From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a
among twelve
countries signed on 4 February 2016 in Auckland, New Zealand, after seven years of negotiations. It has not entered into force. The 30 chapters of the TPP concern many matters of
and the following stated goals: to "pro support the creation a enhance innovation, productivity ra reduce pove and promote transparency, good governance, and enhanced labor and environmental protections." Among other things, the TPP contains measures to lower , such as tariffs, and establish an
mechanism (but states can opt out from tobacco-related measures). The
considers the TPP a companion agreement to the proposed
(TTIP), a broadly similar agreement between the U.S. and the .
Historically, the TPP is an expansion of the
(TPSEP or P4) signed by , , , and
in 2005. Beginning in 2008, additional countries joined the discussion for a broader agreement: , , , , , , the , and , bringing the total number of countries participating in the negotiations to twelve. Current trade agreements between participating countries, such as the , will be reduced to those provisions that do not conflict with the TPP or provide greater trade liberalization than the TPP.
Participating nations aimed at completing negotiations in 2012, but the process was prolonged by disagreements over contentious issues, including agriculture, intellectual property, and services and investments. They finally reached agreement on 5 October 2015. Implementing the TPP has been one of the trade agenda goals of the
in the U.S. On 5 October 2015, Canadian Prime Minister
stated he expected "signatures on the finalized text and deal early in the new year, and ratification over the next two years." A version of the treaty text "Subject to Legal Review (...) for Accuracy, Clarity and Consistency" was made public on 5 November 2015, the same day President Obama notified Congress he intended to sign it.
Twelve countries participated in negotiations for the TPP: the four parties to the 2005
and eight additional countries. All twelve signed the TPP on February 4, 2016. The agreement will enter into force after ratification by all signatories, if this occurs within two years. If the agreement is not ratified by all before 4 February 2018, it will enter into force after ratification by at least 6 states which together have a GDP of more than 85% of the GDP of all signatories.
  Signatories
  Potential future members (other APEC member economies)
Signature of TPP
Start of TPP
Negotiations
Party (28 May 2006)
4 February 2016
February 2008
Party (28 May 2006)
4 February 2016
February 2008
Party (12 July 2006)
4 February 2016
February 2008
Party (8 November 2006)
4 February 2016
February 2008
4 February 2016
February 2008
4 February 2016
November 2008
4 February 2016
November 2008
4 February 2016
November 2008
4 February 2016
October 2010
4 February 2016
October 2012
4 February 2016
October 2012
4 February 2016
members may accede to the TPP, as may any other jurisdiction to which existing TPP members agree. After an application for membership is received, a commission of parties to the treaty negotiates conditions for accession.
South Korea did not participate in the 2006 agreement, but showed interest in entering the TPP, and was invited to the TPP negotiating rounds in December 2010 by the U.S. after the successful conclusion of its . South Korea already had bilateral trade agreements with some TPP members, but areas such as vehicle manufacturing and agriculture still needed to be agreed upon, making further multilateral TPP negotiations somewhat complicated. South Korea may join the TPP as part of a second wave of expansion for the trade agreement.
Other countries interested in TPP membership include Taiwan, the Philippines, and
as of 2010;
as of 2012; and , , , and
as of 2013. According to law professor Edmund Sim in 2013, many of these countries needed to change their
trade policies in order to join the TPP.
The largest economy in the
not involved in the negotiations is . According to the
in 2013, the most fundamental challenge for the TPP project regarding China was that "it may not constitute a powerful enough enticement to propel China to sign on to these new standards on trade and investment. China so far has reacted by accelerating its own trade initiatives in Asia." In 2013, it was thought China might still be interested in joining the TPP eventually. An academic analysis has shown that while the TPP would be more successful if China participated in it, the benefits to China are intangible.
In October 2015, Indonesian President
declared Indonesia's intention to join the TPP.
has announced interest of joining the TPP and is currently studying its feasibility.
Status TPP
Announced Interest
Announced Interest
January 2010
Announced Interest
September 2010
Announced Interest
November 2012
Announced Interest
September 2013
Announced Interest
November 2013
Declared Intent to Join
October 2015
Main article:
Brunei, Chile, Singapore and New Zealand are parties to the Transpacific Economic Partnership Agreement, which was signed in 2005, and entered into force in 2006. The original TPSEP agreement contains an accession clause and affirms the members' "commitment to encourage the accession to this Agreement by other economies". It is a comprehensive agreement, affecting trade in goods, rules of origin, trade remedies, , technical barriers to trade, trade in services, intellectual property, government procurement and competition policy. Among other things, it called for a 90 percent reduction of all
between member countries by 1 January 2006, and reduction of all trade tariffs to zero by the year 2015.
Although original and negotiating parties are members of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the TPSEP is not an APEC initiative. However, the TPP is considered to be a pathfinder for the proposed
(FTAAP), an APEC initiative.
