Is the TPPA a big business conspiracy to create a new
world order?
Opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement
is getting a full head of steam in every country that is a party to the secret
negotiations.
The TPPA partners are the United States, Canada,
Mexico, Japan, Vietnam, Brunei, Singapore, Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand,
Chile and Peru, but more countries including China and South Korea may join.
The partnership had its roots in an Asia-Pacific
Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in Los Cabos, Mexico, in 2002, when New
Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark, Goh Chock Tong the Prime Minister of
Singapore, and Chilean President Ricardo Lagos, began negotiations on the
Pacific Three Closer Economic Partnership.
Previous New Zealand governments had negotiated for
access for New Zealand produce into the European Economic Community (now the European
Union) with considerable success against determined opposition from some EEC
members (The United Kingdom Government itself had to contend with determined
opposition from its own people).
Former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark |
New Zealand politicians had also negotiated two free
trade and economic treaties with Australia, in spite of bitter opposition from
the public in both countries on the basis that it was a sell-out and there
would be a wholesale loss of jobs and unfair competition. The final free trade
agreement between the two countries has been a huge success for both business
and employment, and the two countries continue to move closer together.
With that record, New Zealand was seen as a country
well capable of punching above its weight on the world stage. Two New Zealand
prime ministers, Clark and Mike Moore, have gone on to head two powerful United
Nations bodies, further evidence that New Zealand politicians can foot it with
the best.
When Brunei in 2006 showed an interest in the Pacific
Three Closer Economic Partnership it was renamed the Trans Pacific Economic
Partnership Agreement (P4). In 2008 Australia, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico,
Peru, the United States and Vietnam joined while the negotiations continued and,
with 2012 as the target date, the agreement became the Trans Pacific
Partnership Agreement (TPPA).
Former Singapore Prime Minister Goh Chock Tong |
From that first meeting in Mexico, the TPPA has grown
to be the world’s largest ever trade agreement negotiations and will bring 40%
of the world’s trade, employment and economic activity within its scope.
For people who think that big is bad, it’s time for
them to consider the opposite of expanding trade blocs; imploding trade blocs.
Think about trade and government the way it was two or three centuries ago. In
many countries it was illegal to take produce from one town to the next, let
alone across international borders, unless exorbitant tariffs were paid. The
purpose of the trade barriers were supposedly to protect local industry and
workers, but some people, politicians among them, could see that the effect of
the barriers was counter-productive. However, the task of convincing the public
at large of the advantages of free trade is not an easy one.
It is no coincidence that as nations and trade blocs
have expanded over time, the range of products available has grown, employment
has grown, life expectancy has increased and people enjoy more leisure time and
healthier life styles. It is no coincidence at all. While it would be wrong to
claim that freer trade alone has improved the standard of living, it must be
recognised that it has played a major part. When the TPPA is finally signed it
will help lift the lifestyle of 40% of the world’s population to an all-time
new level of prosperity and quality of life.
Former Chilean President Ricardo Lagos |
So, you may ask, if the TPPA has such a glowing
future, why are so many people opposed to it?
Quite simply, the answer lies in human nature. Even in
the twenty-first century we all have a natural in-built instinct to protect our own
little patch and to preserve what we know and understand. In some ways we haven’t
progressed much since we lived in caves. We still believe that a caveman should
not be allowed to trade with cavemen on the other side of the mountain. Someone
might get a bad deal, and may even lose his cave if the deal goes wrong. Of
course, this is an extreme and rather ridiculous example in today’s world, but
it illustrates just where we have come from.
It is perfectly natural to think that change will be
bad, especially if what we know and trust is replaced by something larger. It
is easy to think that there is some kind of conspiracy going on, and that we
will be the victims of that conspiracy.
When it comes to the TPPA the conspiracy theory is
that the whole thing is driven by big business and that only the big business
owners and the politicians will be richer as a result. But such a proposition
cannot stand up to proper scrutiny. Economic common sense must tell us that if
99% of the population are poor, then the other 1% will also be poor. Even if
the 1% owned 99% of the world’s assets, those assets would be worthless. The
products and services owned by the 1% would be useless if 99% of the world
population could not afford to buy them. Every day we hear that the rich are
getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, but that is patently incorrect
because it ignores the basic economic reality set out above.
