canada and Mexico are concerned that this unexpected side deal "could hit the NAFTA partners’ auto sectors hard."[143]
On 23 May 2012, United States Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced S. 3225, which would have required the Office of the US Trade Representative to disclose its TPP documents to all members of Congress.[144] If it had passed, Wyden said that S3225 would clarify the intent of 2002 legislation. That legislation was supposed to increase Congressional access to information about USTR activity; however, according to Wyden, the bill is being incorrectly interpreted by the USTR as a justification to excessively limit such access.[145] Wyden said:
The last round of negotiations was scheduled to occur in Vancouver, Canada, but two weeks before the commencement date, Canada's capital, Ottawa, was selected as the new meeting venue.[99] Inquiries from public interest groups about attending this round were ignored.[99]
In a statement denouncing the TPP, Senator (I-VT) Bernie Sanders wrote:
Both the copyright term expansion and the non-complaint provision (i.e. competent authorities may initiate legal action without the need for a formal complaint) previously failed to pass in Japan because they were so controversial.[150] A group of artists, archivists, academics, and activists, have joined forces in Japan to call on their negotiators to oppose requirements in the TPP that would require their country to expand their copyright scope and length to match the United States' of copyright.[150] Ken Akamatsu, creator of Japanese manga series Love Hina and Mahou Sensei Negima!, expressed concern the agreement could decimate the derivative dōjinshi (self-published) works prevalent in Japan. Akamatsu argues that the TPP "would destroy derivative dōjinshi. And as a result, the power of the entire manga industry would also diminish."[151]
Opponents of the Trans-Pacific Partnership in New Zealand say US corporations are hoping to weaken the ability of its domestic agency Pharmac to get inexpensive, generic medicines by forcing it to otherwise pay considerably higher prices for brand name drugs.[157] Physicians and organizations including Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders) have also expressed concern.[158]
The New Zealand Government denies the claims, Trade Negotiations Minister Tim Groser saying opponents of the deal are "fools" who are "trying to wreck this agreement".[159]
In Australia, critics of the investment protection regime argue that traditional investment treaty standards are incompatible with some public health regulations, meaning that the TPP will be used to force states to adopt lower standards, e.g., with respect to patented pharmaceuticals.[160] The Australian Public Health Association (PHAA) published a media release on 17 February 2014 that discussed the potential impact of the TPP on the health of Australia's population. A policy brief formulated through a collaboration between academics and non-government organizations (NGOs) was the basis of the media release, with the partnership continuing its Health Impact Assessment of the trade agreement at the time of the PHAA's statement. Michael Moore, the PHAA's CEO said, "The brief highlights the ways in which some of the expected economic gains from the TPPA may be undermined by poor health outcomes, and the economic costs associated with these poor health outcomes."[161]
Former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich has opposed the TPP because he says it would delay cheaper generic versions of drugs, and because of its provisions for international tribunals that can require corporations be paid "compensation for any lost profits found to result from a nation's regulations."[162]
In 2014, Noam Chomsky warned that the TPP is "designed to carry forward the neoliberal project to maximise profit and domination, and to set the working people in the world in competition with one another so as to lower wages to increase insecurity."[167] Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who opposes fast track, stated that trade agreements like the TPP "have ended up devastating working families and enriching large corporations."[168] Another Nobel Memorial Prize-winning economist, Paul Krugman reported, "... I'll be undismayed and even a bit relieved if the T.P.P. just fades away", and said that "... there isn't a compelling case for this deal, from either a global or a national point of view." Krugman also noted the absence of "anything like a political consensus in favor, abroad or at home."[169] Economist Robert Reich contends that the TPP is a "Trojan horse in a global race to the bottom, giving big corporations and Wall Street banks a way to eliminate any and all laws and regulations that get in the way of their profits."[170][171]
In January 2014, The Washington Post 's editorial board opined that congressional sponsors of legislation to expedite approval of the TPP in the US already included provisions to ensure that all TPP countries meet international labour and environmental standards, and that the US "has been made more productive by broader international competition and more secure by broader international prosperity".[175]
On 5 March 2012, a group of TPP protesters disrupted an outside
broadcast of 7News Melbourne's 6 pm bulletin at Melbourne, Australia's Federation Square venue.[176] In New Zealand, the "It's Our Future" protest group was formed[177]
with the aim of raising public awareness prior to the Auckland round of
negotiations, which was held from 3 to 12 December 2012.[178]
During the Auckland negotiations, hundreds of protesters clashed with
police outside the conference venue and lit a fire in the streets.[179]
A poll conducted in December 2012 showed 64 percent of New Zealanders thought trade agreements, such as the TPP, which allow corporations to sue governments, should be rejected.[180]
In March 2013, four thousand Japanese farmers held a protest in Tokyo over the potential for cheap imports to severely damage the local agricultural industry.[181]
Malaysian protesters dressed as zombies outside a shopping mall in Kuala Lumpur on 21 February 2014 to protest the impact of the TPP on the price of medicines, including treatment drugs for HIV. The protest group consisted of students, members of the Malaysian AIDS Council and HIV-positive patients—one patient explained that, in Malaysian ringgit, he spent between RM500 and RM600 each month on treatment drugs, but this cost would increase to around RM3,000.[182]
On 29 March 2014, 15 anti-TPP protests occurred across New Zealand, including a demonstration in Auckland attended by several thousand people.[183] In a press release announcing the New Zealand Nurses Association's decision to join the protests, the association's policy analyst stated that the TPP could prevent government decisions that would be beneficial to public health because "if private investors, such as tobacco companies, were affected they could sue the government."[184] On 8 November 2014, further protests occurred in 17 New Zealand cities, with turnouts in the thousands.[185][186]
In January 2015, various petitions and public protests occurred in the US from progressives.[187] On 27 January 2015, protesters hijacked a US Senate hearing to speak out against the TPP and were promptly removed by capitol police officers.[188]
On 15 August 2015, protests were held across New Zealand in Auckland, Christchurch, Wellington, as well as several smaller cities. An activist claimed that over 25,000 people collectively protested against the TPP free trade deal throughout the country.[189] The protests were peaceful; however, police were forced to protect the steps of the Parliament building in the capital of Wellington, after an estimated 2000 people marched to the entrance.[190][191][192]
On 15 September 2015, an estimated 50 protesters blocked a lane of Lambton Quay in the central business district of Wellington, New Zealand. It was reported that up to 30 people were arrested after forming a block on the road, and were taken away in police vans. The group was attempting to enter the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade headquarters, in attempt to seize documents related to the TPPA. They criticized the secrecy surrounding the negotiations, chanting "democracy not secrecy".[193] They were stopped by a police barricade, which later extended to a lock down of the road.[189]
"Trans-Pacific free trade deal agreed creating vast partnership". BBC News. 5 October 2015. Retrieved 5 October 2015.
Handley, Paul (5 October 2015). "12 Pacific countries seal huge free trade deal". Yahoo! News. AFP. Retrieved 7 October 2015.
"US and 11 nations seal Pacific trade deal".
"What is the Trans-Pacific Partnership?". Vox. Retrieved 2 July 2015.
"The US and the TPP". USTR. Retrieved 5 December 2012.
Russel, Daniel. "Transatlantic Interests In Asia". U.S Department of State. Retrieved 3 August 2015.
Schott, Jeffrey; Kotschwar, Barbara; Muir, Julia (2013). Understanding the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Peterson Institute for International Economics. pp. 17–18. ISBN 9780881326727.
"TPP ministerial meeting set for last week of July: source". Reuters. 29 June 2015. Retrieved 29 June 2015.
"The Trans-Pacific Partnership". whitehouse.gov. Retrieved 29 July 2015.
Jason Fakete (5 October 2015). "'Historic day' says Stephen Harper as Canada signs on to Trans-Pacific trade deal". Ottawa Citizen.
Obama Faces Backlash Over New Corporate Powers In Secret Trade Deal. The Huffington Post. Retrieved 17 December 2013.
How To Fight The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Anti-TPP Petitions, Protests & Campaigns. International Business Times. Retrieved 17 December 2013.
Trans-Pacific Partnership Talks Stir House Bipartisan Opposition. The Huffington Post. Retrieved 17 December 2013.
Stiglitz, Joseph E. (15 March 2014). "On the Wrong Side of Globalization". The New York Times. Retrieved 17 March 2014.
Gabrielle Chan (11 November 2014). Unions call for halt in TPP negotiations so that agreement can be scrutinised. The Guardian.
"Canada Joins Trans-Pacific Partnership Round" (Press release). Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. 3 December 2012. Retrieved 13 December 2012.
Nishikawa, Yoko (13 November 2010). "South Korea mulling U.S.-led TPP trade initiative: report". Reuters. Retrieved 15 November 2010.
"US requests Korea's joining of regional FTA". The Donga-A Ilbo. 18 December 2010.
"Seoul appears set to join Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations". The Hankyoreh. 4 October 2013. Retrieved 6 October 2013.
Fifield, Anna (15 April 2015). "South Korea asks to join Pacific trade deal. Washington says not so fast.". Washington Post. Retrieved 13 May 2015.
"Taiwan aims to join Trans-Pacific Partnership: minister". 10 November 2010. Retrieved 13 November 2010.
"Speech of President Aquino at the Council on Foreign Relations, New York City". 23 September 2010. Retrieved 2 November 2010.
"Current Status of the TPP Negotiations". Canon Institute for Global Studies. 10 July 2012. Retrieved 22 January 2014.
"Colombia Hopes To Join TPP Negotiations". 19 March 2010. Retrieved 22 January 2014.
"Thailand's quest to join the TPPA 'will strengthen opposition'". Retrieved 4 February 2013.
"US-ASEAN businessmen lobby Indonesia on TPP". The Jakarta Post. 25 June 2013.
Hookway, James; Brereton-Fukui, Natasha (28 June 2013). "Trade Is Also Key to Influence in East Asia". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 14 May 2015.
Theara, Khoun (22 November 2013). "'No Rush' For Cambodia on Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement, Experts Say". Voice of America Khmer. Retrieved 12 December 2013.
Sobhan, Md Abus (15 September 2013). "Trans Pacific Partnership the way forward". Dhaka Tribune. Retrieved 19 September 2013.
Kumar, Arun (2 August 2013). "'India's admission to TPP would be an economic coup'". Business Standard. Retrieved 19 September 2013.
Mireya, Solis. "The Containment Fallacy: China and the TPP". Brookings Institution. Retrieved 26 June 2014.
Needham, Vicki (17 September 2013). "China's interest grows in joining an Asia-Pacific trade deal". TheHill.com. Archived from the original on 20 September 2013.
"Brunei
Darussalam, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore conclude negotiations on a
Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement" (Press
release). Joint Press Statement from Brunei Darussalam, Chile, New
Zealand and Singapore Ministers. 3 June 2005. Archived from the original on 7 September 2006. Retrieved 15 December 2012.
"Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore reach trans-Pacific FTA". The Manila Bulletin. Reuters. 3 June 2005. Retrieved 15 December 2012.
"Second free trade agreement to be signed by NZ this year" (Press release). New Zealand Government. 18 July 2005. Retrieved 7 October 2015.
"Treaties for which NZ is Depositary: Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (TPSEP or P4)". Retrieved 15 December 2012.
"FTA signed: NZ, Chile, Singapore and Brunei to end tariffs". The National Business Review. 19 July 2005. Retrieved 15 December 2012.
"Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement: Understanding the P4 – The original P4 agreement". Retrieved 15 December 2012.
"APEC, 2000 Leaders' Declaration". Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation. 30 March 2010. Archived from the original on 21 March 2010.
"Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement national interest analysis" (PDF), Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (New Zealand), July 2005, ISBN 0-477-03793-3, retrieved 5 August 2015
"History of the Trans-Pacific SEP Agreement P4". mfat.govt.nz.
"Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement: Understanding the P4 – The original P4 agreement". Retrieved 15 December 2012.
"TRANS-PACIFIC STRATEGIC ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT" (PDF). mfat.govt.nz. Retrieved 5 October 2015.
"Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement" (PDF). NZ Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade. 2005. Retrieved 28 January 2012.
Daniels, Chris (10 February 2008). "First step to wider free trade". The New Zealand Herald. Retrieved 9 February 2008.
"Trans-Pacific Partners and United States Launch FTA Negotiations". Office of the United States Trade Representative. 22 September 2008.
"Schwab Statement on launch of the U.S. Negotiations to join the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement". US office of trade representative. September 2008. Retrieved 22 April 2015.
"Australia To Join Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Bloc". Alibaba.com. Retrieved 17 December 2008.
"The challenges of regional bodies". Taipei Times. Retrieved 17 December 2008.
Frangos, Alex; Williamson, Elizabeth (7 October 2010). "Interest Builds in Pacific trade zone". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 14 October 2010.
"Progress Continues in Trans-Pacific Partnership Talks | Office of the United States Trade Representative". Ustr.gov. 15 September 2012. Retrieved 15 November 2013.
"Trans-Pacific Partnership Leadership Statement | Office of the United States Trade Representative". Ustr.gov. Retrieved 15 November 2013.
"Trans-Pacific Partnership Announcement". Office of the United States Trade Representative. 14 December 2009.
2011年11月の妥結目指す 首脳会議で方針確認 [TPP, heads meeting confirmed the settlement by November 2011.]. Nihon Keizai Shimbun (in Japanese) (Tokyo). 14 November 2010. Retrieved 15 November 2010.
"Tories consider joining Trans-Pacific trade group". CBC News. 16 November 2010. Retrieved 7 October 2015.
Palmer, Doug (13 May 2012). "Some secrecy needed in trade talks: Ron Kirk". Reuters.
"TPP Countries Say Canada Not Ready To Join Talks, Press Vietnam To Decide". Inside U.S. Trade. Retrieved 28 January 2012.(subscription required)
"Trans-Pacific Partnership". Financial Post. Retrieved 28 January 2012.
Meyer, Carl (17 November 2010). "Foothold in Asia-Pacific set to be lost?". Embassy. Retrieved 28 January 2012.
"Mexico joins Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations" (Press release). New Zealand Government. 19 June 2012. Retrieved 13 December 2012.
"Canada joins Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations" (Press release). 20 June 2012. Retrieved 13 December 2012.
Mark Kennedy (19 June 2012). "Canada joining talks on massive new free-trade bloc". Canada.com. Retrieved 15 December 2012.
"U.S. Trade Representative Kirk Welcomes Canada as a New Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiating Partner". Ustr.gov. 19 June 2012. Retrieved 22 January 2014.
"Mexico: Unexplored opportunities". TPP Talk. New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade. 10 October 2012. Retrieved 12 December 2012.
"Canada: Old friends, new opportunities". TPP Talk. New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade. 10 October 2012. Retrieved 12 December 2012.
"Canada Formally Joins Trans-Pacific Partnership" (Press release). Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. 9 October 2012. Retrieved 13 December 2012.
Meltzer, Joshua. "Japan to Join the Trans-Pacific Partnership-Finally!". Brookings Institution. Retrieved 19 June 2014.
"Japan Gets TPP Invite, As APEC Calls for Faster WTO Talks". International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development. 25 April 2013. Retrieved 6 October 2013.
"The
World Trade Organization in the Era of the Trans-Pacific Partnership
Agreement: A view on the outcome of the eighth ministerial conference". Tokyo: Research Institute of Economy Trade & Industry. February 2012. Retrieved 6 October 2013.
"WikiLeaks releases new documents exposing secret Trans-Pacific Partnership talks". The Verge. 8 December 2013. Retrieved 9 December 2013.
"Wikileaks TPP Revelations Prove US in 'Left Field' With Trade Deal". The Real News, 15 December 2013.
"Trade Minister Andrew Robb confirms Australia will not sign Trans-Pacific Partnership deal". News.com.au. 1 August 2015. Retrieved 1 August 2015.
"USTR TPP Round Updates". Office of the United States Trade Representative. June 2012.
"Round 14: Leesburg". Office of the United States Trade Representative. Retrieved 10 September 2012.
"Round 1: Melbourne". Office of the United States Trade Representative. Retrieved 30 June 2014.
"Trans-Pacific Partnership: June 2010". Office of the United States Trade Representative. Retrieved 30 June 2014.
"Round 3: Brunei". Office of the United States Trade Representative. Retrieved 30 June 2014.
"Round 4: Auckland". Office of the United States Trade Representative. Retrieved 7 July 2014.
"Round 5: Santiago". Office of the United States Trade Representative. Retrieved 7 July 2014.
"Round 6: Singapore". Office of the United States Trade Representative. Retrieved 7 July 2014.
"Round 7: Ho Chi Minh City". Office of the United States Trade Representative. Retrieved 7 July 2014.
"Round 8: Chicago". Office of the United States Trade Representative. Retrieved 7 July 2014.
"Round 9: Lima". Office of the United States Trade Representative. Retrieved 7 July 2014.
"Round 10: Kuala Lumpur". Office of the United States Trade Representative. Retrieved 28 June 2015.
"Round 11: Melbourne". Office of the United States Trade Representative. Retrieved 28 June 2015.
"Round 12: Dallas". Office of the United States Trade Representative. Retrieved 28 June 2015.
"Round 13: San Diego". Office of the United States Trade Representative. Retrieved 28 June 2015.
"Round 14: Leesburg". Office of the United States Trade Representative. Retrieved 28 June 2015.
"Round 15: Auckland, New Zealand". Office of the United States Trade Representative. Retrieved 28 June 2015.
"Round 16: Singapore". Office of the United States Trade Representative. Retrieved 28 June 2015.
"Round 17: Lima, Peru". Office of the United States Trade Representative. Retrieved 28 June 2015.
"Round 18: Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia". Office of the United States Trade Representative. Retrieved 28 June 2015.
"Joint Press Statement TPP Ministerial Meeting Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei Darussalam". Office of the United States Trade Representative. Retrieved 28 June 2015.
"Readout of this week’s Trans-Pacific Partnership discussions in Washington, DC". Office of the United States Trade Representative. Retrieved 28 June 2015.
"Readout of Ambassador Michael Froman's Oct 3 Meetings in Bali, Indonesia". Office of the United States Trade Representative. Retrieved 28 June 2015.
"Upcoming TPP Meetings". Office of the United States Trade Representative. Retrieved 28 June 2015.
"TPP chief negotiators to meet in Vancouver from July 3". Kyodo News International. 11 June 2014. Retrieved 29 June 2015.
"Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Free Trade Negotiations". Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada. Retrieved 6 July 2014.
Harris, Scott (25 June 2014). "The TPP is coming to Canada (not that it's easy to tell)". Council of Canadians.
"Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Free Trade Negotiations". Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada. Retrieved 29 June 2015.
"Joint Statement of the Ministers and Heads of Delegation for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Countries". Office of the United States Trade Representative. Retrieved 28 June 2015.
Kyodo, JIJI (20 February 2015). "TPP chief negotiators to meet in mid-March in Hawaii". Bilaterals. Retrieved 29 June 2015.
JIJI. "TPP nations to give up on Guam ministerial meeting as TPA pends". The Japan Times. Retrieved 29 June 2015.
Steven Chase Final push for Pacific Rim pact set for end of September The Globe and Mail, 16 September 2015, retrieved 28 September 2015
"Sen. Warren calls on Obama to declassify trade deal details". FoxNews.com. Retrieved 30 April 2015.
"Outlines of the TPP". Office of the United States Trade Representative. 12 November 2011. Retrieved 15 July 2014.
"Trans-Pacific Partnership: Trade Ministers' Report to Leaders" (PDF). Office of the United States Trade Representative. 29 October 2013. p. 4. Retrieved 15 July 2014.
Flynn, Sean; Kaminski, Margot E.; Baker, Brook K.; Koo, Jimmy H. (6 December 2011). "Public Interest Analysis of the US TPP Proposal for an IP Chapter". Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property.
"Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement". Retrieved 13 May 2015.
"Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP)". WikiLeaks. 13 November 2013. Retrieved 13 November 2013.
Musil, Steven (12 November 2013). "WikiLeaks publishes secret draft chapter of Trans-Pacific Partnership". The Guardian (UK). Retrieved 15 November 2013.
"Press Release – Updated Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) – IP Chapter (second publication)". WikiLeaks. 26 October 2014.
Wallach, Lori (16 July 2012). "NAFTA on Steroids". The Nation. Retrieved 10 July 2014.
Hernando Otero and Omar García-Bolívar, "International Arbitration between Foreign Investors and Host States" Hauser Global Law School Program. NYU, December 2011. Retrieved 14 December 2014
Faunce TA. Will a new government hand control of our energy to overseas investors. The Conversation.com. 6 August 2013 (accessed 6 August 2013)
Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) - Investment Chapter. WikiLeaks. 26 March 2015.
Jonathan Weisman (25 March 2015). Trans-Pacific Partnership Seen as Door for Foreign Suits Against U.S.. The New York Times. Retrieved 31 March 2015.
[1] Why Obama Is Spurning Liberals With a Massive Trade Deal, Danny Vinick, New Republic, April 7, 2015
Meltzer, Joshua (16 May 2012). "The Significance of the Trans-Pacific Partnership for the United States". Brookings Institution.
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/tpp-china-and-future-global-trade-order
Weisman, Johnathon. "Deal Reached on Fast-Track Authority for Obama on Trade Accord". NTY.com. NYT. Retrieved 26 June 2015.
"What is the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)?" (PDF). Ministry of Trade and Industry Singapore November 2012.
"Why Certain Trade Agreements Are Approved as Congressional-Executive Agreements Rather Than as Treaties" (PDF). Retrieved 4 February 2013.
"White House wants trade promotion authority: Kirk". Reuters. 29 February 2012. Retrieved 30 June 2012.
19 U.S.C. § 2191
Zach Carter and Michael McAuliff (9 January 2014). "House Democrats Balk At Efforts By Obama, Boehner On Controversial Pacific Trade Deal". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 10 January 2014.
Weisman, Jonathan (16 April 2015). "Deal Reached on Fast-Track Authority for Obama on Trade Accord". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 17 April 2015.
Senate votes, New York Times, 21 May 2015. Retrieved 20 September 2015.
Ted Barrett (22 May 2015). "Senate passes 'fast track' trade promotion bill". CNN. Retrieved 29 June 2015.
Susan Davis (18 June 2015). "House passes 'fast track' trade bill". USA Today. Retrieved 29 June 2015.
"Senate passes fast-track trade bill". CBS News. AP. Retrieved 26 June 2015.
Steven Dennis (17 June 2015). "Obama Won’t Sign TPA Without TAA ‘Path’ (Video) (Updated)". Retrieved 29 June 2015.
Danielle Haynes (29 June 2015). "Obama signs fast-track trade, worker assistance bills into law". UPI. Retrieved 29 June 2015.
Jonathan Weismanjune (14 June 2015), Trade Authority Bill Wins Final Approval in Senate, retrieved 8 August 2015
"Japan, U.S. Seek Trade Pact Deals on Rice, Auto Parts", Bloomberg, 19 April 2015, retrieved 8 August 2015
Hammond, P., 'Foreign Secretary's speech on the UK in Asia Pacific' https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/foreign-secretarys-speech-on-the-uk-in-asia-pacific accessed 8 October 2015
Wollacott, Emma (10 December 2013). "US Fails to Close TPP Deal as Wikileaks Exposes Discord". Forbes. Retrieved 30 June 2014.
Tatsuhiko, Yoshizaki. "TPP Talks Quietly Enter the Final Stages". Nippon.com. Retrieved 30 June 2014.