Main article:
In January 2008, the U.S. agreed to enter into talks with the Pacific 4 (P4) members regarding
in financial services. This led to 19 formal negotiation rounds and a subsequent series of additional meetings, such as Chief Negotiators Meetings and Ministers Meetings, and resulted in the agreement announced on 5 October 2015. For details on the negotiations process, see .
A version of the text of the agreement "subject to legal review" was released by prospective member parties on 5 November 2015. Portions of drafts of the full agreement were previously leaked to the public. Many of the provisions in the leaked documents are modeled on previous trade and deregulation agreements.[]
According to the United States Trade Representative, the TPP agreement includes the following features:
"Comprehensive market access. The TPP eliminates or reduces tariff and non-tariff barriers across substantially all trade in goods and services and covers the full spectrum of trade, including goods and services trade and investment, so as to create new opportunities and benefits for our businesses, workers, and consumers.
Regional approach to commitments. The TPP facilitates the development of production and supply chains, and seamless trade, enhancing efficiency and supporting our goal of creating and supporting jobs, raising living standards, enhancing conservation efforts, and facilitating cross-border integration, as well as opening domestic markets.
Addressing new trade challenges. The TPP promotes innovation, productivity, and competitiveness by addressing new issues, including the development of the digital economy, and the role of state-owned enterprises in the global economy.
Inclusive trade. The TPP includes new elements that seek to ensure that economies at all levels of development and businesses of all sizes can benefit from trade. It includes commitments to help small- and medium-sized businesses understand the Agreement, take advantage of its opportunities, and bring their unique challenges to the attention of the TPP governments. It also includes specific commitments on development and trade capacity building, to ensure that all Parties are able to meet the commitments in the Agreement and take full advantage of its benefits.
Platform for regional integration. The TPP is intended as a platform for regional economic integration and designed to include additional economies across the Asia-Pacific region."
The TPP agreement includes 30 chapters: Initial Provisions and General Definitions, Trade in Goods, Textiles and Apparel, Rules of Origin, Customs Administration and Trade Facilitation, Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, Technical Barriers to Trade, Trade Remedies, Investment, Cross-Border Trade in Services, Financial Services, Temporary Entry for Business Persons, Telecommunications, Electronic Commerce, Government Procurement, Competition Policy, State-Owned Enterprises and Designated Monopolies, Intellectual Property, Labour, Environment, Cooperation and Capacity Building, Competitiveness and Business Facilitation, Development, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, Regulatory Coherence, Transparency and Anti-Corruption, Administrative and Institutional Provisions, Dispute Settlement, Exceptions, Final Provisions.
The agreement would reduce 18,000 tariffs. Tariffs on all U.S. manufactured goods and almost all U.S. farm products would be eliminated completely, with most eliminations occurring immediately.
In addition, the agreement mandates expedited customs procedures for express shipments and prohibits customs duties from being applied to electronic transmissions. It also requires additional privacy, security, and consumer protections for online transactions and encourages the publication of online customs forms. These provisions are expected to be particularly beneficial to small businesses.
Main article:
The intellectual property section of a leaked draft of the TPP lays out a minimum level of protection parties to the Agreement must grant for , , and . Trademarks may be visual, auditory or scents, and are granted exclusive use for trade in a certain field. Copyright is granted at a length of life of the author plus 70 years, and makes willful circumvention of protections (such as ) illegal. The TPP also establishes that "making available" is the exclusive right of the copyright owner.[]
published draft documents during the negotiations: On 13 November 2013, it published a complete draft of the treaty's Intellectual Property Rights Chapter. On 16 October 2014, it released a second updated version of the TPP Intellectual Property Rights Chapter. On 9 October 2015, WikiLeaks published the final TPP Intellectual Property chapter.
Chapter 9, Section B of the TPP Agreement provides for
(ISDS). ISDS is an instrument of public international law, which grants an investor the right to initiate dispute settlement proceedings against a foreign government. For example, if an investor invests in country "A", a member of a trade treaty, and country A breaches that treaty, then the investor may sue country A's government for the breach.
According to 's interpretation of leaked documents in 2012, countries would be required to conform their domestic laws and regulations to the TPP Agreement, which includes provisions on government spending in certain areas As of 2012, US negotiators were pursuing an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, which, according to The Nation, can be used to "attack domestic public interest laws".
On 26 March 2015, WikiLeaks released a draft of the TPP's Investment Chapter, according to which global corporations could sue governments in tribunals organized by the
or the United Nations to obtain compensation from them for loss of expected future profits due to government actions.
The Australian
laws have inspired similar bills in New Zealand and other countries worldwide, despite constant opposition from the Australian tobacco industry on the grounds of intellectual property, technical barriers to trade, best practices of regulation etc. As far back as 2013, it has been argued that embedding these principles in the TPP will allow the tobacco industry in many countries to have more power. In October 2015, it was announced that ISDS laws would not apply to tobacco industries.
