On Saturday, November 15, 2014 5:26 AM,
TRANS PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP
November 15, 2014
BARACK OBAMA SECRETLY NEGOTIATING TPP AGREEMENT FOR ONE WORLD ECONOMIC SYSTEM '
#AceNewsServices – Nov.14 – Barack Obama is secretly negotiating the largest international trade agreement in history, and the mainstream media in the United States is almost completely ignoring it.
If this treaty is adopted, it will be the most important step toward a one world economic system that we have ever seen.
The name of this treaty is "the Trans-Pacific Partnership", and the text of the treaty is so closely guarded that not even members of Congress know what is in it. Right now, there are 12 countries that are part of the negotiations: the United States, Canada, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia,Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.
These nations have a combined population of 792 million people and account for an astounding 40 percent of the global economy.
And it is hoped that the EU, China and India will eventually join as well. This is potentially the most dangerous economic treaty of our lifetimes, and yet there is very little political debate about it in this country.
SOURCE:
#ANS2014
REFERENCES
Trans-Pacific Partnership
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a proposed regional free-trade agreement. As of 2014 twelve countries throughout the Asia-Pacific region have participated in negotiations on the TPP: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam.
The proposed agreement began in 2005 as the Trans-Pacific Strategic Partnership Agreement (TPSEP or P4). Participating countries set the goal of wrapping up negotiations in 2012, but contentious issues such as agriculture, intellectual property, and services and investments have caused negotiations to continue into the present,[7] with the last round planned to meet in Ottawa from July 3 to July 12, 2014.[8][9] Implementation of the TPP is one of the primary goals of the trade agenda of the Obama administration in the United States of America.
On 12 November 2011 the nine Trans-Pacific Partnership countries announced that the TPP intended 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."[10] Global health professionals, internet freedom activists, environmentalists, organized labor, advocacy groups, and elected officials have criticized and protested the negotiations, in large part because of the proceedings' secrecy, the agreement's expansive scope, and controversial clauses in drafts leaked to the public.[11][12][13][14]
On 16 October 2014, WikiLeaks released a second updated version of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Intellectual Property Rights Chapter. [15]
Contents [hide]
1 Membership and accession
1.1 Members and Potential Members
1.2 Potential members
2 History
2.1 Negotiations
2.2 Causes of Delays
3 Contents
3.1 Intellectual property provisions
3.2 Investor–state arbitration
4 Controversy
4.1 Negotiation secrecy
4.2 Japanese Auto Tariffs
4.3 Currency Manipulation
4.4 Health Impact Assessment in Australia
4.5 Public opinion poll New Zealand
4.6 US Responses
4.7 Protests
5 Relationship with other frameworks
6 See also
7 References
8 External links
Membership and accession[edit]
The negotiations, launched in 2002, initially included three countries (Chile, New Zealand and Singapore) and went by the name of Pacific Three Closer Economic Partnership (P3 CEP). Brunei subsequently joined the agreement before its final round of negotiations in 2005.[16] Subsequently, the agreement was renamed to TPSEP (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership agreement). The original TPSEP agreement, signed in July/August 2005, contains an accession clause and affirms the members' "commitment to encourage the accession to this Agreement by other economies".[17] [18]
In January 2008, the US agreed to enter into talks with the Pacific 4 (P4) members regarding trade liberalization in financial services.[19] On 22 September 2008, US Trade Representative Susan C. Schwab announced that the US would begin negotiations with the P4 countries to join the TPP, with the first round of talks in early 2009.[20]
In November 2008, Australia, Vietnam, and Peru announced that they would join the P4 trade bloc.[21][22] In October 2010, Malaysia announced that it had also joined the TPP negotiations.[23][24][25]
In June 2012, Canada and Mexico announced that they were joining the TPP negotiations.[26][27][28][29] Mexico's interest in joining was initially met with concern among TPP negotiators about its customs policies.[30]
In 2010, Canada had become an observer in the TPP talks, and expressed interest in officially joining,[31] but was not committed to join, purportedly because the US and New Zealand blocked it due to concerns over Canadian agricultural policy (i.e. supply management)—specifically dairy—and intellectual property-rights protection.[30][32] 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.[33] 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).[24][25][34]
Canada and Mexico formally became TPP negotiating participants in October 2012, following completion of the domestic consultation periods of the other nine members.[35][36][37]
Japan officially joined the TPP negotiations on July 23, 2013. 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.[38]
Members and Potential Members[edit]
Country/Region Status Date
Brunei Original Signatory 2005 June
Chile Original Signatory 2005 June
New Zealand Original Signatory 2005 June
Singapore Original Signatory 2005 June
United States Original Signatory 2008 February
Australia Original Signatory 2008 November
Peru Original Signatory 2008 November
Vietnam Original Signatory 2008 November
Malaysia Original Signatory 2010 October
Mexico Negotiating 2012 October
Canada[39] Original Signatory 2012 October
Japan Original Signatory 2013 March
Republic of China Announced Interest 2013 September
Republic of Korea Announced Interest 2013 November
Potential members[edit]
Currently in negotiations
Announced interest in joining
Potential future members
South Korea was interested in joining in November 2010,[40] 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 late December.[41] 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.[42]
Other countries interested in TPP membership include Taiwan,[43] the Philippines,[44] Laos,[45] Colombia,[46] and Indonesia.[47] Cambodia,[48] Bangladesh[49] and India have also been mentioned as possible candidates.[50] Despite initial opposition, China is interested in joining the TPP eventually.[51]
On 20 November 2012 during a visit by President of the United States Barack Obama, Thailand's government announced its wish to join the TPP negotiations. Expecting Thailand to join after the process is finalized for Canada and Mexico, law professor Jane Kelsey said that it "will be in the extraordinary position of having to accept any existing agreed text, sight unseen."[52]
The most notable country not involved in the negotiations is China. According to the Brookings Institute, 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."[53]
History[edit]
The TPSEP was previously known as the Pacific Three Closer Economic Partnership (P3-CEP), its negotiations launched on the sidelines of the 2002 APEC Leaders' Meeting in Los Cabos, Mexico, by Prime Ministers Helen Clark of New Zealand, Goh Chok Tong of Singapore and Chilean President Ricardo Lagos. Brunei first took part as a full negotiating party in the fifth round of talks in April 2005, after which the trade bloc became known as the Pacific-4 (P4). Although all original and negotiating parties are members of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the TPSEP and TPP 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.