Schneider, Howard. "For controversial trade pact, fire from the left, the right and Wikileaks". Washington Post. Retrieved 11 July 2014.
"Japan compromising on U.S. auto tariffs for TPP negotiations". The Asahi Shimbun. Retrieved 30 June 2014.
Stephen Harner (20 May 2015), Japan Auto Imports, TPP, And The Price Of American 'Leadership', Forbes, retrieved 8 August 2015
"Auto industry acts globally--except on recalls", CBS News, 24 December 2014, retrieved 8 August 2015
Steven Chase (5 August 2015), "Conservatives were sure Trans-Pacific Partnership deal would be signed", The Globe and Mail (Ottawa, Ontario), retrieved 8 August 2015
112th Congress (2012) (23 May 2012). "S. 3225 (112th)". Legislation. GovTrack.us. Retrieved 30 May 2012.
2012 Congressional Record, Vol. 158, Page S3517 (23 May 2012)
Zach Carter (19 June 2013). "Elizabeth Warren Opposing Obama Trade Nominee Michael Froman." The Huffington Post. Retrieved 15 July 2013.
Zach Carter (18 June 2013). Alan Grayson On Trans-Pacific Partnership: Obama Secrecy Hides 'Assault On Democratic Government' The Huffington Post. Retrieved 15 July 2013.
Sanders, Bernie. "SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: THE TRAN S - PACIFIC TRADE (TPP) AGREEMENT MUST BE DEFEATED". Retrieved 2 July 2015.
Shabad, Rebecca (6 June 2015). "Rand Paul demands White House release trade deal text immediately". The Hill. Retrieved 5 July 2015.
"Massive Coalition of Japanese Organizations Campaigns Against TPP Copyright Provisions". Retrieved 13 May 2015.
"Negima's Akamatsu Warns Against Changing Japan's Copyright Law", Anime News Network, 31 October 2011. Retrieved 10 November 2011
Kapczynski, Amy (10 June 2015). "The Trans-Pacific Partnership — Is It Bad for Your Health?". NEJM. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1506158.
"Letter
from 10 Representatives asking for a meeting to discuss IP policies
that could "undermine public health and access to medicines."" (PDF). infojustice.org. 3 August 2011. Retrieved 30 January 2012.
"Letter from Senator Sanders to US Trade Representative Ron Kirk" (PDF). keionline.org. 1 December 2011. Retrieved 30 January 2012.
"Letter from Representatives Levin, Waxman, McDermott and Conyers to US Trade Representative Ron Kirk" (PDF). 19 October 2011. Retrieved 30 January 2012.
"Letter
from Reps. Lewis, Stark, Rangel, Blumenauer, and Doggett asking that
the May 10th agreement serve as a 'non-negotiable starting point' for
access to medicines" (PDF). 8 September 2011. Retrieved 30 January 2012.
"US companies 'out to get Pharmac". 3 News NZ. 5 December 2012.
"Doctors warn of TPP risks". 3 News NZ. 5 December 2012.
"War of words in TPP public perception battle". 3 News NZ. 3 December 2012.
Deborah H. Gleeson, Kyla S. Tienhaara and Thomas A. Faunce, "Challenges to Australia's national health policy from trade and investment agreements". Med J Aust 2012; 196 (5): 354–356
"Protecting the Health of Australians in the TPPA". Scoop Independent News. 18 February 2014. Retrieved 18 February 2014.
Robert Reich: A Trans-Pacific Partnership Would Be Devastating. Salon.com, 5 February 2015
"Secrecy surrounds Trans-Pacific Partnership talks". The Sydney Morning Herald. 9 December 2013. Retrieved 9 December 2013.
"Fighting TPP to protect workers' rights". The Ed Show. 11 December 2013. Retrieved 17 December 2013.
"No Jobs from Trade Pacts: The Trans-Pacific Partnership Could Be Much Worse than the Over-Hyped Korea Deal". Economic Policy Institute. 18 July 2013
"Gains from Trade? The Net Effect of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement on U.S. Wages". Center for Economic and Policy Research. September 2013
Zach Carter and Ryan Grim (13 January 2014). "Noam Chomsky: Obama Trade Deal A 'Neoliberal Assault' To Further Corporate 'Domination'". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 13 January 2014.
"Preventing TPP essential to all U.S. workers". The Ed Show, 16 January 2014. Retrieved 23 January 2014.
Krugman, Paul (27 February 2014). "No Big Deal". The New York Times. Retrieved 28 February 2014.
"Robert Reich takes on the Trans-Pacific Partnership" (Video upload). MoveOn.org on YouTube. Google. 29 January 2015. Retrieved 5 February 2015.
Robert Reich (6 January 2015). "Robert Reich: The Largest, Most Disastrous Trade Deal You've Never Heard Of". Alternet. Alternet. Retrieved 5 February 2015.
Ibrahim Balkhy (9 December 2013). "Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership May Undermine Public Health, Environment, Internet All At Once". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 10 January 2014.
"Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) – Environment Chapter" (Press release). WikiLeaks. 14 January 2014. Retrieved 11 January 2014.
Howard, Brian Clark (17 January 2014). 4 Ways Green Groups Say Trans-Pacific Partnership Will Hurt Environment. National Geographic. Retrieved 23 January 2014.
"Free-trade deals such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership help the United States". The Washington Post. 16 January 2014. Retrieved 22 January 2014.
Shannon Deery (5 March 2012). "Channel 7 newsreader Peter Mitchell mobbed by protesters on live TV". Herald Sun. Retrieved 17 February 2014.
itsourfuture (17 September 2013). "Kiwi Voices on the TPPA". Itsourfuture.org.nz. Retrieved 15 November 2013.
"It's Our Future – Kiwis concerned about the TPPA". Scoop.co.nz. 23 October 2012. Retrieved 15 November 2013.
"Police presence high at Auckland Trans-Pacific Partnership protest". 3news.co.nz. 8 November 2012. Retrieved 29 March 2013.
"New Zealanders wary of TPP". 3 News NZ. 12 December 2012.
"Farmers Protest Japan's Push to Join 'Trans-Pacific Partnership'". commondreams.org. 13 March 2012. Retrieved 30 March 2013.
Daniel Lau (21 February 2014). "'Zombies' protest against TPPA". The Malaysian Insider. Retrieved 21 February 2014.
Matthew Theunissen, Teuila Fuatai (21 February 2014). "Thousands protest TPPA in downtown Auckland". The New Zealand Herald. Retrieved 30 March 2014.
"It's our future – we want a say". Scoop Independent News. 28 March 2014. Retrieved 11 April 2014.
"Thousands rally against trade agreement". One News (Television New Zealand). 8 November 2014. Retrieved 8 November 2014.
Stewart, Matt; Rilkoff, Matt (8 November 2014). "Marches against TPPA trade deal". Stuff.co.nz. Archived from the original on 8 November 2014.
Carter, Zach (5 January 2015). "Bernie Sanders' Brutal Letter on Obama's Trade Pact Foreshadows 2016 Democratic Clash". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 27 January 2015.
"Anti-trade deal protesters hijack Senate TPP hearing". RT. 27 January 2015. Retrieved 27 January 2015.
MAXWELL, JOEL. "Police arrest Wellington anti-TPPA protesters". Stuff.co.nz. Retrieved 15 September 2015.
"Thousands march against TPP trade agreement". Stuff.co.nz. 15 August 2015. Retrieved 16 August 2015.
"TPP demonstrations across NZ". RadioNZ. Retrieved 16 August 2015.
"Thousands protest TPPA around the country". Yahoo News NZ. Retrieved 16 August 2015.
Well, the negotiations recently came to a close, and Clinton promptly announced that she opposes the deal.
"As of today, I am not in favor of what I have learned about it," she said in an Oct. 8 interview with PBS Newshour’s Judy Woodruff, adding, "I don’t believe it’s going to meet the high bar I have set."
This stance has some people scratching their heads, because she praised the negotiations while serving as secretary of state.
We thought we should take a look back and see how Clinton’s position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has evolved. She has addressed the trade deal on a number of occasions since official negotiations started in 2010 (CNN counted at least 45 comments), so we’ll note her most representative remarks in chronological order.
Sept. 8, 2010, remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations:
"We want to realize the benefits from greater economic integration. In
order to do that, we have to be willing to play. To this end ... we're
pursuing a regional agreement with the nations of the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, and we know that that will help create new jobs and
opportunities here at home."
March 9, 2011, remarks at the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum:
"The United States is also making important progress on the
Trans-Pacific Partnership, which will bring together nine APEC economies
in a cutting-edge, next generation trade deal, one that aims to
eliminate all trade tariffs by 2015 while improving supply change,
saving energy, enhancing business practices both through information
technology and green technologies."
July 8, 2012, remarks with a Japanese official:
"The United States welcomes Japan's interest in the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, which we think will connect economies throughout the
region, making trade and investment easier, spurring exports, creating
jobs."
Nov. 5, 2012, remarks in Australia:
"This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free,
transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of
law and a level playing field. And when negotiated, this agreement will
cover 40 percent of the world's total trade and build in strong
protections for workers and the environment."
July 2014, in her memoir Hard Choices:
"Because TPP negotiations are still ongoing, it makes sense to reserve
judgment until we can evaluate the final proposed agreement. It’s safe
to say the TPP won’t be perfect -- no deal negotiated among a dozen
countries ever will be -- but its higher standards, if implemented and
enforced, should benefit American businesses and workers… The TPP became
the economic pillar of our strategy in Asia."
May 22, 2015, at a press conference in New Hampshire:
"I've been for trade agreements, I've been against trade agreements,
voted for some, voted against others, so I want to judge this when I see
exactly what exactly is in it and whether or not I think it meets my
standards," adding she had some "concerns" about the TPP.
There is an obvious difference in tenor between Clinton’s remarks as a
member of the Obama administration and today as a presidential
candidate. Across the whole time period, she has said details needed to
be hammered out, and they had to meet certain standards. But her
comments were more positive on the whole from 2010-13 than they have
been recently.Here are some of the words she used to describe the TPP before she left the State Department in 2013: "exciting," "innovative," "ambitious," "groundbreaking," "cutting-edge," "high-quality," "high-standard" and "gold standard." She also publicly encouraged more nations to get involved, such as Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia, and she expressed hope that the negotiations would wrap up by the end of 2012.
As a presidential candidate she has used more hedging language, for example saying she has "some concerns," and now she has said she outright doesn’t support the deal as it stands.
While some pundits have painted Clinton’s transition as political -- an appeal to liberals who oppose the deal -- she might have legitimately changed her mind. It’s possible the deal looks dramatically different than it did at the early stages of negotiations, when Clinton was at the State Department. The negotiations have been conducted in secret, so it’s hard for us to assess that ourselves. Also, as secretary of state, she represented the Obama administration, which remains wholeheartedly in favor of the deal.
"I still believe in the goal of a strong and fair trade agreement in the Pacific as part of a broader strategy both at home and abroad, just as I did when I was secretary of state," Clinton said in an Oct. 7 statement. "I appreciate the hard work that President Obama and his team put into this process and recognize the strides they made. But the bar here is very high and, based on what I have seen, I don't believe this agreement has met it."
It’s up to voters to decide how they feel about her changed stance on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but we rate Clinton’s reversal as a Full Flop.
