Jamaica and the Trans Pacific Partnership

America's New Secret Nafta!

Jamaica needs to urgently start examining the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). I am imploring that both the Ministry of Finance and Planning and the Ministry of Industry, Investment and Commerce, consider the future implications of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. In November 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced Washington’s official pivot to Asia. Outlining a vision for an Asia-Pacific Century, Secretary Clinton described a desired symbiotic and unfettered relationship between the two regions that will provide “unprecedented opportunities for investment, trade, and access to cutting-edge technology.” At the center of this pivot has been the TPP, an enigmatic trade pact that has been hailed as a true “21st century agreement,” a purported free trade deal between 11 countries, including the U.S., Canada and Japan, which has been in negotiations for some years.

As a centerpiece of President Obama’s pivot to Asia, which includes Latin America via the TPP, the trade pact sets a powerful, if not potentially dangerous, precedent for future trade agreements in the emerging region. But instead of encouraging sustainable economic trends and responsible transnational relations, the TPP could enact the same policies that have been proven detrimental in past smaller-scale agreements like NAFTA. The TPP rhetoric misrepresents the potential of free trade as it encourages, through greater international regulations, such as those seen in the intellectual property and investment chapters, the creation of domestic policies to manipulate the international market. Often, these actions strengthen the economically powerful, particularly by granting to the leadership the right to set its own nation’s course of action and implement its own visions, while those at the margins suffer. Thus, the TPP presents a troubling case of free trade being purchased at too great a price.

Let us remember that after the United States, Canada and Mexico agreed to become a single market as part of the North American Free Trade Agreement, their exports to each other boomed. But here in the Caribbean, the economies of America's much smaller neighbours reeled from the impact of that success and found it almost impossible to compete. From the apparel plants of Jamaica to the sugar-cane fields of Trinidad, Nafta  resulted in the loss of jobs, markets and income for the vulnerable island nations of the region.

Nafta's devastating effect on the Caribbean was widely fore-casted before the treaty's passage in 1993 and Washington had suggested it would cushion the blow by extending similar trade preferences to the island nations. However, the Clinton Administration's proposals to give the Caribbean ''Nafta parity'' was twice foundered in Congress in election years. It is then easy to see the troubles of the TPP which seems would come into effect vrey close to the U.S. election season.

When Nafta went into effect, the creation of new jobs in Jamaica stopped altogether and overall unemployment rose to 16 percent from 9.5 percent, according to the Statistical Institute of Jamaica. In Mexico it failed to provide equitable stipulations for labor conditions, environmental protection, or investment regulations. Laborers on both sides of the border saw their collective bargaining powers diminish after NAFTA.

Critics of Nafta then, contended that NAFTA should have been transformed from a “free” trade agreement to a “fair” trade agreement through revisions that create jobs instead of destroying them, protect workers, and create an environment that allowed citizens to stay in their home country and earn a fair living wage.

So it is no surprise then that critics of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement have noted that the deal has little to do with free trade. Rather, the TPP is about limiting regulation, helping corporate interests and imposes fiercer standards of intellectual property (to, again, largely benefit corporate interests).

Noam Chomsky has decried the TPP, he told HuffPost Live that the deal, which is not yet finalized, is “designed to carry forward the neoliberal project to maximize profit and domination, and to set the working people in the world in competition with one another so as to lower wages to increase insecurity.”

Chomsky said it was “a joke” that the deal is designated a “free trade” agreement. “It’s called free trade, but that’s just a joke,” Chomsky said. “These are extreme, highly protectionist measures designed to undermine freedom of trade. In fact, much of what’s leaked about the TPP indicates that it’s not about trade at all, it’s about investor rights.”

On reviewing the leaked draft TPP chapter, intellectual property law expert Dr. Matthew Rimmer called the deal, “a Christmas wish-list for major corporations.”

This so-called trade pact of the future covers far more than just trade, with chapters addressing modern topics such as an extension of investment past real property, intellectual property rights, and environmental standards among others. There is no question that the agreement would positively affect many signatory nations’ economies; however, many of the proposed regulations pushed by the U.S. would violate regional domestic laws while compromising national sovereignty.

As a Jamaican I am asking in particular the Honourable Anthony Hylton, Jamaica's Minister of Industry, Investment and Commerce, to be cognizant of the impact of the TPP and its implications for International Law and our domestic laws. I also ask that in any international bargaining that we be put on a level playing field with other international players, and to secure strong lobby and collective bargaining power to secure our owning international commercial future! I ask that the Minister secure us  the opportunity not to be prevented from taking full advantage of the International markets now and not when we begin reeling from the impact of the TPP.