The original agreement was concluded by Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore on 3 June 2005,[2] and entered into force on 28 May 2006 for New Zealand and Singapore, 12 July 2006 for Brunei, and 8 November 2006 for Chile.[54] 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.[55]
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.[56] However, negotiations have continued through 2012, 2013 and 2014.
Negotiations[edit]
After the inauguration of 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 US's 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".[57]
Since that time, 19 formal rounds of TPP negotiations have been held:[58][59]
1st round: 15–19 March 2010, Melbourne, 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.[60]
2nd round: 14–18 June 2010, San Francisco, 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."[61]
3rd round: 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."[62]
4th round: 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."[63]
5th round: 14–18 February 2011, Santiago, Chile
The 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."[64]
6th round: 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."[65]
7th round: 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."[66]
8th round: 6–15 September 2011, Chicago, 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 September 15. 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."[67]
9th round: 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."[68]
10th round: 5–9 December 2011, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
11th round: 2–9 March 2012, Melbourne, Australia
12th round: 8–18 May 2012, Dallas, USA
13th round: 2–10 July 2012. San Diego, USA
14th round: 6–15 September 2012, Leesburg, Virginia, USA
15th round: 3–12 December 2012, Auckland, New Zealand
16th round: 4–13 March 2013 Singapore
17th round: 15–24 May 2013, Lima, Peru
18th round: 15–24 July 2013, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia
19th round: 23–30 August 2013, Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei
20th round: 3–13 July 2014 in Ottawa, Canada
The majority of United States free trade agreements are implemented as congressional-executive agreements.[69] Unlike treaties, such agreements require a majority of the House and Senate to pass.[69] 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."[69] In early 2012, the Obama administration indicated that a requirement for the conclusion of TPP negotiations is the renewal of "fast track" Trade Promotion Authority.[70] 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.[71] The Obama Administration and TPP proponents plan to introduce fast-track legislation and legislation on the TPP following the 2014 elections.[72]
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.[73]
This call for inclusion and cooperation 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...".[74]
A leaked set of draft documents indicated that public concern had little impact on the negotiations.[75] They also indicated there are strong disagreements between the US and negotiating parties regarding intellectual property, agricultural subsidies, and financial services.[76]
Causes of Delays[edit]
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.[77]
Political difficulties, particularly those related to the passage of a Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) by Congress, within the US present another cause of delay for the TPP negotiations. Receiving TPA from Congress is looking especially difficult for Obama since members of his own Democratic Party are against them, 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."[78]
Contents[edit]
Only certain sections of the drafts of the Trans-Pacific Partnership have been leaked to the public, and only summaries of other parts. Many of the provisions are modelled on previous trade and deregulation agreements. According to the website of the Office of the United States Trade Representative, TPP chapters include: competition, cooperation and capacity building, cross-border services, customs, e-commerce, environment, financial services, government procurement, intellectual property, investment, labor, 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.[79]
Also according to the USTR, the contents of the TPP seek 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 our workers and businesses and immediate benefits for our 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 liberalization, 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 materialize in the future as well as new issues that arise with the expansion of the agreement to include new countries.[80]
Intellectual property provisions[edit]
See also: Trans-Pacific Partnership Intellectual Property Provisions
Some of the provisions relating to the enforcement of patents and copyrights alleged to be present in the US proposal for the agreement have been criticized as being excessively restrictive, providing intellectual property restraints beyond those in the Korea-US trade agreement and Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).[81]
A number of United States Congresspeople,[82] including Senator Bernard Sanders[83] and Representatives Henry Waxman, Sander M. Levin, John Conyers, Jim McDermott,[84] John Lewis, Pete Stark, Charles B. Rangel, Earl Blumenauer, and Lloyd Doggett,[85] have expressed concerns about the effect the TPP requirements would have on access to medicine. In particular, they are concerned that the TPP focuses on protecting intellectual property to the detriment of efforts to provide access to affordable medicine in the developing world, particularly Vietnam, going against the foreign policy goals of the Obama administration and previous administrations.[82] 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.[85]
Opponents of the Trans-Pacific Partnership say US corporations are hoping to weaken Pharmac's ability to get inexpensive, generic medicines by forcing New Zealand to pay for brand name drugs.[86] Doctors and organisations like Medecins Sans Frontieres have also expressed concern.[87] 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".[88]
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." Kensaku Fukui, a lawyer and a Nihon University professor, expressed concerns that the TPP could allow companies to restrict or stop imports and exports of intellectual property, such as licensed merchandise. For example, IP holders could restrict or stop importers from shipping merchandise such as DVDs and other related goods related to an anime or manga property into one country to protect local distribution of licensed merchandise already in the country via local licensors.[89]
At a NicoNico live seminar called How Would TPP Change the Net and Copyrights? An In-Depth Examination: From Extending Copyright Terms to Changing the Law to Allow Unilateral Enforcement and Statutory Damages, artist Kazuhiko Hachiya warned that cosplay could also fall under the TPP, and such an agreement could give law enforcement officials broad interpretive authority in dictating how people could dress up. Critics also have derided the agreement could also harm Japanese culture, where some segments have developed through parody works.[90]
On November 13, 2013, a complete draft of the treaty's Intellectual Property Rights chapter was published by WikiLeaks.[91][92]
Investor–state arbitration[edit]
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.[93] As of 2012, US negotiators were pursuing an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, also known as corporate tribunals, which can be used to attack domestic public interest laws.[93] This mechanism is a common provision in international trade and investment agreements, that 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.[citation needed]
Critics of the investment protection regime argue that traditional investment treaty standards are incompatible with environmental law, human rights protection, and public welfare regulation, meaning that TPP will be used to force states to lower standards e.g., environmental and workers protection, or be sued for damages.[94] The Australian government's position against investor state dispute settlement has been argued to support the rule of law and national energy security.[95]