In February 2016, Lise Johnson and Lisa Sachs of the Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment and
of the Earth Institute said that the ISDS provision in the TPP was an expanded version of the ISDS in , pointing out that more than 10 percent of foreign investors in the US could access ISDS under the TPP regime. Under the ISDS mechanism, foreign corporations can sue a national government in international arbitration over a government's actions if the measures have a negative effect on their profits and economic interests. Various measures, including those for public health, national security, environment, food and drug, responses to economic crises, could be challenged by foreign corporations, regardless of whether the measures are for the public interest.
According to , economists are sharply split over the positive and negative effects of TPP, and both "opponents and supporters of the trade accord have quickly seized upon whichever analysis buttressed their own views."
Joshua Meltzer of the , an American , gave testimony to the House Small Business Committee on the implications of the TPP. During the hearing, entitled "U.S. Trade Strategy: What's Next for Small Business Exports?", Meltzer stated that as of 2012 the Asia-Pacific region accounted for 60 percent of global GDP and 50 percent of international trade, and is the fastest growing region in the world. The Brookings Institution estimated in 2012 that TPP would generate $5 billion in economic benefits to the U.S. in 2015, and $14 billion in 2025. The economic benefits would likely be larger if the impact of investment liberalization under TPP were also considered. The TPP should generate growth opportunities for small and medium business exporters in the US, which represented 40 percent of U.S. goods exports as of 2012. Small businesses tend to benefit disproportionately from trade liberalization, since they are less likely than large enterprises to establish overseas subsidiaries to overcome trade barriers. The TPP will also help counter the trend toward greater economic integration, which excludes the US, in the Asia-Pacific region. For example,
already has free trade agreements with China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand, and the U.S. has been excluded from economic cooperation among ASEAN + 3 (ASEAN, China, Japan, South Korea).
CNN reported that one goal of TPP is to neutralize China's power in global trading and make American companies more competitive.[] In May 2013, China showed an interest in joining TPP and may see it as an opportunity for its slowing economy.
According to the New York Times, "the clearest winners of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement would be American agriculture, along with technology and pharmaceutical companies, insurers and many large manufacturers" which could expand exports to the other nations that have signed the treaty.
Along with the TPP, the
(RCEP) has been a possible pathway to a
of the Asia-Pacific, and a contribution to building momentum for global trade reform. Both the RCEP and TPP have involved negotiations with multiple parties and sectors.
In January 2016, the
announced its support for TPP, saying "without such an agreement, the United States would be ceding economic leadership to other global powers, letting them set the rules of economic engagement in the region".
An analysis by economists Peter A. Petri and Michael G. Plummer projects that the TPP would increase incomes in the U.S. by $131 billion annually, or 0.5 percent of GDP. Exports from the U.S. would increase by $357 billion annually, or 9.1 percent, as a result of the agreement. However,
economists argued that the research by Petri relied on unrealistic assumptions such as full employment: lost jobs will be immediately replaced in other industrial sectors.
The Tufts researchers published a report of the TPP's economic effects, which said that the TPP would have a negative impact on employment[]: 450,000 US jobs, 75,000 Japanese jobs, 58,000 Canadian jobs and 5,000 New Zealand jobs would be lost by 2025. According to the report, 771,000 jobs would be lost in total and positive economic effects would be negligible for participating countries.
The effect of the TPP on employment(thousands, YR) according to the Tufts analysis
  USA
  Canada
The text of the agreement will have to be ratified, according to the national procedures of the countries concerned and the instrument of ratification is to be deposited with the Government of New Zealand, the depositary of the agreement.
On 5 October 2015 Canadian prime minister
indicated he expected "signatures on the finalized text and deal early in the new year, and ratification over the next two years." On 4 February 2016, at the TPP signing, Canadian International Trade Minister
said "There is a big difference between signing and ratifying". "Consultations in Canada very much will include aboriginal communities, they are a very important part of the national discussion," she said. "We are committed to a full parliamentary committee study and a full parliamentary debate ahead of ratification."
It has been suggested that this section be
into an article titled . () (November 2015)
US House Vote on the Trade Promotion Authority Bill, 18 June 2015
As of 2013, the majority of
were implemented as . Unlike treaties, such agreements require a majority of the House and Senate to pass. Under
, established by the
and renewed by the , Congress authorizes the President to negotiate "free trade agreements … if they are approved by both houses in a bill enacted into public law and other statutory conditions are met." This authority had expired (except for agreements already under negotiation) in 2007. In early 2012, the Obama administration indicated that a requirement for the conclusion of TPP negotiations was the renewal of TPA. This required the United States Congress to introduce and vote on an administration-authored bill for implementing the TPP with minimal debate and no amendments, with the entire process taking no more than 90 days.
