The US Pacific free trade deal that's anything but free?

The US's draft TPP deal may grant new patent privileges and restrict net freedom, but it's secret – unless you're a multinational CEO

Patent protection increases what patients pay for drugs in the United States by close to $270bn a year (1.8% of GDP). Photograph: Graham Turner for the Guardian

"Free trade" is a sacred mantra in Washington. If anything is labeled as being "free trade", then everyone in the Washington establishment is required to bow down and support it. Otherwise, they are excommunicated from the list of respectable people and exiled to the land of protectionist Neanderthals.

This is essential background to understanding what is going on with the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), a pact that the United States is negotiating with Australia, Canada, Japan and eight other countries in the Pacific region. The agreement is packaged as a "free trade" agreement. This label will force all of the respectable types in Washington to support it.

In reality, the deal has almost nothing to do with trade: actual trade barriers between these countries are already very low. The TPP is an effort to use the holy grail of free trade to impose conditions and override domestic laws in a way that would be almost impossible if the proposed measures had to go through the normal legislative process. The expectation is that by lining up powerful corporate interests, the governments will be able to ram this new "free trade" pact through legislatures on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

As with all these multilateral agreements, the intention is to spread its reach through time. That means that anything the original parties to the TPP accept is likely to be imposed later on other countries in the region, and quite likely, on the rest of the world.

Government secrets
 
At this point, it's not really possible to discuss the merits of the TPP since the governments are keeping the proposed text a secret from the public. Only the negotiators themselves and a select group of corporate partners have access to the actual document. The top executives at General Electric, Goldman Sachs, and Pfizer probably all have drafts of the relevant sections of the TPP. However, the members of the relevant congressional committees have not yet been told what is being negotiated.

A few items that have been leaked give us some insight as to the direction of this pact. One major focus is will be stronger protection for intellectual property. In the case of recorded music and movies, we might see provisions similar to those that were in the Stop Online Privacy Act (Sopa). This would make internet intermediaries like Google, Facebook and, indeed, anyone with a website into a copyright cop.

Since these measures were hugely unpopular, Sopa could probably never pass as a standalone piece of legislation. But tied into a larger pact and blessed with "free trade" holy water, the entertainment industry may be able to get what it wants.

The pharmaceutical industry is also likely to be a big gainer from this pact. It has decided that the stronger patent rules that it inserted in the 1995 WTO agreement don't go far enough. It wants stronger and longer patent protection and also increased use of "data exclusivity". This is a government-granted monopoly, often as long as 14 years, that prohibits generic competitors from entering a market based on another company's test results that show a drug to be safe and effective.

Note that stronger copyright and patent protection, along with data exclusivity, is the opposite of free trade. They involve increased government intervention in the market; they restrict competition and lead to higher prices for consumers.

In fact, the costs associated with copyright and patent protection dwarf the costs associated with the tariffs or quotas that usually concern free traders. While the latter rarely raise the price of a product by more than 20-30%, patent protection for prescription drugs can allow drugs to sell for hundreds, or even thousands, of dollars per prescription when they would sell for $5-10 as a generic in a free market.

Patent protection

Patent protection increases what patients pay for drugs in the United States by close to $270bn a year (1.8% of GDP). In addition to making drugs unaffordable to people who need them, the economic costs implied by this market distortion are enormous.

There are many other provisions in this pact that are likely to be similarly controversial. The rules it creates would override domestic laws on the environment, workplace safety, and investment. Of course, it's not really possible to talk about the details because there are no publicly available drafts.

In principle, the TPP is exactly the sort of issue that should feature prominently in the fall elections. Voters should have a chance to decide if they want to vote for candidates who support raising the price of drugs for people in the United States and the rest of the world, or making us all into unpaid copyright cops. But there is no text and no discussion in the campaigns – and that is exactly how the corporations who stand to gain want it.

There is one way to spoil their fun. Just Foreign Policy is offering a reward, now up to $21,100, to WikiLeaks if it publishes a draft copy of the pact. People could add to the reward fund, or if in a position to do so, make a copy of the draft agreement available to the world.

Our political leaders will say that they are worried about the TPP text getting in the hands of terrorists, but we know the truth: they are afraid of a public debate. So if the free market works, we will get to see the draft of the agreement.