About this statement:
Published: Thursday, October 8th, 2015 at 4:19 p.m.Researched by: Lauren Carroll
Edited by: Angie Drobnic Holan
Subjects: Trade
Sources:
PBS Newshour, "Hillary Clinton says she does not support Trans-Pacific Partnership," Oct. 7, 2015
PolitiFact, "Hillary Clinton has 'been very clear' on trade, campaign chair says," June 14, 2015
PolitiFact, "How Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton differ on the Trans-Pacific Partnership," Sept. 2, 2015
NBC First Read, "Why Clinton’s flip-flop on trade is so unbelievable," Oct. 8, 2015
CNN, "45 times Secretary Clinton pushed the trade bill she now opposes," June 15, 2015
State Department, "Former Secretary Clinton's Remarks," accessed Oct. 8, 2015
Clinton campaign, "Hillary Clinton Statement on Trans-Pacific Partnership," Oct. 7, 2015
NPR, "A Timeline Of Hillary Clinton's Evolution On Trade," April 21, 2015
Email interview, Clinton spokesman Josh Schwerin, Oct. 7, 2015
PolitiFact, "Hillary Clinton has 'been very clear' on trade, campaign chair says," June 14, 2015
PolitiFact, "How Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton differ on the Trans-Pacific Partnership," Sept. 2, 2015
NBC First Read, "Why Clinton’s flip-flop on trade is so unbelievable," Oct. 8, 2015
CNN, "45 times Secretary Clinton pushed the trade bill she now opposes," June 15, 2015
State Department, "Former Secretary Clinton's Remarks," accessed Oct. 8, 2015
Clinton campaign, "Hillary Clinton Statement on Trans-Pacific Partnership," Oct. 7, 2015
NPR, "A Timeline Of Hillary Clinton's Evolution On Trade," April 21, 2015
Email interview, Clinton spokesman Josh Schwerin, Oct. 7, 2015
Guests
Robert Weissman,
is president of Public Citizen.
Zahara Heckscher,
writer, mother and social justice advocate. She was arrested last week in Atlanta, Georgia, for disrupting the TPP
negotiations in a protest aimed at maintaining access to affordable
cancer medicines. She is currently in treatment for breast cancer.
The United States and 11 other Pacific Rim nations reached an
agreement Monday on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the largest regional
trade accord in history. The agreement has been negotiated for eight
years in secret and will encompass 40 percent of the global economy. The
secret 30-chapter text has still not been made public, although
sections of draft text have been leaked by WikiLeaks during the
negotiations. Congress will have at least 90 days to review the TPP
before President Obama can sign it. The Senate granted Obama approval
to fast-track the measure and present the agreement to Congress for a
yes-or-no vote with no amendments allowed. During Senate hearings in
April, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders fought fast track, warning that
the American people need time to understand the TPP.
He issued a statement Monday saying, “I am 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 multi-national
corporations rig the system to pad their profits at our expense." Robert
Weissman, president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen,
joins us to discuss TPP.
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN:
I want to bring Rob Weissman into the conversation. Robert Weissman is
president of Public Citizen. Can you put this in the larger context,
Rob, of the TPP overall—who this benefits, who
this hurts, who made the decisions around this, and then, who gets to
decide whether the U.S. approves this?ROBERT WEISSMAN: Well, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the TPP, is a collection of provisions that amount to a wish list for giant multinational corporations. It’s really as simple as that. And the most important industry in the whole deal was the pharmaceutical industry, which is why the USTR, the U.S. trade representative, insisted on putting in the provision that Zahara was talking about. It’s why the agency was willing to hold up the entire deal to try to extract more concessions for Big Pharma.
You know, as your viewers and listeners know, this is a deal that was negotiated in secret over a period of five years—secret from the American public, secret from the public in the countries that were negotiating, but not secret from the giant corporations who it aims to benefit. The USTR has a system of advisory committees, so it shows text and runs ideas by corporate representatives from almost all affected industries. So, in general, it’s reasonable to say that corporate America knew what was going on all along. And they absolutely knew, in the waning days of the negotiation, where USTR made clear they were in constant conversation with industry representatives about what they were discussing. They were not in constant conversation with people like Zahara or consumer groups or labor unions or environmental organizations. And as a result, we have a deal that comes out that prioritizes the needs and demands of multinational corporations, gives them special rights, gives them special powers, and entrenches a failed development model and a failed trade model, which we can reasonably call NAFTA on steroids.
So what we’re going to see coming out of this
deal, if it goes through—and it’s not a done deal at all yet—but if the
deal is finalized and enacted and implemented, we’re going to see an
expansion of the NAFTA model. That means, in
the United States, more export of jobs; more downward pressure on wages,
especially in the United States and throughout the 12-country region;
degradation of the environment and difficulties in imposing new
environmental standards; increasing pharmaceutical prices; and the
creation and expansion of special powers for giant—giant foreign
corporations to sue governments when they take actions that the
companies say would interfere with their expected profits.
Now, for the last part of your question and
why it’s not a done deal, although allegedly the negotiations are over
and there may still even be last-minute things they’re working on, in
the United States, the deal has to be approved by Congress. And we had a
preview of what the vote was going to be like earlier this year when
Congress gave the administration fast-track authority. That was the deal
that set the terms on which a TPP or other
trade deals would be voted on in Congress. And that was an incredibly
close vote. So it foreshadows an incredibly close vote that’s going to
come on the TPP sometime next year, in an
election year, which the Obama administration was desperately trying to
avoid. Why try to avoid it? Because the American people are
overwhelmingly opposed to NAFTA and NAFTA-style
deals. So we’re going to see whether members of Congress are willing to
represent their people, to respond to the demands of their
constituents, in an election year, or whether they choose to demand—to
respond to the demands of their donors and the Chamber of Commerce and
Big Pharma and the big business community.
AMY GOODMAN: Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders spoke out against the TPP during Senate hearings in April. This is what he said.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Not only is there massive opposition to this TPP agreement, but there is a lot of concern that the American people have not been involved in the process, that there’s not a lot of transparency. So what we are trying to do here is to make sure that this debate takes place out in the public, that the American people have as much time as possible to understand the very significant implications of this trade agreement. And I and, I suspect, others will do our best to make that happen.
AMY GOODMAN: Also, Donald Trump tweeted, the Republican presidential candidate, "The incompetence of our current administration is beyond comprehension. TPP
is a terrible [deal]." Rob, last year at your own gala, at the Public
Citizen gala, Senator Elizabeth Warren addressed the crowd. She famously
said, "From what I hear, Wall Street pharmaceuticals, telecom, big
polluters and outsourcers are all salivating at the chance to rig the
deal in the upcoming trade [talks]. So," she said, "the question is: Why
are the trade [talks] secret? You’ll love this answer. Boy, the things
you learn on Capitol Hill. I actually have had supporters of the deal
say to me, 'They have to be secret, because if the American people knew
what was actually in them, they would be opposed.'" Rob Weissman?
ROBERT WEISSMAN:
Yeah, well, as usual, Senator Warren hits it out of the park, and
that’s exactly right. And, you know, I’ve had members of—officials at
the USTR say effectively the same thing: "We can’t let people know what’s in the deal because then people might object to the deal."
Well, now that the deal is almost concluded,
we’re going to eventually see the text, and we’re going to have the
fight. And it’s going to be a really tough fight. I mean, you know, as
you noted, Senator Sanders is strongly opposed to it. I think we may see
Senator Clinton—Secretary Clinton come out against the deal, under
pressure, in the next few weeks and months. Donald Trump is strongly
against it. There is a strong—and this is not a—although it’s partisan
in some strange ways on Capitol Hill, it’s not a partisan issue among
the American public. Across the board, people oppose this stuff. So, if
you’re Republican, you’re going to have to deal with a constituency that
actually doesn’t want you to carry water for the Chamber of Commerce
and for Big Pharma on this issue. And there are going to—that’s going to
cause a lot of tension in the Republican Party, especially as you have
things stoked up by Donald Trump and probably some other of the
presidential candidates. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz both voted against fast
track in the Senate vote. So we’re going to have a very interesting
political period.
It’s completely unclear what the timing is
going to be. It will not go before the Congress before February, but it
could be basically any time in 2016 that this happens. The
administration, unfortunately, because of the passage of fast track, is
going to have a great deal of control—great deal of control over the
introduction of the bill and the timing of an eventual vote.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to comments made by Japan’s economy minister, Akira Amari. He talked about some of the details of the TPP.
AKIRA AMARI: [translated] With regard to dairy products, we maintain tariff quotas and the state trading system. We install a new tariff quota framework based on the current tariff quota and the state trading system, but maintain the tax rates outside of the framework. ... We reached an agreement to complete elimination of tariffs on more than 80 percent of auto parts with the U.S., which have the export value of almost 2 trillion yen from Japan.
AMY GOODMAN: Rob Weissman, can you respond to Japan’s economy minister?
ROBERT WEISSMAN:
Well, there’s a lot that’s interesting in that, and this is, you know,
some of the stuff that I think is probably less interesting for most
people. But on the auto side, those tariff reductions are going to take
place in 25 years’ time—at which point who knows if there will even be
automobiles as we’re talking about? So, in terms of looking at exports
of U.S. cars, well, it’s enough to know that Ford Motor Company actually
has come out opposed to the deal, not so much over this issue, but over
other things that they say weren’t achieved in the TPP negotiation.
On the dairy side, there was a really
interesting comment yesterday by the New England—I’m sorry, by the New
Zealand trade minister, who talked about the fact that dairy is not a
globalized industry yet. So, New Zealand is the world’s biggest exporter
of dairy products, and his vision is for a globalized dairy industry,
like—he said, like the auto industry. Well, you know, one really should
ask what the value is and whether we really want a world of a globalized
dairy industry, or whether there’s a different vision of how we
organize the economy and the production of food that relies actually on
local sourcing of products, and whether we think that addressing climate
change, among other pressing issues, demands that we look more towards
localism. So, the idea of the TPP is really,
at its core, moving completely away from that, globalizing everything
under the control of giant multinational corporations, taking power away
from, in this case, local farmers, but also local and small businesses,
and really centralizing authority in the supernational giant
corporations.
AMY GOODMAN: And finally, can you comment on Zahara Heckscher’s arrest, why she was arrested, and what you understand was in this TPP
around cases like hers, around pharmaceutical drugs? The administration
would say they actually weakened what the corporations wanted.
ROBERT WEISSMAN:
Well, let me first say that I think what Zahara did was really heroic,
to move beyond her own personal challenges in dealing with, as you hear,
an incredibly difficult situation and say, "You know what? I can
identify with women around the world and patients around the world, and
even people who aren’t yet patients, and advocate for their interests." I
just think it’s incredibly moving and touching. And she’s a friend, and
to say I’m proud of her, it sort of puts me in some role, but I’m just
inspired by what she did.
On the underlying issue, what we’re looking at
is the degree to which the pharmaceutical industry can impose monopoly
pricing on the entire world. And what we’re calling the death sentence
clause is particularly about a class of drugs called biologics. These
are basically biotech drugs. It’s the cutting edge of the pharmaceutical
industry. It’s most cancer drugs. It’s a number of drugs to treat
arthritis and a number of drugs to treat smaller disease classes. But
it’s the future of the industry. There’s nothing really special about
the drugs in terms of market pricing. They’re made differently. They’re
made from living cells and proteins as opposed to what are called small
molecule chemical drugs, that are traditional drugs. They’re slightly
more difficult to manufacture.
But at the end of the day, the issue that was
at stake here is whether or not we’re going to have monopoly pricing for
eternity for these drugs, or when generic competition is it introduced
into the market. And this issue about five, eight or 12 years, among
other issues, was about the degree and timing of when generic
competition is made available. And as Zahara was explaining, these drugs
are priced at such astronomical levels, by and large, that while
they’re on patent, they are unaffordable in poor countries. They’re
quite unaffordable in richer countries, too, and we’re seeing increasing
levels of rationing in the rich countries. But in the poor countries,
they’re just out of reach. And the question of when they become
available to people who need them is entirely a question of when there’s
generic competition permitted, because the price of the drugs has
nothing to do with the cost of developing them, nothing to do with the
cost of researching them, nothing to do with the cost of manufacturing
them. The high prices are entirely due to the monopolies.