In December
House Democrats signed a letter written by
(D-), which opposed the fast track trade promotion authority for the TPP. Several House Republicans opposed the measure on the grounds that it empowered the executive branch. In January 2014, House Democrats refused to put forward a co-sponsor for the legislation, hampering the bill's prospects for passage.
On 16 April 2015, several U.S. Senators introduced "The Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015", which is commonly known as TPA Fast-track legislation. The bill passed the Senate on 21 May 2015, by a vote of 62 to 38, with 31 Democrats, five Republicans and both Independents opposing. The bill went to the U.S. House of Representatives, which narrowly passed the bill 218-208, and also removed the
portions of the Senate bill. The TPA was passed by the Senate on 24 June 2015, without the TAA provisions, requiring only the signature of the President before becoming law. President Obama expressed a desire to sign the TPA and TAA together, and did sign both into law on 29 June, as the TAA was able to make its way through Congress in a separate bill. The TPA law is known as the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015, and the TAA law is known as the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015.
The ultimate approval of this legislation conferred on the Obama administration "enhanced power to negotiate major trade agreements with Asia and Europe." Through the TPA, Obama could "submit trade deals to Congress for an expedited vote without amendments." The successful conclusion of these bilateral talks was necessary before the other ten TPP members could complete the trade deal.
The terms of the TPA stipulate that when a deal is formally submitted to Congress, they must act within 90 legislative days. According to Politico, many expect Congress to vote on the bill either during the Summer of 2016 or in the
after the .
On 30 January 2015 , the , described the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership as "potentially important liberalising steps forward".
(ECIPE), a think tank on European policies, predicted in 2012 that the TPP would be a ‘deadly threat to European exporters of agricultural products in TPP countries’.
ECIPE has said in 2014 that TPP "will be the first ‘competing’
that is large enough to have a considerable negative impact on Europe. In the long-term, the negative effects will come from dynamic impact, e.g. on investment, productivity and competitiveness".
called the TPP ‘the last of big old-style trade agreements’.:2
Exposure by Wikileaks of the Intellectual Property Rights and Environmental chapters of the TPP revealed "just how far apart the US is from the other nations involved in the treaty, with 19 points of disagreement in the area of intellectual property alone. One of the documents speaks of 'great pressure' being applied by the US." Australia in particular opposes the US's proposals for copyright protection and an element supported by all other nations involved to "limit the liability of
by their users." Another sticking point lies with Japan's reluctance to open up its agricultural markets.
Political difficulties, particularly those related to the passage of a Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) by the U.S. Congress, presented another hold on the TPP negotiations. Receiving TPA from Congress was looking especially difficult for Obama since members of his own Democratic Party are against it, while Republicans generally support the trade talks. "The TPP and TPA pose a chicken-and-egg situation for Washington. Congress needs to pass TPA to bring the TPP negotiations to fruition, but the Obama administration must win favorable terms in the TPP to pull TPA legislation through Congress. Simply put, the administration cannot make Congress happy, unless it can report on the excellent terms that it has coaxed out of Japan.". Obama received Trade Promotion Authority on 29 June 2015.
A country can devalue its currency to boost exports and gain a trade advantage. One effect of the United States Quantitative Easing policy was the devaluation of the U.S. dollar, which aided economic growth in that country. Many economists claim that currency manipulation by Asian manufacturing countries has become pervasive, "allowing them to boost their exports at the expense of manufacturing companies in the United States and Europe." Furthermore, organisations such as the WTO or IMF cannot control such currency manipulation, so some are calling upon the U.S. to "use the free-trade talks to force an end to such actions." Senator
and Representative
"gathered a group of economists, manufacturing industry officials and labor leaders who agreed that the TPP should die unless it credibly prohibits countries from manipulating the value of their currency."
Before Japan entered TPP negotiations in July 2013, reports indicated that it would allow the U.S. to continue imposing tariffs on Japanese vehicles, despite a "major premise of the TPP [being] to eliminate all tariffs in principle." According to the reports, Japan compromised on auto tariffs "because Tokyo wants to maintain tariffs on various agricultural products."
By April 2015 U.S. Trade Representative (USTR)
and Japanese Economy Minister Akira Amari—representing the two largest economies of the 12-nation TPP—were involved in bilateral talks regarding agriculture and auto parts, the "two largest obstacles for Japan." These bilateral accords which would open each other's "markets for products such as rice, pork and automobiles." In Japan "rice, wheat, barley, beef, pork, dairy goods, sugar and starch crops are considered politically sensitive products that have to be protected." During the two-day ministerial TPP negotiating session held in Singapore in May 2015, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and veteran negotiator, Wendy Cutler, and Oe Hiroshi of the Japanese
held bilateral trade talks regarding one of the most contentious trade issues—automobiles. American negotiators wanted the Japanese to open their entire
structure which is the corner stone of Japanese economy and society to American automobiles. They wanted Japanese
networks, such as , , , , and , to sell American cars. Oe Hiroshi responded that there are fewer American car dealerships in Japan because Japanese consumers prefer European and Japanese cars to American cars. Different vehicle safety program structures also complicate efforts at re in Japan and Europe, new vehicles are compliance-tested before they're allowed on the market. Under American laws, automakers self-certify their cars as compliant, and cars are tested only after they go on sale. Nevertheless, as of November 2015 an agreement was released whereby Japan will recognize seven U.S. vehicle safety standards as no less stringent than Japanese national standards: those for front and rear collision, flammability of interior materials, license plate lights, interior rearview mirror impact absorption, and windshield wiping, washing, and defogging systems.