Controversy[edit]
Negotiation secrecy[edit]
[icon] This section requires expansion with: reports of secrecy-related controversy prior to May 2012. (May 2012)
In 2012, critics such as consumer advocacy group Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch have called for more open negotiations for the agreement. U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk responded that he believes the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) has 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."[30] 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.[30]
On 23 May 2012, United States Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced S. 3225, that would require the Office of the US Trade Representative to disclose its TPP documents to all members of Congress.[96] Wyden said the bill clarifies the intent of 2002 legislation which was supposed to increase Congressional access to information about USTR activity, but which, according to Wyden, is being incorrectly interpreted by the USTR as justification to excessively limit such access.[97] Wyden asserted:
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.[97]
In 2013 Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass), Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) and others[14] have criticized the Obama administration's secrecy policies on the Trans-Pacific Pact.[14][98][99]
The last round of negotiations was planned to take place in Vancouver, Canada, but two weeks before commencing, the meeting venue was moved across the country to Canada's capital, Ottawa.[9] Inquiries from public interest groups about attending this round were ignored.[9]
Japanese Auto Tariffs[edit]
Before Japan entered TPP negotiations in July 2013, it was reported 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." Japan is compromising on auto tariffs "because Tokyo wants to maintain tariffs on various agricultural products."[100]
Currency Manipulation[edit]
Another contentious issue in the TPP negotiations has been currency manipulation, wherein a country devalues its currency in order to boost exports and gain an advantage in trade. Politicians such as 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." Many economists claim that currency manipulation by Asian manufacturing countries have become pervasive, "allowing them to boost their exports at the expense of manufacturing companies in the United States and Europe." Furthermore, organizations such as the World Trade Organization or International Monetary Fund cannot control such currency manipulation, so some are claiming the United States should "use the free-trade talks to force an end to such actions."[101]
Health Impact Assessment in Australia[edit]
The Australian Public Health Association (PHAA) stated in a media release, on 17 February 2014, in specific relation to the potential impact of the TPP on the health of Australia's population. A policy brief that emerged from a collaboration between academics and non-government organisations (NGOs) was the basis of the media release, as the group continued to undertake a Health Impact Assessment of the trade agreement at the time of the PHA's statement.[102]
Public opinion poll New Zealand[edit]
A poll conducted in December 2012 showed 64 percent of New Zealanders thought trade agreements, such as the TPP, that allow corporations to sue governments should be rejected.[103]
US Responses[edit]
In 2013, Keynesian economist Joseph Stiglitz warned that the TPP presented "grave risks" and it "serves the interests of the wealthiest."[14][104] Organized labour in the United States argues that the trade deal would largely benefit big business at the expense of workers in the manufacturing and service industries.[105] The Economic Policy Institute and the Center for Economic and Policy Research have argued that the TPP could result in further job losses and declining wages.[106][107] In December 2013, 151 House Democrats signed a letter written by Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and George Miller (D-Calif.) opposing the fast track trade promotion authority for the TPP. Several House Republicans oppose the measure on the grounds that it empowers 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.[108]
In 2014, Noam Chomsky warned that the TPP is "designed to carry forward the neoliberal project to maximize 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."[109] Senator Bernie Sanders, who opposes fast track, has stated that trade agreements like the TPP "have ended up devastating working families and enriching large corporations."[110] Economist Paul Krugman reported "...I'll be undismayed and even a bit relieved if the T.P.P. just fades away." and "...there isn't a compelling case for this deal, from either a global or a national point of view. Nor does there seem to be anything like a political consensus in favor, abroad or at home."[111]
Ilana Solomon, Sierra Club 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."[112] 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 criticizing the TPP. Julian Assange described the Environment Chapter as "a toothless public relations exercise with no enforcement mechanism."[113][114]
In January 2014 The Washington Post's Editorial Board has opined that congressional sponsors of legislation to expedite approval of TPP in the U.S. have already included provisions to ensure that all TPP countries meet international labour and environmental standards, and that the U.S. "has been made more productive by broader international competition and more secure by broader international prosperity".[115]
Protests[edit]
On 5 March 2012, a group of TPP protesters disrupted an outside broadcast of 7News Melbourne's 6pm bulletin in Melbourne, Australia's Federation Square venue.[116] In New Zealand, a coalition of people concerned about the TPP formed a protest group called "It's Our Future"[117] that aimed to raise public awareness prior to the Auckland round of negotiations, which occurred from 3 to 12 December 2012.[118] During the Auckland round of negotiations, hundreds of protesters clashed with police outside the conference venue and lit a fire in the streets.[119]
In March 2013 four thousand Japanese farmers held a protest in Tokyo worried that cheap imports could severely damage the local agriculture industry.[120]
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, as well as HIV-positive patients, with one patient explaining that, in Malaysian ringgit, he spent between RM500 and RM600 each month on treatment drugs, but this cost would increase to around RM3,000.[121]
A protest in Wellington, New Zealand in November 2014
On 29 March 2014 fifteen protests took place across New Zealand against the TPP including a demonstration in Auckland of several thousand people.[122] In a press release announcing the decision of the New Zealand Nurses Association's decision to join the protests, its policy analyst stated that the TPP could prevent government decisions beneficial to public health because "if private investors, such as tobacco companies, were affected they could sue the government." [123]
On 8 November 2014 further protests occurred in seventeen New Zealand cities, with turnout in the thousands.[124][125]
Relationship with other frameworks[edit]
See also: Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership
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.[126]
See also[edit]
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)
Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA)
Copyright
Copyright infringement
Counterfeit
Digital rights
Generic drugs
Protect IP Act (PIPA)
Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)
Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)
Trans-Pacific Partnership Intellectual Property Provisions
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
Free Trade Agreement (FTA)
References[edit]
Jump up ^ "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 2006-09-07. Retrieved 2012-12-15. "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."