• • By Dean Baker
  • guardian.co.uk
  •  
  Related posts:
  
  • Apple wins $1bn in US while Samsung wins in Korea; it may reshape the free Google Android system
  • US Stocks dominate; Korean share drops after US's ruling on Apple-Samsung patent wars
• • US launches financial attacks against its allies!

Japan's Politics Favoring a Regional FTA over TPP?

It is easy to misapprehend Japanese politics.  It is hard—to put it mildly—to correctly apprehend them.   I say misapprehend, rather than misunderstand, Japan’s politics because the problem is not so much interpretation of information as of one of limited and biased sources of information.

Sad to say, if you don’t have Japanese and aren’t listening to and reading the Japanese media, you can simply give up thinking that any judgment you make is based on meaningfully representative information.  But even if you do follow matters in Japanese, it is hard to avoid finding one’s judgment biased by the fact that only Japan’s big business community—whose organ is the Nihon Keizai Shimbun—seems to speak on any issue clearly and with one voice.  The trap is allowing oneself to think that the Nikkei’s advocacy—because clear and forceful—holds more sway in the political process than that of a host of other interest groups, or that Japan’s political process is particularly responsive to big business.

I say this by way of apology and no doubt excuse for what I have suggested in the past is the “slam dunk” logic of Japan’s entering the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, or of meeting any ostensible deadlines for doing so, or of TTP being one of the highest priorities of the Noda government, and that accession to an agreement is critical to Japan’s future.

During the past month, and for at least the next few weeks, the Noda government—and Prime Minister Noda personally—have been engaged in a raucous and exhausting debate with dissident members of its own ruling Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) as well as the opposition parties, led by the Liberal Democrats (LDP), over legislation to raise Japan’s consumption tax from 5% to 10%.  Noda has said many times that he is staking his political life on passage of the consumption tax rise, so vital does he believe it is to putting Japan back on a path to fiscal soundness and avoiding a Greece-like crisis.

Noda’s policy stance on the consumption tax is exactly that of Japan’s big business establishment, and the editorial pages of the Nihon Keizai Shimbun.   What about TPP—along with the consumption tax hike, a cause celebre of the Nikkei?  In fact, the trade agreement seems to have slipped completely off the agenda, at least for the time being.  Why—if it is so critical—might this be the case?

In answering this question I am indebted to an exceptionally insightful analysis by Professor Aurelia George Mulgan of the University of New South Wales in Australia recently posted in the East Asian Forum (website: eastasiaforum.org).  Apart from the obvious point that presently Noda has no spare political capital to invest in TPP, Professor Mulgan notes that “Japan’s record on signing Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) is not promising.  As a general rule, Japan prefers signing FTAs with non-agricultural exporting powers, rather than with powerhouses like Australia, New Zealand, and the U.S….  Japan has not signed trade agreements with its major trading partners or with developed countries (except for Switzerland in 2009); and it has preferred developing countries instead because it asks them to accept a lower trade liberalization rate with exceptions for some agricultural product.”

Professor Mulgan elaborates on why TPP is stalled, and may be doomed, in Japan.  I want to relate his many insights in a future post.  Now I will focus on one more; he writes:

“PM Noda has argued that by joining the TPP Japan ‘can absorb the Asia Pacific’s growth power’, but this argument is flawed because…China, South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines, are not in it.”

While TPP may be going nowhere, Professor Mulgan believes that Japan will “continue to push the Japan-China-South Korea FTA proposal, which was boosted by Noda’s recent trip to Beijing.”  In fact, at the tripartite meeting in Beijing Noda suffered another humiliating snub as Hu Jintao refused to meet one-on-one with him.  Speculation was briefly rife in the Japanese press as to why this happened.  But the buzz quickly passed, as snubs from Beijing seem recently to be the rule rather than the exception.

As readers of this blog know, I believe that the China-centric Asian regional economic and trade integration is an overriding mega-trend shaping and redefining Japan’s future.

Despite the Nikkei’s advocacy, movement toward TPP has stalled.    Very likely, where Japan’s varied political interests are aligning is toward a Japan-China-Korea FTA.

Stephen Harner, Forbes Contributor

Newscribe : get free news in real time