By Joseph Sipalan. Published by The Malay Mail Online on 27 February 2014.
Representatives from the 12 Pacific Rim nations involved in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) left Singapore yesterday with little to show for four days’ worth of intense negotiations.
The BBC’s headline yesterday screamed, “No deal”, despite earlier optimism — particularly from the United States — of possible progress ahead of President Barack Obama’s scheduled visit to Asia in April.
The 12 prospective TPPA members, however, said in a joint statement that they had made “further strides towards a final agreement.”
“While some issues remain, we have charted a path forward to resolve them in the context of a comprehensive and balanced outcome,” read the statement, cited by Singapore-based broadcaster Channel News Asia.
Try reading the quote again. Make any sense?
If it does not, then you are probably as clueless about the TPPA as the half billion people living in Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam — whose governments are engaged in the 12-way talks.
And with details of the controversial free trade pact hidden in the murk of a so-called confidentiality clause imposed by the United States, what could we possibly glean from such cryptic communications?
1. It is as clear as mud
Under the United States-initiated TPPA, prospective member nations hold joint negotiations to flesh out general policy, but the United States also holds parallel bilateral talks with each of the other 11 nations, all hush-hush.
Unlike the pending Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) deal with the European Union (EU) — which bares every single detail to every EU citizen — that right to information has been taken out of the TPPA negotiations.
How will this deal pan out? Your guess is as good as anyone’s.
2. There is no end in sight
Sure, they have set a deadline to finalise the agreement by year end. They said the same thing before heading into the previous round of negotiations — incidentally also hosted by Singapore — last December.
There are simply too many competing interests to expect any quick resolution to disputes over who should make concessions and for which industries.
For example, Japan will not budge on its robust domestic agriculture industry and Malaysia is adamant on keeping its affirmative action policies.
Which brings us to ...
3. How far can Malaysia counter pressure from the United States?
Sadly, not all nations are equal.
No matter how good its negotiators, Malaysia is up against arguably the world’s most powerful nation.
As much as Malaysia wants to exclude from the deal areas concerning Bumiputera issues, government procurement and state-owned enterprises among other things, going at it alone against the United States may not be the most effective strategy.
You can try convincing a bully twice your size that he gains no benefit from punching you in the face, but chances are the bully knows he holds the advantage and lands one on your kisser anyway.
With four out of the 12 negotiating parties coming from ASEAN, it is curious why they are not making a joint stand.
Indonesia opted out of the TPPA over concerns that any deal would undermine its affirmative action policies. Why not Malaysia?
The United States insists that there is more good to be gained from being part of the TPPA, but why did they not then try and convince all 10 ASEAN members to band together to even out the odds?
But then again, maybe ASEAN nations did try to present a united front. We do not know. Darn that confidentiality clause.
Professor Jane Kelsey and Professor Burcu Kilic who were invited to speak at MTEM’s head office this afternoon agreed that the concession is being discussed on an unequal ground as the United States have the final say on the trade.
ReplyDeleteProf Jane Kelsey, a professor of law, policy and international economic regulation from Auckland University highlighted that the agreement is politically motivated and stressed that the US congress have the power to overrule the viewpoint set up by Malaysian ministers.
She also reiterated that many Malaysian activists requested that the text and content of the agreement be subject to public scrutiny before it is inked by the countries participating in the negotiation.
“The US is having the final say thus this is not an equal process even when your minister have come up with a proposals; the US congress can change it,”
“This is politically motivated, it is about the US foreign policy. Our main concern is why the agreement is being negotiated in a very secretive manner. The citizens have to know what is in the deal,”
“The text should be put out for analysis,” she said.
Prof Burcu Kilic meanwhile expressed concern over the access to medicines in Malaysia should the government decides to sign the partnership with eleven other countries in the Asia Pacific region.
According to Burcu, based on leaked text published by Wikileaks last year the US is pushing for aggressive measures that would hinder access to affordable medicines against cancer, heart disease and HIV/Aids.
“The terms the US proposed would transform Malaysian laws on patent and clinical trial test data and attack government purchasing and medicine formularies,”
“These provision would limit generic competition and raise pharmaceutical prices thereby restricting access to affordable medicines,” said Kilic.
When asked on the reliability of the leaked text, both professors maintained the credibility of the text by world famous fugitive Julian Assange and said that the key issue of the process is the transparency of the agreement while rejecting that the text is based on hypothetical assumption.
“I don’t think a 95 pages of a report is a hypothetical assumption. The fact that the agreement is kept away from the public should be questioned,”
The TPPA has caught the attention of many Malaysians since it was first highlighted by the local and foreign media.
Political figures from the government and opposition have also shared opinions on the matter including former premier Mahathir Mohamad who called for the government to reject the trade agreement.
Last year, Malaysia’s anti TPPA group, Bantah had also claimed that the US is expected to bulldoze its way through the intellectual property (IP) chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) which will restrict medicines to other member countries.
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2014/02/20/tppa-undermines-local-laws/
The AM-Net director Hiroshi Kanda said TPP will not only force the “enlargement of the disparity in economic power, between the rich and the poor” but it would also deny poor nations the economic power to secure food import.
ReplyDelete“The people will end up losing big, even though large private firms may end up winning,” said Kanda, who heads a non-governmental organisation on reforms.
He said in an email exchange through a Japanese organisation in Kuala Lumpur that the TPP would surely be of a great disadvantage to the average Malaysian.
“The TPP will ensure the enlargement of the disparity in economic power not only between the rich nation and the poor ones, but the rich class and the poorer classes within nations.” he said in an email addressed to The Malaysian Reserve.
Kanda said while Malaysia could obtain the economic fruits from the TPP in terms of economic growth, those would be snatched by foreign investors who were on the lookout for massive measures to protect their investments.
The Japanese activist, who is campaigning against the TPP in Japan and abroad, said this was one of several serious contentious issues in the TPP.
Kanda said the fears of growing economic disparity was a phenomenon that could be explained rationally.
“Under the TPP, Japan will have to make way for imports of some essential goods from the US or other member countries and this will impact on the food self-sufficiency ratio, decreasing it from 39% to 13%.
“If the estimate is correct, Japan will have to import more than seven million tonnes of rice. The international market of rice is too competitive to supply enough rice to nations in need.
“If Japan as a rich nation has to import more rice, then the poorer nations, such as those in the sub-Saharan-rice importing region, will face severe starvation.” he said.
“The reason being Japan with its economic strength, will be able to buy rice on the global market, affecting the purchasing power of the poorer nations when the price of rice jumps to astronomical figures.
“Thus, the TPP will not only destroy the fertile Japanese rice cultivation but will also attack the poor nations’ food security.
“In Japan, we have enough padi fields and adequate irrigation to provide enough rice for all the people. But the TPP will destroy not only the fertile Japanese rice cultivation but also the poor nations’ food security.
“This is one of the serious inconsistency of the TPP that I want to point out,” he said.
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2014/02/28/japanese-activist-tpp-will-affect-food-security/