^ Jump up to: a b "Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore reach trans-Pacific FTA". The Manila Bulletin. Reuters. 3 June 2005. Retrieved 2012-12-15.
Jump up ^ "Second free trade agreement to be signed by NZ this year" (Press release). New Zealand Government. 18 July 2005. "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."
Jump up ^ "Treaties for which NZ is Depositary: Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (TPSEP or P4)". Retrieved 2012-12-15.
Jump up ^ "FTA signed: NZ, Chile, Singapore and Brunei to end tariffs". The National Business Review. 19 July 2005. Retrieved 2012-12-15.
Jump up ^ "Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement: Understanding the P4 – The original P4 agreement". Retrieved 2012-12-15. "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."
Jump up ^ Schott, Jeffrey; Kotschwar, Barbara; Muir, Julia (2013). Understanding the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Peterson Institute for International Economics. pp. 17–18.
Jump up ^ "Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Free Trade Negotiations". Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada. Retrieved 2014-07-06.
^ Jump up to: a b c Harris, Scott (25 June 2014). "The TPP is coming to Canada (not that it's easy to tell)". Council of Canadians.
Jump up ^ "The US and the TPP". USTR. Retrieved 5 December 2012.
Jump up ^ Obama Faces Backlash Over New Corporate Powers In Secret Trade Deal. The Huffington Post. Retrieved 17 December 2013.
Jump up ^ How To Fight The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Anti-TPP Petitions, Protests & Campaigns. International Business Times. Retrieved 17 December 2013.
Jump up ^ Trans-Pacific Partnership Talks Stir House Bipartisan Opposition. The Huffington Post. Retrieved 17 December 2013.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Stiglitz, Joseph E. (15 March 2014). "On the Wrong Side of Globalization". New York Times. Retrieved 17 March 2014.
Jump up ^ "Press Release - Updated Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) - IP Chapter (second publication)". WikiLeaks. 26 October 2014.
Jump up ^ Daniels, Chris (10 February 2008). "First step to wider free trade". New Zealand Herald. Retrieved 9 February 2008.
Jump up ^ "Trans-Pacific Partners and United States Launch FTA Negotiations". Office of the United States Trade Representative. 22 September 2008.
Jump up ^ "Australia To Join Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Bloc". Alibaba.com. Retrieved 17 December 2008.
Jump up ^ "The challenges of regional bodies". Taipei Times. Retrieved 17 December 2008.
Jump up ^ Frangos, Alex; Williamson, Elizabeth (7 October 2010). "Interest Builds in Pacific trade zone". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 14 October 2010.
^ Jump up to: a b "Progress Continues in Trans-Pacific Partnership Talks | Office of the United States Trade Representative". Ustr.gov. 2012-09-15. Retrieved 2013-11-15.
^ Jump up to: a b "Trans-Pacific Partnership Leadership Statement | Office of the United States Trade Representative". Ustr.gov. Retrieved 2013-11-15.
Jump up ^ "Mexico joins Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations" (Press release). New Zealand Government. 19 June 2012. Retrieved 2012-12-13.
Jump up ^ "Canada joins Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations" (Press release). 20 June 2012. Retrieved 2012-12-13.
Jump up ^ Mark Kennedy (19 June 2012). "Canada joining talks on massive new free-trade bloc". Canada.com. Retrieved 15 December 2012.
Jump up ^ "U.S. Trade Representative Kirk Welcomes Canada as a New Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiating Partner". Ustr.gov. 19 June 2012. Retrieved 2014-01-22.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Palmer, Doug (13 May 2012). "Some secrecy needed in trade talks: Ron Kirk". Reuters.
Jump up ^ "Tories consider joining Trans-Pacific trade group". CBC News. 16 November 2010. Retrieved 2 January 2011.[dead link]
Jump up ^ "TPP Countries Say Canada Not Ready To Join Talks, Press Vietnam To Decide". Inside U.S. Trade. Retrieved 28 January 2012.(subscription required)
Jump up ^ "Trans-Pacific Partnership". Financial Post. Retrieved 28 January 2012.
Jump up ^ Meyer, Carl (17 November 2010). "Foothold in Asia-Pacific set to be lost?". Embassy. Retrieved 28 January 2012.
Jump up ^ "Mexico: Unexplored opportunities". TPP Talk. New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade. 10 October 2012. Retrieved 2012-12-12.
Jump up ^ "Canada: Old friends, new opportunities". TPP Talk. New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade. 10 October 2012. Retrieved 2012-12-12.
Jump up ^ "Canada Formally Joins Trans-Pacific Partnership" (Press release). Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. 9 October 2012. Retrieved 2012-12-13.
Jump up ^ Meltzer, Joshua. "Japan to Join the Trans-Pacific Partnership-Finally!". Brookings Institute. Retrieved 19 June 2014.
Jump up ^ "Canada Joins Trans-Pacific Partnership Round" (Press release). Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. 3 December 2012. Retrieved 2012-12-13. "Canada formally joined the TPP on October 8, 2012."
Jump up ^ Nishikawa, Yoko (13 November 2010). "South Korea mulling U.S.-led TPP trade initiative: report". Reuters. Retrieved 15 November 2010.
