After over five years of closed-doors negotiations, on February 4th the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement (known as TPP) was signed by 12 countries that concentrate 40% of world trade – a third of the global economy. Heralded as a “historic free-trade agreement” by the United States, it has faced opposition from civil society organizations since before it was finalized. While governments claim that it would boost economic activity and increase employment, NGOs and citizens’ movements are concerned about the effects this agreement could have on people’s rights and freedoms. Even United Nations officials have joined these criticisms.

 

Citizens’ critiques of the deal are not to be disregarded, as a crucial step for the agreement’s implementation is yet to be taken: it has to be ratified by the Congress of each of the 12 participating countries  – United States, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam – to become effective at the national level. That’s why over the last weeks, NGOs and civil organizations in several cities in the Pacific Rim have organized protests, demonstrations, and online petitions to demand their national lawmakers vote against the TPP. Even in the United States, which lead the deal under President Barack Obama, parliamentary approval could be difficult.

 

Why is the deal being so harshly criticized? There are numerous opinions regarding the initiative (and you can find many online just by googling TPP or following #TPP on Twitter). Below, I will sum up the main points of conflict.

 

To begin with, the way the deal was created has been slammed: negotiations were held in secret, without taking into account the voices of citizens and vulnerable populations whose lives might be impacted by these measures, but with the involvement of corporations that could be profiting from the TPP. International organizations and local NGOs were also left out. Repeated demands for the information to be made public were unmet. The contents of what was being negotiated first became known through Wikileaks in 2013. The final text of the agreement was released last November, years after negotiations started. And, some argue that, in the final review of the text, small changes that carry grave implications were introduced.

This way of proceeding has been called “undemocratic” even by a UN independent expert, Alfred de Zeyas. “I am concerned that notwithstanding enormous opposition by civil society worldwide, 12 countries are about to sign an agreement, which is the product of secret negotiations without multi-stakeholder democratic consultation,” he said.

Furthermore, the length of the text – 30 chapters that amount to approximately 6,000 pages – and its technical language makes it hard for the average citizen to understand, or even read.

One of the most controversial parts of the agreement is the chapter on Intellectual Property, which has implications on two sensible areas: access to health and freedom of expression online.

No al TPP (“NO to TPP”) has been opposing the agreement for a few years now, due to the dangerous consequences it could have for Peruvians (as well as residents of other countries involved in the TPP) when it comes to reinforcing property rights. By extending the criteria to provide patents on medical treatments and medicines, the TPP could impede the production of generic medicines, which are cheaper, and foster monopolies, thus preventing many from accessing the necessary treatments for diseases like cancer and HIV/aids. Humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders (MSF) repeatedly expressed its concern with the “dangerous provisions that would dismantle public health safeguards enshrined in international law and restrict access to price-lowering generic medicines for millions of people.”

 

In an era of open data and extensive online sharing, the treaty also raises concerns regarding the rights of internet-users, according to civil society organizations. TPP Abierto, a Chilean initiative to inform on the agreement, claims that the deal “seeks to make internet providers responsible for implementing unilateral censorship, without intervention from a superior organism, like the judiciary, to protect users rights.”

 

A less often mentioned criticism points to the special mechanism the TPP establishes to solve trade disputes, which would avoid current existing methods. “The TPP would create a system of arbitration run by insiders, who could be advocates one day, arbiters the next, an arrangement almost guaranteed to produce corrupt backscratching for the benefit of corporations and at the expense of we the people,” argues US columnist David Cay Johnston in an opinion piece published by Al Jazeera America.

Additionally, already vulnerable populations in member countries might be even more affected by the agreement, like indigenous groups. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, warned about the possible effects the trade pact could have on the lands of native people, as these are sometimes reservoirs of exploited resources. “Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in the negotiation of trade agreements that could affect their lands,” she added, according to news outlet Telesur.

 

Backlash against the TPP has been strong in Latin America, a region familiar with the effects of US-led free-trade agreements, as well as other countries. Workers’ unions, civil society organizations fighting for labour rights, against poverty and for human rights have joined forces to fight against the TPP, which they claim benefits US companies, not the region.A city in New Zealand, Upper Hutt, went as far as declaring itself a “TP- free zone” to express its discontent with the pact.

 

The US government promotes the deal as one that would “level the playfield for American workers and American businesses,” it does so by setting the “rules for global trade,” as the US Trade office states in its website “rules that will help increase Made-in-America exports, grow the American economy, support well-paying American jobs, and strengthen the American middle class.” If the agreement is not passed, they warn, the US might lose leadership in Asia. As many have pointed, the TPP clearly aims to strengthen the country’s position in the region, to compete with the advance of China in the rest of the world.

 

However, these alleged benefits have not calmed critics within the US. Over 1,500 organizations have formed the “Citizens for Trade Campaign” to ask senators not to pass the bill, since it promotes job offshoring, it could hinder access to life-saving medications and it could cause environmental damage.

 

Using models and taking on assumptions, some economists were able to show that the TPP would have a positive economic impact, concretely an increase in real wages. Using different models and taking on different assumptions, others have shown that the TPP would generate unemployment and lower wages. “There are so many parts of this agreement that are very difficult to model,” Australian Trade Minister Andrew Robb said, according to The Guardian, when asked about a World Bank study that said the deal would only imply a 0.7% increase by 2030 for the country’s economy.

 

Theory can not provide a single answer to the question on the benefits of the TPP. Governments can’t neither offer certainties about its positive effects, but the critiques made by civil society express some serious concerns and raise questions about the non-commercial effects the agreement could have, which need to be addressed.

 

Beyond the difficulty of calculating economic gains, it’s important to keep in mind the effects this agreement could have on people’s rights and the democratic systems involved. Though they are not included in economic models, restrictions on crucial rights, like the right to health and free expression, certainly mean a step backwards in terms of human development. One that is not justified regardless of wage increases and trade gains.