TPPA: Doomsday scenarios, Critics, and flights of fancy
The debate of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) is hotting up.
Recent pieces in the NZ Herald by Professor Jane Kelsey and right wing columnist, Fran O’Sullivan, gave opposing views on the current secret negotiations.
As usual, Professor’s Kelsey’s column was a reasoned, critical analysis of the potential consequences of a TPPA on our society, and economy. Kelsey deals in facts and her writing did not disappoint. (See: Jane Kelsey: Pacific deal masks bigger plan)
By contrast, O’Sullivan’s pro-TPPA piece was a bizarre rant and whinge as to why Auckland University was not promoting pro-TPPA arguments. As if it was compulsory for Universities to promote and advance right-wing, “free” market ideology and agendas? (See: Anti-trade camp running debate)
Another piece in the Herald, by lawyer Daniel Kalderimis, assured us that disputes between investors and states were real, but could be addressed.
“No one would sanely deny that there aren’t risks. But the key question is are those risks a deal breaker or can they be mitigated? I think they can be mitigated.”
Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he? Kaldermis is a trade lawyer who makes his living from “mitigating” international investor-nation disputes.
(The vultures are circling already…)
Another somewhat equally ludicrous pro-TPPA piece came from Stephen Jacobi, executive director of the NZ US Council and the NZ International Business Forum, on 18 Ocober,
Jacobi’s statements demand a critical de-construction…
” A recent survey of 1018 New Zealanders found that over 60.5 per cent believed New Zealand needed to do more to connect with global markets. While 85.7 per cent could not name the deal under negotiation with the United States and other Asia Pacific economies, when prompted 51.6 per cent said they had heard of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). 56.3 per cent said they supported TPP and only 13.4 per cent said they opposed it. 30.4 per cent said they had no view or didn’t care. “
It’s hardly surprising that the issue of the TPPA does not rate more highly in New Zealander’s consciousness.
With few exceptions, our media has been woefully lacking in promoting informative debate on complex issues faces this country.
Fairfax media has been gutted, as sub-editors and other reporting staff numbers have been seriously cut back.
Even television current affairs programmes ( The Nation, Q+A, and Think Tank) are relegated to early morning time slots on the weekends.
The only in-depth, serious coverage on radio is by Radio New Zealand.
This blogger recently had an opportunity to listen to what passes for “News” on ‘The Rock‘ – a Wellington radio station. It’s two-minute long hourly “news” programme consisted predominantly of crime stories. Items of a political nature or social issues are rarely, if ever, canvassed.
Talkback radio? Idiot voices screaming at other idiot voices on issues that idiots know little about.
No wonder that the most critical trade agreement in our history is about to be passed, and “30.4% said they had no view or didn’t care“.
If New Zealanders realised that our medicines might increase by 50%, 75%, 100%, or X% – then perhaps more New Zealanders might care.
I know! Let’s put it into terms that even the most dimmest low-information voter can compehend,
Amokura Kawharu said her conclusions were based on the leaked text of the investment chapter.
“If that is the final form for the TPP then there will be an extensive provision in there prohibiting what are called ‘performance requirements’.”
It prohibited incentives for supporting local industry.
So there we have it; no government subsidies = no movies = we can kiss bye-bye to our little hairy-footed mates if the TPPA goes through.
That should grab our collective attention by our short’n'curlies.
Returning to Mr Jacobi’s written piece in the Herald,
“The Government will need to decide what best meets New Zealand’s interests in this area but it is more likely to do so in the context of domestic policy processes rather than a trade negotiation.”
That is either highly disingenuous – or Mr Jacobi has an almost quasi-religious faith in our government. Which is strange, as neo-libs generally have very little faith in the State and are constantly railing that private enterprise “does it better” than governments.
At any rate, the last 30 years of de-regulation, resulting in thousands of jobs being lost to overseas nations with cheaper labour costs, prove the lie to that claim. If governments’ policies were truly determined by “ what best meets New Zealand’s interests …in the context of domestic policy “, neo-liberal de-regulation would never have been implemented on such a wide-ranging, destructive scale in this country.
Successive governments since 1984 have been hand-cuffed to de-regulated marketplace and fiscal policies.
” That’s also why this process needs to take place behind closed doors, at least until consensus is forged.
This is not the same as secrecy – it’s no secret TPP talks are taking place in Auckland in December. “
A process taking place behind closed doors is not the same as secrecy?!?!
Since when was the definition of secrecy re-written without anyone’s knowledge?
What other definitions has Ms Jacobi re-written, on the sly?
So let’s not forget; for TPPA supporters, something taking place behind closed doors is not the same as secrecy.
“ At that time any public stakeholders who register their interest will be able to meet with negotiators as they have done in every other negotiating round. “
Meaning what, precisely? Will that allow journalists; members of Parliament; and other interested parties the right to full disclosure of information regarding the TPPA?
If not, then Mr Jacobi’s comments are meaningless drivel.
“ Those on all sides of the TPP debate will do so and they should, to ensure negotiators are aware of their concerns. New Zealand negotiators are extremely open to this and meet regularly with those for and against TPP. “
Ok, now Jacobi is of into La La Land, on a Jet Star flight of fancy…
I wonder who, precisely, New Zealand negotiators are meeting regularly, who are “against the TPP“?
” Once their job is complete the fruits of their labours will need to be presented to Parliament for ratification and all New Zealanders can participate in the select committee process. That’s how we make treaties and change laws in this country. “
Yes, Mr Jacobi, that is precisely “ how we make treaties and change laws in this country” – on Planet Key.