Jump up ^ "US requests Korea's joining of regional FTA". The Donga-A Ilbo. 18 December 2010.
Jump up ^ "Seoul appears set to join Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations". The Hankyoreh. 4 October 2013. Retrieved 6 October 2013.
Jump up ^ "Taiwan aims to join Trans-Pacific Partnership: minister". 10 November 2010. Retrieved 13 November 2010.
Jump up ^ "Speech of President Aquino at the Council on Foreign Relations, New York City". 23 September 2010. Retrieved 2 November 2010.
Jump up ^ "Current Status of the TPP Negotiations". Canon Institute for Global Studies. 10 July 2012. Retrieved 2014-01-22.
Jump up ^ "Colombia Hopes To Join TPP Negotiations". 19 March 2010. Retrieved 2014-01-22.
Jump up ^ "US-ASEAN businessmen lobby Indonesia on TPP". The Jakarta Post. 25 June 2013.
Jump up ^ Theara, Khoun (22 November 2013). "'No Rush' For Cambodia on Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement, Experts Say". Voice of America Khmer. Retrieved 12 December 2013.
Jump up ^ Sobhan, Md Abus (15 September 2013). "Trans Pacific Partnership the way forward". Dhaka Tribune. Retrieved 19 September 2013.
Jump up ^ Kumar, Arun (2 August 2013). "'India's admission to TPP would be an economic coup'". Business Standard. Retrieved 19 September 2013.
Jump up ^ Needham, Vicki (17 September 2013). "China's interest grows in joining an Asia-Pacific trade deal". The Hill. Retrieved 19 September 2013.
Jump up ^ "Thailand's quest to join the TPPA 'will strengthen opposition'". Retrieved 2013-02-04.
Jump up ^ Mireya, Solis. "The Containment Fallacy: China and the TPP". Brookings Institute. Retrieved 26 June 2014.
Jump up ^ "Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement: Understanding the P4 – The original P4 agreement". Retrieved 2012-12-15.
Jump up ^ "Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement" (PDF). NZ Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade. 2005. Retrieved 28 January 2012.
Jump up ^ "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.
Jump up ^ "Trans-Pacific Partnership Announcement". Office of the United States Trade Representative. 14 December 2009.
Jump up ^ "USTR TPP Round Updates". Office of the United States Trade Representative. June 2012.
Jump up ^ "Round 14: Leesburg | Office of the United States Trade Representative". Office of the United States Trade Representative. Retrieved 10 September 2012.
Jump up ^ "Round 1: Melbourne". Office of the United States Trade Representative. Retrieved 30 June 2014.
Jump up ^ "Trans-Pacific Partnership: June 2010". Office of the United States Trade Representative. Retrieved 30 June 2014.
Jump up ^ "Round 3: Brunei". Office of the United States Trade Representative. Retrieved 30 June 2014.
Jump up ^ "Round 4: Auckland". Office of the United States Trade Representative. Retrieved 7 July 2014.
Jump up ^ "Round 5: Santiago". Office of the United States Trade Representative. Retrieved 7 July 2014.
Jump up ^ "Round 6: Singapore". Office of the United States Trade Representative. Retrieved 7 July 2014.
Jump up ^ "Round 7: Ho Chi Minh City". Office of the United States Trade Representative. Retrieved 7 July 2014.
Jump up ^ "Round 8: Chicago". Office of the United States Trade Representative. Retrieved 7 July 2014.
Jump up ^ "Round 9: Lima". Office of the United States Trade Representative. Retrieved 7 July 2014.
^ Jump up to: a b c "Why Certain Trade Agreements Are Approved as Congressional-Executive Agreements Rather Than as Treaties" (PDF). Retrieved 2013-02-04.
Jump up ^ "White House wants trade promotion authority: Kirk". Reuters. 29 February 2012. Retrieved 2012-06-30.
Jump up ^ 19 U.S.C. § 2191
Jump up ^ Ackley, Kate (9 April 2014). "On Trade, Obama Faces a Tough Political Dance". Roll Call. Retrieved 9 April 2014.
Jump up ^ "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.
Jump up ^ "The World Trade Organization in the Era of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement: A view on the outcome of the eighth ministerial conference". Research Institute of Economy Trade & Industry. February 2012. Retrieved 6 October 2013.
Jump up ^ "WikiLeaks releases new documents exposing secret Trans-Pacific Partnership talks". The Verge. 8 December 2013. Retrieved 9 December 2013.
Jump up ^ Wikileaks TPP Revelations Prove US in "Left Field" With Trade Deal. The Real News, 15 December 2013.
Jump up ^ Wollacott, Emma (10 December 2013). "US Fails to Close TPP Deal as Wikileaks Exposes Discord". Forbes. Retrieved 30 June 2014.
Jump up ^ Tatsuhiko, Yoshizaki. "TPP Talks Quietly Enter the Final Stages". Nippon. Retrieved 30 June 2014.
Jump up ^ "Outlines of the TPP". Office of the United States Trade Representative. Retrieved 15 July 2014.
Jump up ^ "Trans-Pacific Partnership: Trade Ministers' Report to Leaders". Office of the United States Trade Representative. Retrieved 15 July 2014.
Jump up ^ 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
^ Jump up to: a b "Letter from 10 Representatives asking for a meeting to discuss IP policies that could "undermine public health and access to medicines."". 3 August 2011. Retrieved 30 January 2012.
Jump up ^ "Letter from Senator Sanders to US Trade Representative Ron Kirk". 1 December 2011. Retrieved 30 January 2012.
Jump up ^ "Letter from Representatives Levin, Waxman, McDermott and Conyers to US Trade Representative Ron Kirk". 19 October 2011. Retrieved 30 January 2012.