So, very unfortunately, USTR made its single most high priority in the TPP
negotiations the advancement of the monopoly profit interests of Big
Pharma. And that’s what was going on here. Now, Big Pharma wanted 12
years in terms of this death sentence clause, and they didn’t. They got
something that’s between five and eight years, and incredibly
complicated, but will delay the introduction of generic competition for
many, many years. And it’s really—it’s an absolute disgrace, but it’s a
sign of what the whole process is to know that the U.S. was willing to
hold up the entire deal to win gains for Big Pharma. They didn’t get all
they wanted, because the countries in the negotiation pushed back. They
were supported by local campaigns and global campaigners who explained
what the consequences were. And thankfully, the key negotiators said,
"You know what? We actually care little bit about public health. We care
about patient rights. We’re not only about the interests of Big
Pharma." That was despite the demands from the U.S. Trade
Representative’s Office. And, you know—
AMY GOODMAN: This is President Obama’s Trade Representative Office.
ROBERT WEISSMAN: —even though they stood up, the USTR got a lot for Big Pharma.
AMY GOODMAN: What does President Obama gain by this?
ROBERT WEISSMAN:
You know, that is a complete mystery. This is supposedly going to be a
big part of his legacy. Well, if you ask Bill Clinton about his legacy
with NAFTA, it’s something he’s embarrassed
about and doesn’t want associated with him. And that’s what it’s going
to be for President Obama if this deal goes through. I mean, I think
President Obama has been—you know, he’s unfortunately influenced by Mike
Froman, who’s the USTR and a personal friend,
who’s a believer in this stuff, but a pure corporate guy. And I think
that in Washington, D.C., outside—unlike everywhere else in the country,
in Washington, D.C., serious people know that you have to support free
trade, and therefore the president has done that. Now, of course, the
rest of the country understands it much more clearly through experience.
And also, of course, these deals have nothing to do with free trade,
exemplified by these Big Pharma protection provisions, which are all
about monopolies and undermining and interfering with free trade and
free competition.
AMY GOODMAN: So what happens in Congress now?
ROBERT WEISSMAN:
Well, we’re going to have some period of time. There’s going to be 90
days, at least, from now, before the president can sign the deal, and
after that, 30 days, at least, before the implementing legislation is
presented to Congress to vote on. So we’re looking at least four months
before the thing finally is formally presented to Congress. And it may
be much longer, but it’s going to be at least four months.
In that period, and when the thing is on the
floor of Congress, you’re going to see a massive mobilization in the
United States to demand members of Congress vote this horrible deal
down. You’ve got almost the entirety of the labor movement, almost the
entirety of the environmental movement, almost all consumer groups,
massive numbers of faith-based groups, community groups, all united in
opposition to this, and it is going to become a major issue in American
politics. It’s going to become a major issue in the presidential
campaign. And, you know, we’re going to work super hard on this, but
we’re very optimistic that this thing is going to be stopped and that
people power will actually prevail over the interests of the
multinational corporations.
AMY GOODMAN:
Has Hillary Clinton signaled either way whether she agrees with her
competition, right, whether she agrees with Bernie Sanders or agrees
with the TPP?
ROBERT WEISSMAN:
Well, her views, let’s say, are evolving on this. And I expect them to
evolve into opposition. She supported the deal, or the negotiations,
when she was secretary of state. In her book, she raises concerns about
one of the worst elements of these kinds of deals, which are the
so-called investor-state ISDS rules, that give
corporations special rights to sue countries for limiting their
expected profits. So she’s raised that issue specifically. As a
presidential candidate, she said she has concerns, and she wants the
deal to meet the highest standards. Once the text is finally published,
she can no longer talk about what the deal might be, and she’s going to
have to talk about what the deal is. And I think she’s going to be under
a lot of pressure to do the right thing and come out in opposition.
AMY GOODMAN: So, finally, Zahara Heckscher, the—what you call the death sentence clause is still in the TPP.
ZAHARA HECKSCHER: Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think that the TPP should be given a death sentence?
ZAHARA HECKSCHER:
A hundred percent. I think cancer patients and our families need to
stand up and tell the Congress to vote this thing down. We did—through
activism and our brothers and sisters in other countries influencing
their governments, we knocked some provisions down from 12 years to
five-to-eight years. But if you have cancer, you can’t wait five years,
you can’t wait eight years, let alone 12 years. So, unfortunately, the
death sentence clause is still in there. Other negative provisions are
still in there which will harm access to non-biologics. And, you know,
our message is TPP kills. And we’re going to
be joining the other citizen groups working against this. And I’ll put
my body on the line again if I have to, because it’s that important.
AMY GOODMAN: Zahara Heckscher, I want to thank you for being with us, a social justice advocate, arrested last week for disrupting the TPP negotiations. She is currently in treatment for breast cancer.
ZAHARA HECKSCHER: Thank you, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: I also want to thank Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen.
Trans-Pacific Partnership
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. (October 2015) |
Leaders of prospective member states at a TPP summit in 2010
|
|
| Type | Trade agreement |
|---|---|
| Drafted | 5 October 2015[1][2][3] |
| Negotiators | |
Historically, 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 2006. Beginning in 2008, additional countries joined the discussion for a broader agreement: Australia, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, the United States, and Vietnam, bringing the total number of participating countries in the negotiations to twelve.
Participating nations set the goal of completing negotiations in 2012, but contentious issues such as agriculture, intellectual property, and services and investments caused negotiations to continue for significantly longer.[7] They finally reached agreement on 5 October 2015.[8] Implementation of the TPP is one of the primary goals of the trade agenda of the Obama administration in the United States of America.[9] Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper expects "the full text of the agreement to be released in the next few days, with signatures on the finalized text and deal early in the new year, and ratification over the next two years."[10] Although the text of the treaty has not been made public, Wikileaks has published several leaked documents since 2013.
A number of global health professionals, internet freedom activists, environmentalists, organised labour, advocacy groups, and elected officials have criticised and protested against the treaty, in large part because of the secrecy of negotiations, the agreement's expansive scope, and controversial clauses in drafts leaked to the public.[11][12][13][14][15]
Contents
Membership
Twelve countries are participating in negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. They are the four parties to the 2005 Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement in 2006, and eight others.
Reached conclusion on content
Announced interest in joining
Potential future members
| Country/region | Status 2005 agreement | Status TPP | Start of TPP Negotiations |
|---|---|---|---|
 Singapore |
Party (28 May 2006) | Agreement reached | February 2008 |
 Brunei |
Party (28 May 2006) | Agreement reached | February 2008 |
 New Zealand |
Party (12 July 2006) | Agreement reached | February 2008 |
 Chile |
Party (8 November 2006) | Agreement reached | February 2008 |
 United States |
Non-party | Agreement reached | February 2008 |
 Australia |
Non-party | Agreement reached | November 2008 |
 Peru |
Non-party | Agreement reached | November 2008 |
 Vietnam |
Non-party | Agreement reached | November 2008 |
 Malaysia |
Non-party | Agreement reached | October 2010 |
 Mexico |
Non-party | Agreement reached | October 2012 |
 Canada[16] |
Non-party | Agreement reached | October 2012 |
 Japan |
Non-party | Agreement reached | May 2013 |
 Colombia |
Non-party | Announced interest | January 2010 |
 Philippines |
Non-party | Announced interest | September 2010 |
 Thailand |
Non-party | Announced interest | November 2012 |
 Indonesia |
Non-party | Announced interest | June 2013 |
 Taiwan |
Non-party | Announced interest | September 2013 |
 South Korea |
Non-party | Announced interest | November 2013 |
Potential members
South Korea is not part of the 2006 agreement, but it has shown interest in entering the TPP,[17] and was invited to the TPP negotiating rounds by the US after the successful conclusion of its Free trade agreement between the United States of America and the Republic of Korea in December 2010.[18] South Korea already has bilateral trade agreements with some TPP members, but areas such as vehicle manufacturing and agriculture still need to be agreed upon, making further multilateral TPP negotiations somewhat complicated.[19] South Korea may join the TPP as part of a second wave of expansion for the trade agreement.[20]Other countries and regions interested in TPP membership include Taiwan,[21] the Philippines,[22] Laos,[23] Colombia,[24] Thailand,[25] and Indonesia.[26] According to law professor Edmund Sim, many of these potential countries would have to change their protectionist trade policies in order to join the TPP.[27] Other potential future members include Cambodia,[28] Bangladesh[29] and India.[30]
The most notable country in the Pacific Rim not involved in the negotiations is China. According to the Brookings Institution, the most fundamental challenge for the TPP project regarding China is that "it may not constitute a powerful enough enticement to propel China to sign on to these new standards on trade and investment. China so far has reacted by accelerating its own trade initiatives in Asia."[31] However, China may still be interested in joining the TPP eventually.[32]
History
Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement
| Type | Trade agreement |
|---|---|
| Drafted | 3 June 2005[33][34] |
| Signed | 18 July 2005[35][36][37] |
| Location | Wellington, New Zealand |
| Effective | 28 May 2006[38] |
| Condition | 2 ratifications |
| Parties | |
| Depositary | Government of New Zealand |
| Languages | English and Spanish, in event of conflict English prevails |
By 2001 New Zealand and Singapore had already joined in the New Zealand/Singapore Closer Economic Partnership (NZSCEP). The Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (Trans-Pacific SEP) built on the NZSCEP.[40]:5
During the 2002 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Leaders' Meeting in Los Cabos, Mexico, Prime Ministers Helen Clark of New Zealand, Goh Chok Tong of Singapore and Chilean President Ricardo Lagos began negotiations on the Pacific Three Closer Economic Partnership (P3-CEP).[40]:5 According to the New Zealand Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade,[40]:5
"The shared desire was to create a comprehensive, forward-looking trade agreement that set high-quality benchmarks on trade rules, and would help to promote trade liberalisation and facilitate trade within the APEC region."Brunei first took part as a full negotiating party in April 2005 before the fifth, and final round of talks.[41] Subsequently, the agreement was renamed to TPSEP (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership agreement or Pacific-4). Negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPSEP or P4) were concluded by Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore on 3 June 2005,[34] and entered into force on 28 May 2006 for New Zealand and Singapore, 12 July 2006 for Brunei, and 8 November 2006 for Chile.[42]
— Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, New Zealand 2005
The original TPSEP agreement contains an accession clause and affirms the members' "commitment to encourage the accession to this Agreement by other economies".[41][43] It is a comprehensive agreement, affecting trade in goods, rules of origin, trade remedies, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, technical barriers to trade, trade in services, intellectual property, government procurement and competition policy. Among other things, it called for reduction by 90 percent of all tariffs between member countries by 1 January 2006, and reduction of all trade tariffs to zero by the year 2015.[44]
Although original and negotiating parties are members of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the TPSEP (and the TPP it grew into) are not APEC initiatives. However, the TPP is considered to be a pathfinder for the proposed Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP), an APEC initiative.
