It's almost axiomatic that business owners want control of not just their customers, but of their competitors. If given a choice as to whether they would prefer restrictions upon their competitors or open market competition, most business owners would choose a restricted market for their competitors, whilst they would want the government to preserve their unlimited license to do as they wish. Only an honest few would vote for full open-market competition for all, including themselves, because philosophically they believe it is better for all in the long run.
Given this sociological reality amongst business owners it is appropriate that we should approach any "free trade" agreement with a great deal of caution. Now, we do not mean to imply for a nano-second that we stand with the Greens on this matter. That political party is pathologically opposed to free trade of any sort for reasons that make sense to it alone. But caution is required because free trade negotiations often become a cover for regulation, protection, and trade barriers.
New Zealand was one of the first nations to enter negotiations for the Pacific to be a free-trade zone, under the rubric of a Trans-Pacific Partnership. It's fairly safe to say that the early participants were nations pretty much philosophically committed to free trade. Latterly two additional nations have joined the negotiations--Japan and the United States. Granted that there was no way a universal Pacific free-trade zone would exist without the participation of these two giants. But the Trans-Pacific Partnership was always intended to be a coalition of the willing.
Since world trade negotiations had broken down (probably irretrievably for the foreseeable future), those nations committed to free-trade went merrily along negotiating bilateral free trade agreements with like minded nations. It just so happens that a large number of these nations were in South America and Asia. So the Trans-Pacific Partnership emerged.
The recent inclusion of Japan and the US in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations is worrying. Both nations maintain protectionist policies over significant segments of their economies, agriculture being a prime example. The US, in particular, is not a philosophically committed free-trader, despite its rhetoric in support of the free market. Its farming lobby remains very influential in Congress. Moreover big business gives lots of money in support of politicians on both sides of the aisle who are always willing to provide payback in the form of supporting protectionist measures that favour their donors. Finally, the US tends to believe because it is "exceptional" ordinary rules and regulations and standards apply to others, not to the US. After all, every rule has its exceptions.
Stuff reports that a Fair Deal Coalition has been active in putting Trans-Pacific partners on notice that they are on watch and that they will not accept any final deal which actually restricts trade, rather than making it more free.
Trade Me has joined 31 consumer and lobby groups from New Zealand and overseas in writing to Trade Minister Tim Groser to voice concerns about the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement. The company is a member of the New Zealand-born umbrella group the Fair Deal Coalition, which was set up last year during the Auckland round of the negotiations to lobby against possible provisions in the yet-to-be-completed trade agreement.We believe this is a helpful development. Unless we are vigilant and careful any agreement coming out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership may be a free trade agreement in name only. After all, the World Trade Organization's negotiations for a global free trade agreement broke down. The US was not without blame in their failing because it relentlessly sought protection for its favoured industries and businesses--all in the name of free trade, of course.
The coalition fears the trade agreement could unduly strengthen intellectual property rights, for example by extending copyright by 20 years and introducing new controls on parallel imports.
In its letter, the coalition asked Groser to reflect on the "variety of sectors" that stood to be adversely affected by such provisions. "As a group we are diverse, but we share one thing in common: we seek appropriately balanced intellectual property laws," it said.
No comments:
Post a Comment