^ Jump up to: a b 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. 8 September 2011. Retrieved 30 January 2012.
Jump up ^ "US companies 'out to get Pharmac". 3 News NZ. 5 December 2012.
Jump up ^ "Doctors warn of TPP risks". 3 News NZ. 5 December 2012.
Jump up ^ "War of words in TPP public perception battle". 3 News NZ. 3 December 2012.
Jump up ^ Negima's Akamatsu Warns Against Changing Japan's Copyright Law Anime News Network, 31 October 2011. Retrieved 10 November 2011
Jump up ^ Artist K. Hachiya: Copyright Law Changes Would Affect Cosplay Anime News Network, 9 November 2011. Retrieved 10 November 2011
Jump up ^ "Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP)". WikiLeaks. 13 November 2013. Retrieved 13 November 2013.
Jump up ^ Musil, Steven (12 November 2013). "WikiLeaks publishes secret draft chapter of Trans-Pacific Partnership". The Guardian (UK). Retrieved 15 November 2013.
^ Jump up to: a b Wallach, Lori (16 July 2012). "NAFTA on Steroids". The Nation. Retrieved 10 July 2014.
Jump up ^ 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
Jump up ^ Faunce TA. Will a new government hand control of our energy to overseas investors. The Conversation. August 6, 2013 (accessed 6 August 2013)
Jump up ^ 112th Congress (2012) (23 May 2012). "S. 3225 (112th)". Legislation. GovTrack.us. Retrieved 30 May 2012. "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."
^ Jump up to: a b 2012 Congressional Record, Vol. 158, Page S3517 (23 May 2012)
Jump up ^ Zach Carter (19 June 2013). "Elizabeth Warren Opposing Obama Trade Nominee Michael Froman." The Huffington Post. Retrieved 15 July 2013.
Jump up ^ 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.
Jump up ^ "Japan compromising on U.S. auto tariffs for TPP negotiations". The Asahi Shimbun. Retrieved 30 June 2014.
Jump up ^ Schneider, Howard. "For controversial trade pact, fire from the left, the right and Wikileaks". Washington Post. Retrieved 11 July 2014.
Jump up ^ "Protecting the Health of Australians in the TPPA". Scoop Independent News. 18 February 2014. Retrieved 18 February 2014.
Jump up ^ "New Zealanders wary of TPP". 3 News NZ. 12 December 2012.
Jump up ^ "Secrecy surrounds Trans-Pacific Partnership talks". Sydney Morning Herald. 9 December 2013. Retrieved 9 December 2013.
Jump up ^ Fighting TPP to protect workers' rights. The Ed Show. December 11, 2013. Retrieved December 17, 2013.
Jump up ^ No Jobs from Trade Pacts: The Trans-Pacific Partnership Could Be Much Worse than the Over-Hyped Korea Deal. Economic Policy Institute. July 18, 2013
Jump up ^ Gains from Trade? The Net Effect of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement on U.S. Wages. Center for Economic and Policy Research. September 2013
Jump up ^ 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.
Jump up ^ 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.
Jump up ^ Preventing TPP essential to all U.S. workers. The Ed Show, 16 January 2014. Retrieved 23 January 2014.
Jump up ^ Krugman, Paul (27 February 2014). "No Big Deal". New York Times. Retrieved 28 February 2014.
Jump up ^ 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.
Jump up ^ "Press release: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) - Environment Chapter". WikiLeaks. 14 January 2014. Retrieved 11 January 2014.
Jump up ^ Howard, Brian Clark (17 January 2014). 4 Ways Green Groups Say Trans-Pacific Partnership Will Hurt Environment. National Geographic. Retrieved 23 January 2014.
Jump up ^ "Free-trade deals such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership help the United States". The Washington Post. 2014-01-16. Retrieved 2014-01-22.
Jump up ^ Shannon Deery (5 March 2012). "Channel 7 newsreader Peter Mitchell mobbed by protesters on live TV". Herald Sun. Retrieved 17 February 2014.
Jump up ^ http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz (2013-09-17). "It's Our Future | Kiwi Voices on the TPPA". Itsourfuture.org.nz. Retrieved 2013-11-15.
Jump up ^ "It's Our Future — Kiwis concerned about the TPPA | Scoop News". Scoop.co.nz. 2012-10-23. Retrieved 2013-11-15.
Jump up ^ "Police presence high at Auckland Trans-Pacific Partnership protest; 3News". 3news.co.nz. 2012-11-08. Retrieved 2013-03-29.
Jump up ^ "Farmers Protest Japan's Push to Join 'Trans-Pacific Partnership'; Common Dreams". commondreams.org. 2012-03-13. Retrieved 2013-03-30.
Jump up ^ Daniel Lau (21 February 2014). "'Zombies' protest against TPPA". The Malaysian Insider. Retrieved 21 February 2014.
Jump up ^ Matthew Theunissen, Teuila Fuatai (21 February 2014). "'Thousands protest TPPA in downtown Auckland". The New Zealand Herald. Retrieved 30 March 2014.
Jump up ^ "'It's our future – we want a say". Scoop Independent News. 28 March 2014. Retrieved 11 April 2014.
Jump up ^ "Thousands rally against trade agreement". One News (Television New Zealand). 8 November 2014. Retrieved 8 November 2014.
Jump up ^ Stewart, Matt; Rilkoff, Matt (8 November 2014). "Marches against TPPA trade deal". Stuff.co.nz. Archived from the original on 8 November 2014.
Jump up ^ What is the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)? Ministry of Trade and Industry Singapore November 2012
External links[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Demonstrations and protests against the TPP.
Text of Original Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement
The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement – Congressional Research Service report for Congress
The Trans Pacific Partnership and "Free Trade", Michael Goodwin and Dan Burr. An illustrated explanation, aiming to connect the dots to assist non-economists in improving their understanding.