Trans-Pacific Partnership
In January 2008, the US agreed to enter into talks with the Pacific 4 (P4) members regarding trade liberalisation in financial services.[45] On 22 September 2008, US Trade Representative Susan C. Schwab announced that the US would be the first country to begin negotiations with the P4 countries to join the TPP, planning to start the first round of talks in early 2009.[46][47] In November 2008, Australia, Vietnam, and Peru announced that they would also join the P4 trade bloc.[48][49] In October 2010, Malaysia announced that it had also joined the TPP negotiations.[50][51][52]After the inauguration of President Barack Obama in January 2009, the anticipated March 2009 negotiations were postponed. However, in his first trip to Asia in November 2009, President Obama reaffirmed the United States' commitment to the TPP, and on 14 December 2009, new US Trade Representative Ron Kirk notified Congress that President Obama planned to enter TPP negotiations "with the objective of shaping a high-standard, broad-based regional pact".[53] On the last day of the 2010 APEC summit, leaders of the nine negotiating countries endorsed the proposal advanced by US President Barack Obama that set a target for settlement of negotiations by the next APEC summit in November 2011.[54]
In 2010, Canada had become an observer in the TPP talks, and expressed interest in officially joining,[55] but was not committed to join, purportedly because the US and New Zealand blocked it because of concerns over Canadian agricultural policy (i.e. supply management)—specifically dairy—and intellectual property-rights protection.[56][57] Several pro-business and internationalist Canadian media outlets raised concerns about this as a missed opportunity. In a feature in the Financial Post, former Canadian trade-negotiator Peter Clark claimed that the US Obama Administration had strategically outmaneuvered the Canadian Harper Government. Wendy Dobson and Diana Kuzmanovic for The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, argued for the economic necessity of the TPP to Canada.[58] Embassy warned that Canada's position in APEC could be compromised by being excluded from both the US-oriented TPP and the proposed China-oriented ASEAN +3 trade agreement (or the broader Comprehensive Economic Partnership for East Asia).[51][52][59]
In June 2012, Canada and Mexico announced that they were joining the TPP negotiations.[60][61][62][63] Mexico's interest in joining was initially met with concern among TPP negotiators about its customs policies.[56] Canada and Mexico formally became TPP negotiating participants in October 2012, following completion of the domestic consultation periods of the other nine members.[64][65][66]
Japan officially joined the TPP negotiations on 23 July 2013. According to the Brookings Institution, Prime Minister Abe's decision to commit Japan to joining the TPP should be understood as a necessary complement to his efforts to stimulate the Japanese economy with monetary easing and the related depreciation of the Yen. These efforts alone, without the type of economic reform the TPP will lead to, are unlikely to produce long-term improvements in Japan's growth prospects.[67]
In April 2013 APEC members proposed, along with setting a possible target for settlement of the TPP by the 2013 APEC summit, that World Trade Organisation (WTO) members set a target for settlement of the Doha Round mini-package by the ninth WTO ministerial conference (MC9), also to be held around the same time in Bali.[68]
This call for inclusion and co-operation between the WTO and Economic Partnership Agreements (also termed regional trade agreements) like the TPP comes after the statement by Pierre Lellouche who described the sentiment of the Doha round negotiations; "Although no one wants to say it, we must call a cat a cat (failure is failure)...".[69]
A set of draft documents that were leaked in late-2013 indicated that public concern had little impact on the negotiations.[70] They also indicated there are strong disagreements between the US and negotiating parties regarding intellectual property, agricultural subsidies, and financial services.[71]
A spokesman for Australia's Trade Minister Andrew Robb confirmed on 1 August 2015, that a conclusion had not been reached during the Ministerial Meeting in Hawaii, U.S., in late July 2015. Robb told the media that Australia had made progress on sugar and dairy matters, but the balance that the Australian government was seeking had not yet been finalized.[72]
Negotiation rounds
19 formal rounds of TPP negotiations have been held:[73][74]| Round | Dates | Location | US Trade Representative's summary | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | 15–19 March 2010 | Melbourne, Victoria, Australia | The negotiating groups that met included industrial goods, agriculture, sanitary and phytosanitary standards, telecommunications, financial services, customs, rules of origin, government procurement, environment, and trade capacity building. Negotiators agreed to draft papers in preparation for the second round of negotiations.[75] | |
| 2nd | 14–18 June 2010 | San Francisco, California, USA | This round included "determining the architecture for market access negotiations, deciding the relationship between the TPP and existing FTAs among the negotiating partners, addressing "horizontal" issues such as small business priorities, regulatory coherence, and other issues that reflect the way businesses operate and workers interact in the 21st century, and proceeding toward the tabling of text on all chapters of the agreement in the third negotiating round, scheduled for October in Brunei."[76] | |
| 3rd | 5–8 October 2010 | Brunei | This round included "meetings on agriculture, services, investment, government procurement, competition, environment, and labor. The groups focused on the objectives that they had set for this round: preparation of consolidated text and proposals for cooperation. Negotiations will continue through Saturday, with groups on telecommunications, e-commerce, textiles, customs, technical barriers to trade, and trade capacity building beginning Friday."[77] | |
| 4th | 6–10 December 2010 | Auckland, New Zealand | In the 4th round talks, the negotiating countries "began work on trade in goods, financial services, customs, labor, and intellectual property. They also discussed cross-cutting issues, including how to ensure that small- and medium-sized enterprises can take advantage of the TPP, promoting greater connectivity and the participation of U.S. firms in Asia-Pacific supply chains and enhancing the coherence of the regulatory systems of the TPP countries to make trade across the region more seamless."[78] | |
| 5th | 14–18 February 2011 | Santiago, Chile | In Santiago, the negotiating countries "made further progress in developing the agreement's legal texts, which will spell out the rights and obligations each country will take on and that will cover all aspects of trade and investment relationships. The teams carefully reviewed the text proposals made by each country, ensuring understanding of each other's proposals so negotiations could advance. With consolidated negotiating texts in most areas, partners began seeking to narrow differences and to consider the interests and concerns of each country."[79] | |
| 6th | 24 March – 1 April 2011 | Singapore | In Singapore, "the United States and TPP countries made substantial headway toward a key goal of developing the legal texts of the agreement, which include commitments covering all aspects of their trade and investment relationship. Recognizing the priority of this negotiation as well as the challenge of negotiating a regional agreement with nine countries, each country began showing the type of flexibility that will be needed to successfully conclude the negotiation. As a result, the teams were able to narrow the gaps in their positions on a wide range of issues across the more than 25 chapters of the agreement."[80] | |
| 7th | 15–24 June 2011 | Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam | In Vietnam, "among the issues on which the teams had particularly productive discussions were the new cross-cutting issues that will feature for the first time in the TPP. After consulting internally on the U.S. text tabled at the sixth round, they furthered their efforts to find common ground on the regulatory coherence text intended to make the regulatory systems of their countries operate in a more consistent and seamless manner and avoid the types of regulatory barriers that are increasingly among the key obstacles to trade. The teams also had constructive discussions on approaches to development in the TPP and the importance of ensuring that the agreement serves to close the development gap among TPP members."[81] | |
| 8th | 6–15 September 2011 | Chicago, Illinois, USA | "Negotiators from the nine TPP partner countries – Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and the United States – are reporting good progress early in the eighth round of talks, expected to last through 15 September. Negotiating groups that have already begun meetings include services, financial services, investment, customs, telecommunications, intellectual property rights (IPR), government procurement, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, and environment. Numerous negotiating teams are also holding bilateral meetings."[82] | |
| 9th | 22–29 October 2011 | Lima, Peru | "During this round, negotiators built upon progress made in previous rounds and pressed forward toward the goal of reaching the broad outlines of an ambitious, jobs-focused agreement by the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Leaders' meeting in Honolulu, HI next month. At APEC, President Obama and his counterparts from the other eight TPP countries will take stock of progress to date and discuss next steps."[83] | |
| 10th | 5–9 December 2011 | Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia[84] | ||
| 11th | 2–9 March 2012 | Melbourne, Victoria, Australia[85] | ||
| 12th | 8–18 May 2012 | Dallas, Texas, USA[86] | ||
| 13th | 2–10 July 2012 | San Diego, California, USA[87] | ||
| 14th | 6–15 September 2012 | Leesburg, Virginia, USA[88] | ||
| 15th | 3–12 December 2012 | Auckland, New Zealand[89] | ||
| 16th | 4–13 March 2013 | Singapore[90] | ||
| 17th | 15–24 May 2013 | Lima, Peru[91] | ||
| 18th | 15–24 July 2013 | Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia[92] | ||
| 19th | 23–30 August 2013 | Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei | "explored how to develop a mutually-acceptable package, including possible landing zones on remaining sensitive and challenging issues and sequencing of issues in the final talks. Particular areas of focus have included matters related to market access for goods, services/investment, financial services, and government procurement as well as the texts covering intellectual property, competition, and environmental issues. We also discussed the remaining outstanding issues on labor, dispute settlement, and other areas. "[93] |
| Type of meeting | Dates | Location | US Trade Representative's summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chief Negotiators Meeting | 18–21 September 2013 | Washington, DC[94] | |
| Ministerial meeting | 3-? Oct 2013 | Bali, Indonesia | "Environment, intellectual property, and state-owned enterprises."[95] |
| 28 October – 1 November 2013 | Mexico City, Mexico | "Rules of Origin" [96] | |
| 30 October – 2 November 2013 | Washington, D.C. | "Government Procurement" [96] | |
| 4 – 7 November 2013 | Santiago, Chile | "State-Owned Enterprises" [96] | |
| 6 – 9 November 2013 | Washington, D.C. | "Investment" [96] | |
| 12 – 14 November 2013 | Washington, D.C. | "Legal and Institutional Issues" [96] | |
| 12 – 18 November | Salt Lake City, USA | "Rules of Origin" [96] | |
| Chief Negotiators Meeting | 19–24 November 2013 | Salt Lake City, USA | "Chief Negotiators and Key Experts" [96] |
| Ministers Meeting | 7–10 December 2013 | Singapore | |
| Ministers Meeting | 21–25 February 2014 | Singapore | |
| Ministers Meeting | 18–20 May 2014 | Singapore | |
| Chief negotiators meeting | 3–13 July 2014 | Ottawa, Canada (changed from Vancouver)[97][98][99] | |
| Chief negotiators meeting | 1–10 September 2014 | Hanoi, Vietnam[100] | |
| Ministers Meeting | 24–27 October 2014 | Sydney, Australia[101] | |
| Leaders’ and Ministers’ Meeting | November 2014 | Beijing, China[100] | |
| Chief negotiators meeting | 8–12 December 2014 | Washington, D.C.[100] | |
| Chief negotiators meeting | 26 January – 1 February | New York City, USA[100] | |
| Chief negotiators meeting | 9–15 March 2015 | Hawaii[100][102] | |
| Chief negotiators meeting | 23–26 April 2015 | Maryland[100] | |
| Chief negotiators meeting | 14–28 May 2015[100] | Guam | Ministerial meeting cancelled over uncertainty whether the United States would pass TPA authority.[103] |
| Ministerial meeting | 24–31 July 2015 | Hawaii, United States[8] | |
| Chief negotiators meeting | 26–30 September 2015 | Atlanta, Georgia[104] |
Contents
General outlines and summaries of the agreement have been provided by those conducting negotiations, but the full text of the agreement has been kept classified.[105] However, some portions of drafts of the full agreement have been leaked to the public. Many of the provisions in the leaked documents are modeled on previous trade and deregulation agreements.[citation needed]US Trade Representative's summary
According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative in November 2011, TPP chapters included: competition, co-operation and capacity building, cross-border services, customs, e-commerce, environment, financial services, government procurement, intellectual property, investment, labour, legal issues, market access for goods, rules of origin, sanitary and phytosanitary standards, technical barriers to trade, telecommunications, temporary entry, textiles and apparel, trade remedies.[106]As of 2013 the TPP sought to address issues that promote: "*Comprehensive market access by eliminating tariffs and other barriers to goods and services trade and investment, so as to create new opportunities for workers and businesses and immediate benefits for consumers.
- A fully regional agreement by facilitating the development of production and supply chains among TPP members, which will support the goals of job creation, improving living standards and welfare, and promoting sustainable growth among member countries.
- Cross-cutting trade issues by building on work being done in APEC
and other fora by incorporating four new cross-cutting issues in the
TPP. These issues are:
- Regulatory coherence: Commitments will promote trade between the countries by making trade among them more seamless and efficient.
- Competitiveness and business facilitation: Commitments will enhance the domestic and regional competitiveness of each member country's economy and promote economic integration and jobs in the region, including through the development of regional production and supply chains.
- Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises: Commitments will address concerns small- and medium-sized businesses have raised about the difficulty in understanding and using trade agreements, encouraging these sized enterprises to trade internationally.