Unfortunately, things are not quite so rosy and wonderfully democractic in New Zealand, Planet Earth.
For example; public submissions on the issue of partial privatisation of our state assets numbered 1,400. Less than 1% were in favour of privatisation.
National has ignored the remaining 99% of submitters and is proceeding with asset sales. (See: Asset sales protest gears up)
Where is the “participation in the select committee process” that Mr Jacobi speaks of?
“The bigger picture behind all this is why New Zealand needs to participate in trade negotiations at all. The answer can be found in the difficult economic environment in which we find ourselves today. All around the world governments and citizens are asking what can be done to boost economic growth, create jobs and meet the expanding social needs of our communities.”
Mr Jacobi is being hopelessly naive if he believes that free trade agreements “create jobs”.
Well, they do, actually. They take jobs from countries such as New Zealand – and create them in low-wage countries such as India, Pakistan, Fiji, China, etc.
In fact, the United States seems to have not done very well out of a previous free trade agrement called NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement),
NAFTA’s opponents attribute much of the displacement caused in the US labor market to the United States’ growing trade deficits with Mexico and Canada. According to the Economic Policy Institute, rise in the trade deficit with Mexico alone since NAFTA was enacted led to the net displacement of 682,900 U.S. jobs by 2010. Critics see the argument of the proponents of NAFTA as being one-sided because they only take into consideration export-oriented job impact instead of looking at the trade balance, also known as net exports. They argue that increases in imports ultimately displaced the production of goods that would have been made domestically by workers within the United States.
The export-oriented argument is also critiqued because of the discrepancy between domestically produced exports and exports produced in foreign countries. For example, many US exports are simply being shipped to Mexican maquiladores where they are assembled, and then shipped back to the U.S. as final products. These are not products destined for consumption by Mexicans, yet they made up 61% of exports in 2002. However, only domestically produced exports are the ones that support U.S. labor. Therefore, the measure of net impact of trade should be calculated using only domestically produced exports as an indicator of job creation.
According to the Economic Policy Institute’s study, 61% of the net job losses due to trade with Mexico under NAFTA, or 415,000 jobs, were relatively high paying manufacturing jobs. Certain states with heavy emphasis on manufacturing industries like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and California were significantly affected by these job losses. For example, in Ohio, Trade Adjustment Assistance and NAFTA-TAA identified 14,653 jobs directly lost due to NAFTA-related reasons like relocation of U.S. firms to Mexico. Similarly, in Pennsylvania, Keystone Research Center attributed 150,000 job losses in the state to the rising U.S. trade deficit. Since 1993, 38,325 of those job losses are directly related to trade with Mexico and Canada. Although many of these workers laid off due to NAFTA were reallocated to other sectors, the majority of workers were relocated to the service industry, where average wages are 4/5 to that of the manufacturing sector.
An increase in domestic manufacturing output and a proportionally greater domestic investment in manufacturing does not necessarily mean an increase in domestic manufacturing jobs; this increase may simply reflect greater automation and higher productivity. Although the U.S. total civilian employment may have grown by almost 15 million in between 1993 and 2001, manufacturing jobs only increased by 476,000 in the same time period. Furthermore from 1994 to 2007, net manufacturing employment has declined by 3,654,000, and during this period several other free trade agreements have been concluded or expanded
And our free trade agreement with China is resulting in similar loss of jobs,
An announcement today 430 jobs are set to go at Fisher & Paykel Appliances’ Dunedin factory, virtually spells the end of the line for whiteware production in New Zealand.
F&P is following the lead of New Zealand garment manufacturer Icebreaker which does design and research in New Zealand but manufactures in low-cost China.
How many jobs were “created” in Dunedin’s Hillside railway yards, when contracts to build locomotives were awarded to Chinese manufacturers? See: Dozens of railway workshop jobs to go
How many jobs were “created” by Rakon Industries, as they shifted their production to China? See: Rakon blames job cuts on high dollar
How many jobs did Dynamic Controls “create” when they shifted manufacturing to China in 2007? See: Jobs to go in closure of Dynamic Controls wing
And the list goes on… 40,000 manufacturing jobs lost, since 2008. ( See: National’s Hands-Off Approach Failing New Zealand) Many of those jobs have been ‘exported’ to China, since the FTA was signed between that nation and New Zealand on 7 April 2008 and came into effect on 1 October of the same year. (See: New Zealand–China Free Trade Agreement )
So is Mr Jacobi lying or woefully ignorant of the facts? Let the reader decide.
Next, from Mr Jacobi,
“A conservative estimate is that TPP could add $2.1 billion to the New Zealand economy by 2025 or just under 1 per cent of GDP.”
Who gets that $2.1 billion, Mr Jacobi? Is it workers? Local businesses here in New Zealand? Or corporate shareholders somewhere else?
And how many more unemployed, Mr Jacobi?
Who pays for thousands more unemployed? The taxpayer no doubt.
Meanwhile, that $2.1 billion heads of to Never Never Land…
But the strangest, most laughable comment from Mr Jacobi comes when he admonishes TPPA critics with,
“Rather than giving in to doomsday scenarios we should listen to New Zealanders who instinctively know that trade works and this country’s economic livelihood is to be found in global markets.”
Yeah, we can’t have “doomsday scenarios”, eh, Mr Jacobi. Like the muppet who made this moronic comment,
“No one wants to see prices go up or the internet collapse.”
Previous related blogposts
Gordon Campbell on the NZ Herald’s attack on Jane Kelsey (29 Nov 2012)
Gordon Campbell and a Canadian analysis of the TPP (3 Dec 2012)
= fs =