[show] v t e
Chile Foreign relations of Chile
[show] v t e
United States free trade agreements
Categories: Trade blocsFree trade agreementsTreaties of BruneiFree trade agreements of New ZealandFree trade agreements of ChileFree trade agreements of the United StatesTreaties of SingaporeTreaties concluded in 2005Treaties entered into force in 2006
Navigation menu
Create accountLog inArticleTalkReadEditView history
Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement
What is the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP)?
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a secretive, multi-national trade agreement that threatens to extend restrictive intellectual property (IP) laws across the globe and rewrite international rules on its enforcement. The main problems are two-fold:
(1) IP chapter: Leaked draft texts of the agreement show that the IP chapter would have extensive negative ramifications for users' freedom of speech, right to privacy and due process, and hinder peoples' abilities to innovate.
(2) Lack of transparency: The entire process has shut out multi-stakeholder participation and is shrouded in secrecy.
The twelve nations currently negotiating the TPP are the US, Japan, Australia, Peru, Malaysia, Vietnam, New Zealand, Chile, Singapore, Canada, Mexico, and Brunei Darussalam. The TPP contains a chapter on intellectual property covering copyright, trademarks, patents and perhaps, geographical indications. Since the draft text of the agreement has never been offically released to the public, we know from leaked documents, such as the February 2011 draft US TPP IP Rights Chapter [PDF], that US negotiators are pushing for the adoption of copyright measures far more restrictive than currently required by international treaties, including the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement(ACTA).
The TPP Will Rewrite Global Rules on Intellectual Property Enforcement
All signatory countries will be required to conform their domestic laws and policies to the provisions of the Agreement. In the US, this is likely to further entrench controversial aspects of US copyright law (such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act[DMCA]) 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. The recently leaked US-proposed IP chapter also includes provisions that appear to go beyond current US law.
The leaked US IP chapter includes many detailed requirements that are more restrictive than current international standards, and would require significant changes to other countries' copyright laws. These include obligations for countries to:
· Place Greater Liability on Internet Intermediaries: The TPP would force the adoption of the US DMCA Internet intermediaries copyright safe harbor regime in its entirety. For example, this would require Chile to rewrite its forward-looking 2010 copyright law that currently establishes a judicial notice-and-takedown regime, which provides greater protection to Internet users' expression and privacy than the DMCA.
· Regulate Temporary Copies: Treat temporary reproductions of copyrighted works without copyright holders' authorization as copyright infringement. The language reveals a profound disconnect with the reality of the modern computer, as all routine computer functions rely upon the regular creation of temporary copies of programs and files. As drafted, the related provision creates chilling effects not just on how we behave online, but also on the basic ability of people and companies to use and create on the Web.
· Expand Copyright Terms: Create copyright terms well beyond the internationally agreed period in the 1994 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The TPP could extend copyright term protections from life of the author + 50 years, to Life + 70 years for works created by individuals, and either 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation for corporate owned works (such as Mickey Mouse).
· Enact a "Three-Step Test" Language That Puts Restrictions on Fair Use: The United States Trade Representative (USTR) is putting fair use at risk with restrictive language in the TPP's IP chapter. US and Australia have proposed very restrictive text, while other countries such as Chile, New Zealand, and Malaysia, have proposed more flexible, user-friendly terms.
· Escalate Protections for Digital Locks: It will compel signatory nations to enact laws banning circumvention ofdigital locks (technological protection measures or TPMs)[PDF] that mirror the DMCA and treat violation of the TPM provisions as a separate offense even when no copyright infringement is involved. This would require countries like New Zealand to completely rewrite its innovative 2008 copyright law, as well as override Australia's carefully-crafted 2007 TPM regime exclusions for region-coding on movies on DVDs, videogames, and players, and for embedded software in devices that restrict access to goods and services for the device—a thoughtful effort by Australian policy makers to avoid the pitfalls experienced with the US digital locks provisions. In the US, business competitors have used the DMCA to try to block printer cartridge refill services, competing garage door openers, and to lock mobile phones to particular network providers.
· Ban Parallel Importation: Ban parallel importation of genuine goods acquired from other countries without the authorization of copyright owners.
· Adopt Criminal Sanctions: Adopt criminal sanctions for copyright infringement that is done without a commercial motivation, based on the provisions of the 1997 US No Electronic Theft Act.
In short, countries would have to abandon any efforts to learn from the mistakes of the US and its experience with the DMCA over the last 12 years, and adopt many of the most controversial aspects of US copyright law in their entirety. At the same time, the US IP chapter does not export the limitations and exceptions in the US copyright regime like fair use, which have enabled freedom of expression and technological innovation to flourish in the US. It includes only a placeholder for exceptions and limitations. This raises serious concerns about other countries' sovereignty and the ability of national governments to set laws and policies to meet their domestic priorities.
Non-Transparent and On The Fast Track
Despite the broad scope and far-reaching implications of the TPP, negotiations for the agreement have taken place behind closed doors and outside of the checks and balances that operate at traditional multilateral treaty-making organizations such as the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Trade Organization.
Like ACTA, the TPP is being negotiated rapidly with little transparency. During the TPP negotiation round in Chile in February 2011, negotiators received strong messages fromprominent civil society groups demanding an end to the secrecy that has shielded TPP negotiations from the scrutiny of national lawmakers and the public. Letters addressed to government representatives in Australia, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand and the US emphasized that both the process and effect of the proposed TPP agreement is deeply undemocratic. TPP negotiators apparently discussed the requests for greater public disclosure during the February 2011 negotiations, but took no action.
Why You Should Care
TPP raises significant concerns about citizens' freedom of expression, due process, innovation, the future of the Internet's global infrastructure, and the right of sovereign nations to develop policies and laws that best meet their domestic priorities. In sum, the TPP puts at risk some of the most fundamental rights that enable access to knowledge for the world's citizens.