During the late July 2015 negotiations held in Maui, Hawaii, the U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman brokered an unanticipated North American–Japan side-deal with Japan, on behalf of the U.S., Canada and Mexico that "lowered the threshold" for how much of an automobile "would have to come from Trans-Pacific signatory countries" in order for it to avoid hefty tariffs when entering Canada, Mexico or the United States. This percentage dropped from 62.5 per cent under the current , to somewhere between 30 per cent and 55 per cent under the July side deal. Canada and Mexico are concerned that this unexpected side deal "could hit the NAFTA partners' auto sectors hard."
In February 2016, 's human rights expert
said that the TPP was fundamentally flawed and was based on an outdated model of trade pacts, and that governments should not sign or ratify the TPP. According to de Zayas, the international human rights regime imposes, on countries, binding legal obligations, including the
and the , and trade must be done under the human rights regime. Under the ISDS in the TPP, investors can sue a government, while a government cannot sue investors. De Zayas argued that this asymmetry made the system unfair. He added that international law, including accountability and transparency, must prevail over trade pacts.
In 2012, critics such as Public Citizen's , a consumer advocacy group, called for more open negotiations in regard to the agreement. U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk responded that he believes the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) conducted "the most engaged and transparent process as we possibly could", but that "some measure of discretion and confidentiality" are needed "to preserve negotiating strength and to encourage our partners to be willing to put issues on the table they may not otherwise." He dismissed the "tension" as natural and noted that when the
drafts were released, negotiators were subsequently unable to reach a final agreement.
On 23 May 2012, United States Senator
(D-OR) introduced , which would have required the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to disclose its TPP documents to all members of Congress. If it had passed, Wyden said that S3225 would clarify the intent of 2002 legislation. That legislation was supposed to increase Congressional access to information about USTR however, according to Wyden, the bill is being incorrectly interpreted by the USTR as a justification to excessively limit such access. Wyden said:
The majority of Congress is being kept in the dark as to the substance of the TPP negotiations, while representatives of U.S. corporations—like , , , , and the —are being consulted and made privy to details of the agreement. […] More than two months after receiving the proper security credentials, my staff is still barred from viewing the details of the proposals that USTR is advancing. We hear that the process by which TPP is being negotiated has been a model of transparency. I disagree with that statement.
In 2013, Senator
(D-Mass) and Rep.
(D-Fla.) were among a group of congressional lawmakers who criticized the Obama administration's secrecy policies on the Trans-Pacific Pact. Warren reiterated her opposition in a speech and press release, just days before a scheduled vote.
A 2015 round of negotiations was scheduled for , Canada, but two weeks before the commencement date, Ottawa, was selected as the new meeting venue and inquiries from public interest groups about attending this round were ignored.
In December 2014 Senator (I-VT)
denounced the TPP:
Let’s be clear: the TPP is much more than a "free trade" agreement. It is part of a global race to the bottom to boost the profits of large corporations and Wall Street underc dismantling labor, environmental, health, food safet and allowing corporations to challenge our laws in international tribunals rather than our own court system. If TPP was such a good deal for America, the administration should have the courage to show the American people exactly what is in this deal, instead of keeping the content of the TPP a secret.
, former commissioner on the U.S. Trade Deficit Review Commission said in May 2015 that "cleared advisors" like himself were "prohibited from sharing publicly the criticisms we’ve lodged about specific proposals and approaches". He said that only portions of the text had been provided, "to be read under the watchful eye of a USTR official", that access on secure government-run website did not contain the most-up-to-date information, and that for cleared advisors to get that information, he had "to travel to certain government facilities and sign in to read the materials" and "even then, the administration determines what we can and cannot review and, often, they provide carefully edited summaries rather than the actual underlying text, which is critical to really understanding the consequences of the agreement."
In June 2015, Senator (R-KY)
opposed fast-tracking the TPP bill on the basis of secrecy. Paul explained that fast-tracking the secret trade partnership would "give the permission to do something you haven’t seen", which he likened to "[putting] the cart before the horse."