- Development: Comprehensive and robust market liberalisation, improvements in trade and investment enhancing disciplines, and other commitments will serve to strengthen institutions important for economic development and governance and thereby contribute significantly to advancing TPP countries' respective economic development priorities.
- New trade challenges, by promoting trade and investment in innovative products and services, including the digital economy and green technologies, and to ensure a competitive business environment across the TPP region.
- Living agreement, by enabling the updating of the agreement when needed to address trade issues that materialise in the future as well as new issues that arise with the expansion of the agreement to include new countries."[107]
Intellectual property provisions
The intellectual property section of a leaked draft of the TPP lays out a minimum level of protections signators must enforce for trademarks, copyright, and patents. Trademarks may be visual, auditory or scents, and are granted exclusive use for trade. Copyright is granted at a length of life of author plus 70 years, and makes willful circumvention of protections (such as Digital Rights Management) illegal. The TPP also establishes that "making available" is the exclusive right of the copyright owner.[citation needed]As of December 2011 some provisions relating to the enforcement of patents and copyrights alleged to be present in the US proposal for the agreement had been criticised as being excessively restrictive, beyond those in the Korea–US trade agreement and Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).[108][109]
WikiLeaks has published draft documents on a regular basis since 2013: On 13 November 2013, it published a complete draft of the treaty's Intellectual Property Rights Chapter.[110][111] On 16 October 2014, it released a second updated version of the TPP Intellectual Property Rights Chapter.[112]
Investor–state arbitration (ISDS)
According to The Nation's interpretation of leaked documents in 2012, countries would be obliged to conform all their domestic laws and regulations to the TPP's rules, even limiting how governments could spend their tax dollars.[113] As of 2012, US negotiators were pursuing an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, also known as corporate tribunals, which according to The Nation can be used to "attack domestic public interest laws".[113] This mechanism, a common provision in international trade and investment agreements, grants an investor the right to initiate dispute settlement proceedings against a foreign government in their own right under international law. For example, if an investor invests in country "A", a member of a trade treaty, and country A breaches that treaty, then the investor may sue country A's government for the breach.[114] In 2013, the Australian government's position against investor state dispute settlement has been argued to support the rule of law and national energy security.[115]On 26 March 2015 WikiLeaks released the TPP's Investment Chapter,[116] according to which global corporations could sue governments in tribunals organized by the World Bank or the United Nations to obtain taxpayer compensation for loss of expected future profits due to government actions.[117]
In April 2015 the director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, Lori Wallach, said
“We consider it inappropriate to elevate an individual investor or company to equal status with a nation state to privately enforce a public treaty between two sovereign countries", ... “[ISDS] gives extraordinary new privileges and powers and rights to just one interest. Foreign investors are privileged vis-a-vis domestic companies, vis-a-vis the government of a country, [and] vis-a-vis other private sector interests",
"... the basic reality of ISDS: it provides foreign investors alone access to non-U.S. courts to pursue claims against the U.S. government on the basis of broader substantive rights than U.S. firms are afforded under U.S. law".[118]
Implications
Joshua Meltzer of the Brookings Institution, an American think tank, gave testimony to the House Small Business Committee on the implications of the TPP. During the hearing, entitled "U.S. Trade Strategy: What's Next for Small Business Exports?", Meltzer stated that as of 2012 the Asia-Pacific region accounted for 60 percent of global GDP and 50 percent of international trade, and is the fastest growing region in the world. The Brookings Institution estimated in 2012 that TPP would generate $5 billion in economic benefits to the US in 2015, and $14 billion in 2025. The economic benefits would likely be larger if the impact of investment liberalization under TPP were also considered. The TPP should generate growth opportunities for small and medium business exporters in the US, which represented 40 percent of US goods exports as of 2012. Small businesses tend to benefit disproportionately from trade liberalization, since they are less likely than large enterprises to establish overseas subsidiaries to overcome trade barriers. The TPP will also help counter the trend toward greater economic integration, which excludes the US, in the Asia-Pacific region. For example, ASEAN already has free trade agreements with China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand, and the US has been excluded from economic cooperation among ASEAN + 3 (ASEAN, China, Japan, South Korea).[119]Reported by CNN that one goal of TPP is to neutralize China's power in global trading and make American companies more competitive. However, in May 2013, China showed an interest in joining TPP and may see it as an opportunity for its slowing economy.[120]
According to the New York Times, "the clearest winners of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement would be American agriculture, along with technology and pharmaceutical companies, insurers and many large manufacturers" who could expand exports to the other nations that have signed the treaty.[121]
Relationship with other frameworks
Along with the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), the RCEP is a possible pathway to a free trade area of the Asia-Pacific, and a contribution to building momentum for global trade reform. Both the RCEP and TPP are ambitious FTAs and will involve complex negotiations as it involves multiple parties and sectors. The TPP and RCEP as mutually reinforcing parallel tracks for regional integration.[122]Domestic approval
The text of the agreement will have to be signed and ratified, according to the national procedures of the countries concerned. Canadian prime minister Harper has indicated he expects "signatures on the finalized text and deal early in the new year, and ratification over the next two years."[10]United States
The majority of United States free trade agreements are implemented as congressional-executive agreements.[123] Unlike treaties, such agreements require a majority of the House and Senate to pass.[123] Under trade promotion authority (TPA) , established by the Trade Act of 1974, Congress authorizes the President to negotiate "free trade agreements ... if they are approved by both houses in a bill enacted into public law and other statutory conditions are met."[123] In early 2012, the Obama administration indicated that a requirement for the conclusion of TPP negotiations is the renewal of TPA.[124] This would require the United States Congress to introduce and vote on an administration-authored bill for implementing the TPP with minimal debate and no amendments, with the entire process taking no more than 90 days.[125]In December 2013, 151 House Democrats signed a letter written by Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and George Miller (D-CA), which opposed the fast track trade promotion authority for the TPP. Several House Republicans opposed the measure on the grounds that it empowered the executive branch. In January 2014, House Democrats refused to put forward a co-sponsor for the legislation, hampering the bill's prospects for passage.[126]
On 16 April 2015, several US Senators introduced "The Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015", which is commonly known as TPA Fast-track legislation.[127] The bill passed the Senate on 21 May 2015, by a vote of 62 to 38, with 31 Democrats, five Republicans and both Independents opposing.[128][129] The bill went to the US House of Representatives, which narrowly passed the bill 218-208, and also removed the Trade Adjustment Assistance portions of the Senate bill.[130] The TPA was passed by the Senate on 24 June 2015, without the TAA provisions, requiring only the signature of the President before becoming law.[131] President Obama expressed a desire to sign the TPA and TAA together,[132] and did sign both into law on 29 June, as the TAA was able to make its way through congress in a separate bill.[133] By June 2015, the Trade-Promotion Authority bill (TPA) passed the Senate.[134] This final approval to legislation granted President Obama "enhanced power to negotiate major trade agreements with Asia and Europe." Through the TPA, Obama could "submit trade deals to Congress for an expedited vote without amendments."[134] The successful conclusion of these bilateral talks was necessary before the other ten TPP members could complete the trade deal.[135]
Non-party support
In a speech delivered in Singapore on 30 January 2015, Philip Hammond, the United Kingdom Foreign Secretary, described the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership as "potentially important liberalising steps forward".[136]Points of contention within the agreement
Causes of delays
Wikileaks' exposure of the Intellectual Property Rights and Environmental chapters of the TPP revealed "just how far apart the US is from the other nations involved in the treaty, with 19 points of disagreement in the area of intellectual property alone. One of the documents speaks of 'great pressure' being applied by the US." Australia in particular opposes the US's proposals for copyright protection and an element supported by all other nations involved to "limit the liability of ISPs for copyright infringement by their users." Another sticking point lies with Japan's reluctance to open up its agricultural markets.[137]Political difficulties, particularly those related to the passage of a Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) by the US Congress, presented another hold on the TPP negotiations. Receiving TPA from Congress was looking especially difficult for Obama since members of his own Democratic Party are against it, while Republicans generally support the trade talks. "The TPP and TPA pose a chicken-and-egg situation for Washington. Congress needs to pass TPA to bring the TPP negotiations to fruition, but the Obama administration must win favorable terms in the TPP to pull TPA legislation through Congress. Simply put, the administration cannot make Congress happy, unless it can report on the excellent terms that it has coaxed out of Japan.".[138] Obama received Trade Promotion Authority on 29 June 2015.