The US Trade Rep is pursuing a TPP agreement that will require signatory counties to adopt heightened copyright protection that advances the agenda of the US entertainment and pharmaceutical industries agendas, but omits the flexibilities and exceptions that protect Internet users and technology innovators.
The TPP will affect countries beyond the 11 that are currently involved in negotiations. Like ACTA, the TPP Agreement is a plurilateral agreement that will be used to create new heightened global IP enforcement norms. Countries that are not parties to the negotiation will likely be asked to accede to the TPP as a condition of bilateral trade agreements with the US and other TPP members, or evaluated against the TPP's copyright enforcement standards in the annual Special 301 process administered by the US Trade Rep.
Here's what you can do:
Are you in the United States?
Tell U.S. lawmakers to stand up for your digital rights and preserve our constitutional checks and balances in government. Demand your state representatives oppose any initiative to enact Fast Track (aka Trade Promotion Authority), which hands their own constitutional authority to debate and modify trade law.
Join EFF and more than 30,000 people in sending a message to Congress members to demand an end to these secret backdoor negotiations. Tell the White House to uphold openness and transparency in TPP negotiations.
For close analysis of the TPP and its impacts on digital rights, visitKnowledge Ecology International's TPP resource page.
For more information on other aspects of the TPP, visit Public Citizen's resource page.
Local actions around the world
· Si estas en Chile, unete a la campaña promovida por la ONG Derechos Digitales y di NO al TPP!
· Si estas en Peru, contacta lo más pronto posible a los bloggeros que se oponen al TPP y a las organizaciones que reclaman transparencia!
Share this page on Twitter by clicking here.
If you have other campaigns you would like to see listed here,please contact us!
What You Can Do
Spread the Word
Problems with TPP
Key Documents
Issue Handouts
Other Resources
· OCTOBER 28, 2014
· OCTOBER 22, 2014
· OCTOBER 17, 2014
· OCTOBER 16, 2014
· OCTOBER 15, 2014
· SEPTEMBER 10, 2014
· AUGUST 26, 2014
· AUGUST 20, 2014
· AUGUST 14, 2014
· JULY 11, 2014
Election Results Indicate Huge
Mandate for New Trade Pacts
November 15, 2014
Apparently that is how the DC-insider crowd saw the elections last week. The elite media were filled with news and opinion pieces on how the election opened the door for the approval of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Pact (TTIP). According to the purveyors of elite opinion, this is one of the key areas on which the Republicans in Congress and President Obama can agree.
That assessment is striking since few, if any, of the winning candidates in last week's election made a point of running on their support of these agreements. Nor did President Obama highlight his work on these pacts in his re-election campaign. In fact, the last thing most voters probably remember President Obama saying about trade was his pledge to renegotiate NAFTA when he was running for president the first time, back in 2008.
The turn of the leadership of both parties and the centers of elite opinion to these trade deals shows the incredible contempt they have for the general public and the political process. We just completed lengthy and expensive campaigns where they had ample opportunity to push the case for these deals. Instead we got panicky commercials highlighting everything from the Ebola threat to ISIS beheadings.
But in the view of our political leaders that stuff was just for the kids. Now that we have the election out of the way, the adults are prepared to return to real business.
Let's just be clear what these trade deals are about. They have nothing to do with "free trade," in spite of the fact that the media routinely use that term to help sell TPP and TTIP. The formal trade barriers in the form of tariffs and quotas are already very low. This means that the traditional argument of gains from trade does not apply. These pacts are about putting in place a set of pro-business rules and regulations that would never pass through the normal political process.
To start with the most egregious example,
one of the main goals of the United States is to establish a system of special courts that would override the legal system in each country, including the United States.
These investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) tribunals would have the final say on most matters involving conflicts with foreign investors.
The rationale for a system of ISDS is that foreign investors may be wary about investing in a country without a tradition of an independent judiciary that can be trusted to treat them fairly. While this may be an arguable position in some cases, does anyone really think that German, Dutch, or U.S. courts can't be trusted to treat foreign investors fairly?
In addition to establishing this extra-legal structure, these deals would also limit the ability of national and state governments
· to impose environmental regulations,
· workplace safety regulations,
· food safety regulations, and
· Internet privacy regulations.
· It could also limit the ability to have labor regulations
· like a higher minimum wage or rules on paid sick days.
The pacts are also likely to include a number of protectionist measures that will raise costs and reduce trade and growth. In particular, the pharmaceutical industry is trying to increase the length and scope of government granted patent monopolies. This will mean more drugs like Sovaldi selling for $84,000 a treatment, when the generic version can be sold for a few hundred dollars. And, they want longer and stronger copyright protection so they can imprison people for sharing music and videos without permission.
TPP and TTIP are everything that people hate about Washington. They are deals being crafted in secret by business interests for business interests. They are never going to be subject to any serious political debate involving the public at large. And the leaders of both political parties are in cahoots on the trade deals and the route for pushing them through Congress.
Just to be clear, there are trade deals that could boost growth and benefit most of the public. We could eliminate licensing rules that make it difficult for foreign professionals like doctors and lawyers from practicing in the United States. Bringing the pay of our professionals down to levels in Europe and Canada would save consumers hundreds of billions of dollars a year and provide a real boost to growth. We can also have trade agreements that reduce rather increase patent protection, saving us hundreds of billions of dollars on prescription drugs and other items.
But that would be the structure of trade agreements negotiated in the public interest. That is not we see in the United States. We instead get the elite media and politicians shoving TPP and TTIP down our throats regardless of how people vote.
Follow Dean Baker on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DeanBaker13
MORE: Free Trade Trans Pacific Partnership Income Inequality Financial Crisis Elections 2014 Democrats
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.