Further information:
has original text related to this article:
As of December 2011 some provisions relating to the enforcement of patents and copyrights alleged to be present in the US proposal for the agreement had been criticised as being excessively restrictive, beyond those in the Korea–US trade agreement and
was highly critical of the leaked draft chapter on intellectual property covering copyright, trademarks, and patents. In the US, they believed this was likely to further entrench controversial aspects of US copyright law (such as the ) and restrict the ability of Congress to engage in domestic law reform to meet the evolving IP needs of American citizens and the innovative technology sector. Standardization of copyright provisions by other signatories would also require significant changes to other countries' copyright laws. These, according to EFF, include obligations for countries to expand , restrict , adopt criminal sanctions for copyright infringement that is done without a commercial motivation (ex.
of copyrighted digital media), place greater liability on , escalate protections for
and create new threats for journalists and whistleblowers.
Both the copyright term expansion and the non-complaint provision (i.e., competent authorities may initiate legal action without the need for a formal complaint) previously failed to pass in Japan because they were so controversial. In early 2015 "A group of artists, archivists, academics, and activists ... in Japan [asked] their negotiators to oppose requirements in the TPP that would require their country, and five of the other 11 nations negotiating this secretive agreement, to expand their copyright terms to match the United States' already excessive length of copyright." ()
, creator of Japanese manga series
and , expressed concern the agreement could decimate the derivative
(self-published) works prevalent in Japan. Akamatsu argued that the TPP "would destroy derivative dōjinshi. And as a result, the power of the entire
industry would also diminish."
In May 2015, Nobel prize winning economist
expressed concern that the TPP would tighten the patent laws and allow corporations such as big pharmaceutical companies and Hollywood to gain advantages, in terms of increasing rewards, at the cost of consumers, and that people in developing countries would not be able to access the medicines under the TPP regime. He also pointed out that the TPP would allow multinational corporations to sue national governments, and have cases where group of people who are privately elected can judge.
In April 2015 the director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, , said
"We consider it inappropriate to elevate an individual investor or company to equal status with a nation state to privately enforce a public treaty between two sovereign countries", … "[ISDS] gives extraordinary new privileges and powers and rights to just one interest. Foreign investors are privileged vis-a-vis domestic companies, vis-a-vis the government of a country, [and] vis-a-vis other private sector interests",
"... the basic reality of ISDS: it provides foreign investors alone access to non-U.S. courts to pursue claims against the U.S. government on the basis of broader substantive rights than U.S. firms are afforded under U.S. law".
On 5 October 2015 economists
and Adam S. Hersh questioned the ISDS provisions of the TPP. "To be sure", they wrote, "investors—wherever they call home—deserve protection from expropriation or discriminatory regulations. But ISDS goes much further: The obligation to compensate investors for losses of expected profits can and has been applied even where rules are nondiscriminatory and profits are made from causing public harm. ... Imagine what would have happened if these provisions had been in place when the lethal effects of asbestos were discovered. Rather than shutting down manufacturers and forcing them to compensate those who had been harmed, under ISDS, governments would have had to pay the manufacturers not to kill their citizens. Taxpayers would have been hit twice—first to pay for the health damage caused by asbestos, and then to compensate manufacturers for their lost profits when the government stepped in to regulate a dangerous product.". Stiglitz also claimed that the TPP would give oil companies the right to sue governments for loss of profits due to efforts to reduce carbon emissions and .
In November 2015, Columbia professor
expressed concern that the ISDS-type system which the TPP proposes grants huge power to investors, and that the TPP damages the judicial systems of all the member countries, noting that
has been already used by corporations to upset governments so as to weaken the regulations that have negative effects on their profits. Pointing out what he believes are problems with the unnecessarily strong copyright protections and intellectual properties, the deficiencies in the standards of worker protections, the lack of social and environmental commitments in the TPP, he concluded that the US Congress must oppose the TPP.
A June 2015 article in the New England Journal of Medicine summarized concerns about the TPP's impact on healthcare in both developed and less developed countries, including potentially increased prices of medical drugs due to patent extensions, which it claimed, could threaten millions of lives. Extending "data exclusivity" provisions would "prevent drug regulatory agencies such as the
from registering a generic version of a drug for a certain number of years." International tribunals that have been a part of the proposed agreement could theoretically require corporations be paid compensation for any lost profits found to result from a nation's regulations. That, in turn, might interfere with domestic health policy. A number of United States Congressional members, including Senator
and Representatives , ,
and the now-retired , as well as
and then-congressman , expressed concerns about access to medicine. By protecting intellectual property in the form of the TPP mandating patent extensions, access by patients to affordable medicine in the developing world could be hindered, particularly in Vietnam. Additionally, they worried that the TPP would not be flexible enough to accommodate existing non-discriminatory drug reimbursement programs and the diverse health systems of member countries.
Opponents of the TPP in New Zealand said U.S. corporations were hoping to weaken the ability of its domestic agency
to get inexpensive, generic medicines by forcing it to otherwise pay considerably higher prices for brand name drugs. Physicians and organizations, including
(MSF), also known as Doctors Without Borders, also expressed concern.
denied the claims, Trade Negotiations Minister
saying opponents of the deal are "trying to wreck this agreement".
