TPP: Not a Silver Bullet for Tariffs Elimination, But a Corporate Power Play
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has been a topic of considerable debate ever since its inception. While advocates claim it would eliminate nearly all tariffs among member countries, critics argue that it is more about bolstering corporate interests at the expense of public policies and environmental protections. This article aims to explore the shortcomings of the TPP and why it fell short of eliminating tariffs.
Understanding the TPP
The TPP was a 12-nation trade agreement designed to streamline trade between member countries, specifically those around the Pacific Rim. The agreement spanned 6,000 pages, including side letters and ancillary documents, making it one of the most comprehensive trade agreements ever negotiated. However, beneath its vast structure lies a more sinister purpose according to its critics.
The Tariff Reality: A Myriad of Challenges
Contrary to popular belief, the TPP did not single-handedly eliminate almost all tariffs. In fact, the reduction of tariffs has been limited and slow. According to the World Trade Organization (WTO), over 90% of global trade is currently duty-free or subject to very low tariffs. Negotiations and agreements like the TPP often take years to come into effect, and achieving tariff reductions can be a painstaking process. The sheer length and complexity of the TPP made it difficult to prioritize and implement significant tariff reductions.
The Critique
Critics of the TPP argue that it was never primarily about eliminating tariffs. Instead, they contend that it was a vehicle for corporations to gain substantial rights and protections, such as longer patent terms, at the expense of democratic public policies. The agreement sought to give multinational corporations the ability to directly challenge domestic policies they deemed harmful to their interests, bypassing national courts. This so-called Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism became one of the most contentious elements of the TPP.
Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS): A Flawed Approach
ISDS provisions allowed foreign investors to sue governments through a panel of arbitrators, who were often former corporate lawyers with no accountability to the public. This system was criticized for several reasons:
No legal precedent: Tribunals could set new legal standards without reference to existing international or national laws. No caps on compensation: Investors could receive substantial payouts, often at the public expense. No right of appeal: Once an ISDS award was made, there was no appeal mechanism.This unique approach to dispute resolution was seen as undermining the sovereignty of nation-states, favoring international corporations over local communities.
Environmental and Public Policy Concerns
The TPP also included provisions that critics argue undermined environmental and public health protections. Provisions such as intellectual property rights, which extended patents and copyrights, were seen as hindering access to affordable medicines and technologies. Moreover, the agreement included clauses that protected corporate interests over public policies, potentially limiting governments' ability to implement effective environmental regulations and public health measures.
A Critique of Corporate Influence
The TPP's primary focus on corporate interests over public welfare was not lost on critics. The process of negotiating the agreement was heavily influenced by multinational corporations, with many writing draft provisions that directly benefited their interests. This corporate influence often overshadowed the needs and concerns of ordinary citizens and smaller businesses.
Conclusion
While the TPP aimed to streamline trade and reduce tariffs, it fell short of its promises due to its heavy emphasis on corporate interests. Instead of eliminating tariffs, the TPP primarily served to empower multinational corporations at the expense of public policies and environmental protections. Its flawed approach to dispute resolution, coupled with its ambiguous impact on environmental and public health, raises serious questions about the true intentions behind such trade agreements.