Currency manipulation
A country can devalue its currency to boost exports and gain a trade advantage. One effect of the United States Quantitative Easing policy was the devaluation of the US dollar, which aided economic growth in that country. Many economists claim that currency manipulation by Asian manufacturing countries has become pervasive, "allowing them to boost their exports at the expense of manufacturing companies in the United States and Europe." Furthermore, organisations such as the WTO or IMF cannot control such currency manipulation, so some are calling upon the US to "use the free-trade talks to force an end to such actions." Senator Lindsey O. Graham and Representative Sander M. Levin "gathered a group of economists, manufacturing industry officials and labor leaders who agreed that the TPP should die unless it credibly prohibits countries from manipulating the value of their currency."[139]United States-Japan bilateral accords (agriculture and auto)
Before Japan entered TPP negotiations in July 2013, reports indicated that it would allow the US to continue imposing tariffs on Japanese vehicles, despite a "major premise of the TPP [being] to eliminate all tariffs in principle." According to the reports, Japan compromised on auto tariffs "because Tokyo wants to maintain tariffs on various agricultural products."[140]By April 2015 U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman and Japanese Economy Minister Akira Amari—representing the two largest economies of the 12-nation TPP— were involved in bilateral talks regarding agriculture and auto parts, the "two largest obstacles for Japan."[135] These bilateral accords which would open each other's "markets for products such as rice, pork and automobiles.[135] In Japan "rice, wheat, barley, beef, pork, dairy goods, sugar and starch crops are considered politically sensitive products that have to be protected."[135] During the two-day ministerial TPP negotiating session held in Singapore in May 2015, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and veteran negotiator, Wendy Cutler, and Oe Hiroshi of the Japanese Gaimusho held bilateral trade talks regarding one of the most contentious trade issues— automobiles. American negotiators wanted the Japanese to open their entire keiretsu structure which is the corner stone of Japanese economy and society to American automobiles. They wanted Japanese dealer networks, such as Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Mitsubishi, and Mazda, to sell American cars.[141] Oe Hiroshi responded that there are fewer American car dealerships in Japan because Japanese consumers prefer European and Japanese cars to American cars.[141] In Japan and Europe automobiles must pass more rigorous safety standards before they are put on the market. American "automakers self-certify and cars are tested only after they go on sale."[142]
During the late July 2015 negotiations held in Maui, Hawaii, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Michael Froman brokered an unanticipated North American-Japan side-deal with Japan, on behalf of the U.S., Canada and Mexico that "lowered the threshold" for how much of an automobile "would have to come from Trans-Pacific signatory countries" in order for it to avoid hefty tariffs when entering Canada, Mexico or the United States. This percentage dropped from 62.5 per cent under the current North American Free Trade Agreement, to somewhere between 30 per cent and 55 per cent under the July side deal.[143] Canada and Mexico are concerned that this unexpected side deal "could hit the NAFTA partners’ auto sectors hard."[143]
Criticism
Secrecy of negotiations
In 2012, critics such as Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, a consumer advocacy group, called for more open negotiations in regard to the agreement. US Trade Representative Ron Kirk responded that he believes the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) conducted "the most engaged and transparent process as we possibly could", but that "some measure of discretion and confidentiality" are needed "to preserve negotiating strength and to encourage our partners to be willing to put issues on the table they may not otherwise."[56] He dismissed the "tension" as natural and noted that when the Free Trade Area of the Americas drafts were released, negotiators were subsequently unable to reach a final agreement.[56]On 23 May 2012, United States Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced S. 3225, which would have required the Office of the US Trade Representative to disclose its TPP documents to all members of Congress.[144] If it had passed, Wyden said that S3225 would clarify the intent of 2002 legislation. That legislation was supposed to increase Congressional access to information about USTR activity; however, according to Wyden, the bill is being incorrectly interpreted by the USTR as a justification to excessively limit such access.[145] Wyden said:
The majority of Congress is being kept in the dark as to the substance of the TPP negotiations, while representatives of U.S. corporations—like Halliburton, Chevron, PHRMA, Comcast, and the Motion Picture Association of America—are being consulted and made privy to details of the agreement. [...] More than two months after receiving the proper security credentials, my staff is still barred from viewing the details of the proposals that USTR is advancing. We hear that the process by which TPP is being negotiated has been a model of transparency. I disagree with that statement.[145]In 2013, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass) and Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) were among a group of individuals[14] who criticized the Obama administration's secrecy policies on the Trans-Pacific Pact.[14][146][147]
The last round of negotiations was scheduled to occur in Vancouver, Canada, but two weeks before the commencement date, Canada's capital, Ottawa, was selected as the new meeting venue.[99] Inquiries from public interest groups about attending this round were ignored.[99]
In a statement denouncing the TPP, Senator (I-VT) Bernie Sanders wrote:
Let’s be clear: the TPP is much more than a “free trade” agreement. It is part of a global race to the bottom to boost the profits of large corporations and Wall Street by outsourcing jobs; undercutting worker rights; dismantling labor, environmental, health, food safety and financial laws; and allowing corporations to challenge our laws in international tribunals rather than our own court system. If TPP was such a good deal for America, the administration should have the courage to show the American people exactly what is in this deal, instead of keeping the content of the TPP a secret.[148]In June 2015, Senator (R-KY) Rand Paul opposed fast-tracking the TPP bill on the basis of secrecy. Paul explained that fast-tracking the secret trade partnership would "give the permission to do something you haven’t seen", which he likened to "[putting] the cart before the horse."[149]
Intellectual property
Further information: Trans-Pacific Partnership intellectual property provisions
The Electronic Frontier Foundation[109]
has been highly critical of the leaked draft chapter on intellectual
property covering copyright, trademarks, and patents. In the US, this is
likely to further entrench controversial aspects of US copyright law
(such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act)
and restrict the ability of Congress to engage in domestic law reform
to meet the evolving IP needs of American citizens and the innovative
technology sector. Standardization of copyright provisions by other
signatories would also require significant changes to other countries’
copyright laws. These, according to EFF, include obligations for
countries to expand copyright terms, restrict fair use, adopt criminal sanctions for copyright infringement that is done without a commercial motivation (ex. file sharing of copyrighted digital media), place greater liability on internet intermediaries, escalate protections for digital locks and create new threats for journalists and whistleblowers (because of vague text on the misuse of trade secrets).[109]Both the copyright term expansion and the non-complaint provision (i.e. competent authorities may initiate legal action without the need for a formal complaint) previously failed to pass in Japan because they were so controversial.[150] A group of artists, archivists, academics, and activists, have joined forces in Japan to call on their negotiators to oppose requirements in the TPP that would require their country to expand their copyright scope and length to match the United States' of copyright.[150] Ken Akamatsu, creator of Japanese manga series Love Hina and Mahou Sensei Negima!, expressed concern the agreement could decimate the derivative dōjinshi (self-published) works prevalent in Japan. Akamatsu argues that the TPP "would destroy derivative dōjinshi. And as a result, the power of the entire manga industry would also diminish."[151]
Cost of medicine
A June 2015 article in the New England Journal of Medicine summarized concerns about TPP´s impact on healthcare in developed and less developed countries including potentially increased prices of medical drugs due to patent extensions, which it claimed, could threaten millions of lives. Extending “data exclusivity” provisions would "prevent drug regulatory agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration from registering a generic version of a drug for a certain number of years." International tribunals that have been a part of the proposed agreement could theoretically require corporations be paid compensation for any lost profits found to result from a nation's regulations. That in turn might interfere with domestic health policy.[152] A number of United States Congressional members,[153] including Senator Bernard Sanders[154] and Representatives Sander M. Levin, John Conyers, Jim McDermott and the now-retired Henry Waxman, as well as [155] John Lewis, Charles B. Rangel, Earl Blumenauer, Lloyd Doggett and then-congressman Pete Stark,[156] have expressed concerns about access to medicine. By protecting intellectual property in the form of the TPP mandating patent extensions, access by patients to affordable medicine in the developing world could be hindered, particularly in Vietnam.[153] Additionally, they worry that the TPP would not be flexible enough to accommodate existing non-discriminatory drug reimbursement programs and the diverse health systems of member countries.[156]Opponents of the Trans-Pacific Partnership in New Zealand say US corporations are hoping to weaken the ability of its domestic agency Pharmac to get inexpensive, generic medicines by forcing it to otherwise pay considerably higher prices for brand name drugs.[157] Physicians and organizations including Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders) have also expressed concern.[158]
The New Zealand Government denies the claims, Trade Negotiations Minister Tim Groser saying opponents of the deal are "fools" who are "trying to wreck this agreement".[159]
In Australia, critics of the investment protection regime argue that traditional investment treaty standards are incompatible with some public health regulations, meaning that the TPP will be used to force states to adopt lower standards, e.g., with respect to patented pharmaceuticals.[160] The Australian Public Health Association (PHAA) published a media release on 17 February 2014 that discussed the potential impact of the TPP on the health of Australia's population. A policy brief formulated through a collaboration between academics and non-government organizations (NGOs) was the basis of the media release, with the partnership continuing its Health Impact Assessment of the trade agreement at the time of the PHAA's statement. Michael Moore, the PHAA's CEO said, "The brief highlights the ways in which some of the expected economic gains from the TPPA may be undermined by poor health outcomes, and the economic costs associated with these poor health outcomes."[161]
Former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich has opposed the TPP because he says it would delay cheaper generic versions of drugs, and because of its provisions for international tribunals that can require corporations be paid "compensation for any lost profits found to result from a nation's regulations."[162]
Income inequality
In 2013, Nobel Memorial prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz warned that based on leaked drafts of the TPP, it presented "grave risks" and "serves the interests of the wealthiest."[14][163] Organised labour in the U.S. argued that the trade deal would largely benefit corporations at the expense of workers in the manufacturing and service industries.[164] The Economic Policy Institute and the Center for Economic and Policy Research argued that the TPP could result in further job losses and declining wages.[165][166]In 2014, Noam Chomsky warned that the TPP is "designed to carry forward the neoliberal project to maximise profit and domination, and to set the working people in the world in competition with one another so as to lower wages to increase insecurity."[167] Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who opposes fast track, stated that trade agreements like the TPP "have ended up devastating working families and enriching large corporations."[168] Another Nobel Memorial Prize-winning economist, Paul Krugman reported, "... I'll be undismayed and even a bit relieved if the T.P.P. just fades away", and said that "... there isn't a compelling case for this deal, from either a global or a national point of view." Krugman also noted the absence of "anything like a political consensus in favor, abroad or at home."[169] Economist Robert Reich contends that the TPP is a "Trojan horse in a global race to the bottom, giving big corporations and Wall Street banks a way to eliminate any and all laws and regulations that get in the way of their profits."[170][171]
Environment
Ilana Solomon, Sierra Club's director of responsible trade, argued that the TPP "could directly threaten our climate and our environment [including] new rights that would be given to corporations, and new constraints on the fossil fuel industry all have a huge impact on our climate, water, and land."[172] Upon the publication of a complete draft of the Environment Chapter and the corresponding Chairs' Report by Wikileaks in January 2014, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the World Wide Fund for Nature joined with the Sierra Club in criticising the TPP. Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange described the Environment Chapter as "a toothless public relations exercise with no enforcement mechanism."[173][174]In January 2014, The Washington Post 's editorial board opined that congressional sponsors of legislation to expedite approval of the TPP in the US already included provisions to ensure that all TPP countries meet international labour and environmental standards, and that the US "has been made more productive by broader international competition and more secure by broader international prosperity".[175]
Protests
A protest in Wellington, New Zealand in November 2014
"Stop Fast Track" rally in Washington D.C., April 2015
A poll conducted in December 2012 showed 64 percent of New Zealanders thought trade agreements, such as the TPP, which allow corporations to sue governments, should be rejected.[180]
In March 2013, four thousand Japanese farmers held a protest in Tokyo over the potential for cheap imports to severely damage the local agricultural industry.[181]
Malaysian protesters dressed as zombies outside a shopping mall in Kuala Lumpur on 21 February 2014 to protest the impact of the TPP on the price of medicines, including treatment drugs for HIV. The protest group consisted of students, members of the Malaysian AIDS Council and HIV-positive patients—one patient explained that, in Malaysian ringgit, he spent between RM500 and RM600 each month on treatment drugs, but this cost would increase to around RM3,000.[182]
On 29 March 2014, 15 anti-TPP protests occurred across New Zealand, including a demonstration in Auckland attended by several thousand people.[183] In a press release announcing the New Zealand Nurses Association's decision to join the protests, the association's policy analyst stated that the TPP could prevent government decisions that would be beneficial to public health because "if private investors, such as tobacco companies, were affected they could sue the government."[184] On 8 November 2014, further protests occurred in 17 New Zealand cities, with turnouts in the thousands.[185][186]
In January 2015, various petitions and public protests occurred in the US from progressives.[187] On 27 January 2015, protesters hijacked a US Senate hearing to speak out against the TPP and were promptly removed by capitol police officers.[188]
On 15 August 2015, protests were held across New Zealand in Auckland, Christchurch, Wellington, as well as several smaller cities. An activist claimed that over 25,000 people collectively protested against the TPP free trade deal throughout the country.[189] The protests were peaceful; however, police were forced to protect the steps of the Parliament building in the capital of Wellington, after an estimated 2000 people marched to the entrance.[190][191][192]
On 15 September 2015, an estimated 50 protesters blocked a lane of Lambton Quay in the central business district of Wellington, New Zealand. It was reported that up to 30 people were arrested after forming a block on the road, and were taken away in police vans. The group was attempting to enter the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade headquarters, in attempt to seize documents related to the TPPA. They criticized the secrecy surrounding the negotiations, chanting "democracy not secrecy".[193] They were stopped by a police barricade, which later extended to a lock down of the road.[189]
See also
References
- "TPP protesters arrested in Wellington". NZ Herald. Retrieved 15 September 2015.
External links
 |
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Trans-Pacific Partnership. |
- Official website retrieved 8 October 2015
- Ian F. Fergusson, Bruce Vaughn The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement – Congressional Research Service report for Congress. 21 pages, December 12, 2011. (PDF)
|
|||
|
||
|
the TPP must still be signed formally by the leaders of each country and ratified by their parliaments
Canada formally joined the TPP on October 8, 2012.
Brunei Darussalam Ambassador-at-Large Princess Masna, Chilean Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr Ignacio Walker, New Zealand Minister for Trade Negotiations Hon Jim Sutton, and Singapore Minister for Trade and Industry Mr Lim Hng Kiang today announced the successful conclusion of negotiations for a Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (Trans-Pacific SEP).... The Ministers will recommend the results of the negotiations to their respective governments for signature.
The first multi-party free trade agreement spanning the Pacific and Asia was signed today in a ceremony at Parliament, announced Prime Minister Helen Clark.
The agreement provisionally entered into force (between New Zealand and Singapore only) on 1 May and officially entered into force on 28 May. The Agreement entered into force for Brunei on 12 July 2006, and for Chile on 8 November 2006.
A bill to require the United States Trade Representative to provide documents relating to trade negotiations to Members of Congress and their staff upon request, and for other purposes.
No comments:
Post a Comment