When a deal was reached in early October 2015, the U.S. and Australia had negotiated a compromise on the length of the monopoly period on next-generation biotech drugs down from twelve years requested by the U.S. to "a minimum period of 5 years and up to a minimum of 8 years."
In Australia, critics of the investment protection regime argued that
standards are incompatible with some
regulations, meaning that the TPP will be used to force states to adopt lower standards, e.g.,  with respect to patented pharmaceuticals. The Australian Public Health Association (PHAA) published a media release on 17 February 2014 that discussed the potential impact of the TPP on the health of Australia's population. A policy brief formulated through a collaboration between academics and non-government organizations (NGOs) was the basis of the media release, with the partnership continuing its Health Impact Assessment of the trade agreement at the time of the PHAA's statement. Michael Moore, the PHAA's CEO, said, "The brief highlights the ways in which some of the expected economic gains from the TPPA may be undermined by poor health outcomes, and the economic costs associated with these poor health outcomes."
In February 2015, former U.S. Labor Secretary
stated he opposed the TPP because it would delay cheaper generic versions of drugs and because of its provisions for international tribunals that can require corporations be paid "compensation for any lost profits found to result from a nation's regulations."
When the full-text of the TPP was officially released on 5 November 2015,
(MSF), also known as Doctors Without Borders, expressed that they were "extremely concerned about the inclusion of dangerous provisions that would dismantle public health safeguards enshrined in international law and restrict access to price-lowering generic medicines for millions of people." MSF's advisor, Judit Rius Sanjuan, cautioned that,
"MSF remains gravely concerned about the effects that the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal will have on access to affordable medicines for millions of people, if it is enacted. Today’s official release of the agreed TPP text confirms that the deal will further delay price-lowering generic competition by extending and strengthening monopoly market protections for pharmaceutical companies."
— Doctors Without Borders November 5, 2015
India's laws concerning drug patents allow it to develop generic drugs. Despite India not being a signatory to the TPP, the provisions in the TPP concerning generic drugs seem to be directly targeting , according to Amy Kapczynski, faculty director of the Global Health Justice Partnership at .
Memorial prize-winning economist
warned that based on leaked drafts of the TPP, it presented "grave risks" and "serves the interests of the wealthiest." Organised labour in the U.S. argued that the trade deal would largely benefit corporations at the expense of workers in the manufacturing and service industries. The
argued that the TPP could result in further job losses and declining wages.
warned that the TPP is "designed to carry forward the
project to maximise 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." Senator
(-), who opposes fast track, stated that trade agreements like the TPP "have ended up devastating working families and enriching large corporations." Another Nobel Memorial Prize-winning economist, , reported, "... I'll be undismayed and even a bit relieved if the T.P.P. just fades away", and said that "... there isn't a compelling case for this deal, from either a global or a national point of view." Krugman also noted the absence of "anything like a political consensus in favor, abroad or at home." Economist
contends that the TPP is a "Trojan horse in a global , giving big corporations and Wall Street banks a way to eliminate any and all laws and regulations that get in the way of their profits."
After the announcement of the United Nations
(SDGs) on 25 September 2015 and the finalisation of the TPP a week later, critics have discussed the interactions between the SDGs and the TPP. While one critic sees the TPP as providing a mixed bag of benefits and drawbacks to the SDGs, another regards the TPP as being incompatible with the SDGs, highlighting that if the development provisions clash with any other aspect of the TPP, the other aspect takes priority. The
have spoken out against the TPP.
In 2013, 's director of responsible trade, Ilana Solomon, argued that the TPP "could directly threaten our climate and our environment [including] new rights that would be given to corporations, and new constraints on the fossil fuel industry all have a huge impact on our climate, water, and land." Upon the publication of a complete draft of the Environment Chapter and the corresponding Chairs' Report by Wikileaks in January 2014, the
joined with the Sierra Club in criticizing the TPP.
co-founder
described the Environment Chapter as "a toothless public relations exercise with no enforcement mechanism."
In January 2014, The Washington Post's editorial board opined that congressional sponsors of legislation to expedite approval of the TPP in the U.S. already included provisions to ensure that all TPP countries meet international labour and environmental standards, and that the U.S. "has been made more productive by broader international competition and more secure by broader international prosperity".
The Venezuelan-backed TeleSUR reported that, when a deal was struck on 5 October 2015, various environmental organizations including the , , , , and
raised warnings against the deal.
However, the
has a website with supportive statements from the , the , the , and other environmental groups in favor of the TPP.
In May 2015, U.S. politician
said that Vietnam has not enforced compliance with basic international labour standards: for example if a worker tries to form an independent union in Vietnam, the worker can be jailed. He said that, even if countries change their laws, it is difficult to enforce trade deals. He added that there is no evidence that the Southeast Asian country is going to meet the international labour standards.