Then there is the suggestion that the TPPA will allow
corporations to sue governments. In most parts of the world corporations
already have that right. It is also a fact that most agreements, contracts and
rules have procedures included to cover breaches. That claim is nothing other
than a protestor’s red herring.
The TPPA is driven by far-sighted politicians, skilled
departmental advisors and astute business leaders who understand that expanded
free trade benefits everyone, except perhaps those countries left out of the
loop.
Another reason often given for opposing the TPPA is
that it is a conspiracy to create a New World Order (a form of world
government) and it is going to be bad for everyone. Well that conspiracy theory
has been around for hundreds of years, and we are still waiting.
Then there is the argument that the negotiations are
being held in secret and therefore it must be sinister. This writer has one
word to describe that theory: Rubbish! I challenge any reader to give me just
one example of a trade agreement that was negotiated publicly. That is not how
government to government negotiations are conducted. Any government that tried
to negotiate that way would certainly finish up on the losing end of the
bargaining, and the people shouting the loudest would be the biggest losers.
Just imagine New Zealand’s four million people all having a say. The farmers would make their demands at the expense of everyone else. Manufacturers would do likewise, and so would teachers, orchardists, fishermen, bankers, lawyers, shop assistants, students, and so on. The delicate negotiations between the nations’ leaders, if carried out in public, would quickly degenerate into a violent lolly scramble of epic proportions. It would probably be enough to trigger a world war.
Just imagine New Zealand’s four million people all having a say. The farmers would make their demands at the expense of everyone else. Manufacturers would do likewise, and so would teachers, orchardists, fishermen, bankers, lawyers, shop assistants, students, and so on. The delicate negotiations between the nations’ leaders, if carried out in public, would quickly degenerate into a violent lolly scramble of epic proportions. It would probably be enough to trigger a world war.
The negotiations can only be held in orderly private
sessions. It is quite simply a case of a majority having elected the political
leaders, and now they have to trust them. The politicians will understand that
if they fail they will fall unceremoniously from office.
Meanwhile, the protest movement in every partner
country is convinced that their country alone will be on the losing end of the
deal, while all the other partners will win. Well, they can’t all be right on
that score.
The opposition comes from many different quarters,
even from some who are regularly accused of being involved in conspiracies.
Brother Nathanael Channel writing in Real
Jew News has stated that, ‘The Trans Pacific Partnership – now in secret
negotiations – is nothing less than Globalization on steroids.’ Sorry, Brother,
while the negotiators are working away quietly and resolutely, it is the
protestors who are on steroids.
But after the TPPA becomes a fact of life, the world
and its people will move on. There will be other negotiations, agreements and
advances, and there will be more bitter protests and misinformation, lies and
finger pointing. But more people will have a bigger share in a larger slice of
cake.
UPDATE
Praise to the New Zealand team for walking away from the TPPA negotiations. For 30 years New Zealand farmers have survived without subsidies or trade barriers, but Canada and the USA cannot expect New Zealand to sign up to a free trade agreement while they protect their farmers with subsidies and tariffs. That wouldn't be free trade. North American farmers need to come into the modern world and accept the fact that trade barriers don't help anyone. If they rethink their stance they may possibly get New Zealand back to the negotiating table and the TPPA may survive.
UPDATE
Praise to the New Zealand team for walking away from the TPPA negotiations. For 30 years New Zealand farmers have survived without subsidies or trade barriers, but Canada and the USA cannot expect New Zealand to sign up to a free trade agreement while they protect their farmers with subsidies and tariffs. That wouldn't be free trade. North American farmers need to come into the modern world and accept the fact that trade barriers don't help anyone. If they rethink their stance they may possibly get New Zealand back to the negotiating table and the TPPA may survive.
No comments:
Post a Comment