U.S. Senator
strongly opposes the TPP, issuing a staff report on the agreement. The report says that there is a huge gap between the promises that past US free trade agreements contained and the actual enforcement of their labour provisions.
A protest in
in November 2014
"Stop Fast Track" rally in , April 2015
Protesters of the 4 February signing at
A number of
professionals,
activists, environmentalists, , advocacy groups, and elected officials have criticized and protested against the treaty, in large part because of the secrecy of negotiations, the agreement's expansive scope, and controversial clauses in drafts leaked to the public.
On 5 March 2012, a group of TPP protesters disrupted an outside broadcast of 7News Melbourne's 6 pm bulletin at Melbourne, Australia's
venue. In New Zealand, the "It's Our Future" protest group was formed with the aim of raising public awareness prior to the Auckland round of negotiations, which was held from 3 to 12 December 2012. During the Auckland negotiations, hundreds of protesters clashed with police outside the conference venue and lit a fire in the streets.
A poll conducted in December 2012 showed 64 percent of New Zealanders thought trade agreements, such as the TPP, which allow corporations to sue governments, should be rejected.
In March 2013, four thousand Japanese farmers held a protest in Tokyo over the potential for cheap imports to severely damage the local agricultural industry.
On 21 February 2014, Malaysian protesters dressed as
outside a shopping mall in Kuala Lumpur to protest the impact of the TPP on the price of medicines, including treatment drugs for HIV. The protest group consisted of students, members of the Malaysian AIDS Council and HIV-positive patients—one patient explained that, in , he spent between RM500 and RM600 each month on treatment drugs, but this cost would increase to around RM3,000.
On 29 March 2014, 15 anti-TPP protests occurred across New Zealand, including a demonstration in Auckland attended by several thousand people. The New Zealand Nurses Association was particularly concerned that the TPP could prevent government decisions that could benefit public health. On 8 November 2014, further protests occurred in 17 New Zealand cities, with turnouts in the thousands.
In January 2015, various petitions and public protests occurred in the U.S. from progressives. On 27 January 2015, protesters hijacked a
hearing to speak out against the TPP and were promptly removed by capitol police officers.
On 15 August 2015, protests were held across New Zealand in Auckland, Christchurch, Wellington, as well as several smaller cities. An activist claimed that over 25,000 people collectively protested against the TPP free trade deal throughout the country. The pr however, police were forced to protect the steps of the Parliament building in the capital of Wellington, after an estimated 2000 people marched to the entrance.
On 15 September 2015, an estimated 50 protesters blocked a lane of
in the central business district of Wellington, New Zealand. It was reported that up to 30 people were arrested after forming a block on the road, and were taken away in police vans. The group was attempting to enter the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade headquarters, in attempt to seize documents related to the TPPA. They criticized the secrecy surrounding the negotiations, chanting "democracy not secrecy". They were stopped by a police barricade, which later extended to a lock down of the road.
On 23 January 2016, two protests against TPP occurred at Dataran Merdeka and Padang Merbok in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. PAS deputy president Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man estimated the crowd to be about 25,000 people at Padang Merbok alone. However, Malaysiakini estimated the number for both Padang Merbok and Dataran Merdeka in Kuala Lumpur city centre at 5,000 maximum and called the protest a "dud".
On 30 January 2016, in , thousands of people joined anti-TPP rallies, and about five hundred people presented a
calling for a binding
on the TPP before New Zealand's government ratifies the TPP.
On 4 February 2016, trade ministers from the twelve negotiating countries met at the
in , . Between 2,000 and 15,000 protesters were estimated to have marched down
at midday, including additional rallies in
and outside of SkyCity. Groups of protesters blocked central city intersections and motorway ramps during the day, including an incident where 100 protesters ran onto a section of the central city motorway. Protesters in Auckland were joined by the annual
, and an additional 250 people protested at the
outside of parliament in .
In early April 2016, New York Mayor
joined an anti-TPP rally, and explained why he stood up and fought against the TPP. As de Blasio noted,
was a disastrous trade pact: under NAFTA, about one million US jobs and tens of thousands of New York jobs were lost, and the decent standard of living for the US middle class was eroded. He argued that the TPP would damage US as NAFTA did, suggesting that the TPP would worsen US's income inequality.
In April 2016, more than twenty lawmakers in Washington agreed that the US Congress should oppose the TPP. The lawmakers expressed concern that the TPP would have negative impacts on various things: availability of life saving drugs, protections of the environment and natural resources, jobs, labor standards and human rights. They sent a letter to Washington State Members of Congress, urging them to reject the TPP.
. . 5 October .
Handley, Paul (5 October 2015). . Yahoo! News. AFP 2015.
. Financial Times. the TPP must still be signed formally by the leader of each country and ratified by their parliaments(subscription required)
. The Diplomat.
. USTR. 4 October .
. . 6 October 2015.
. Vox 2015.
Russel, Daniel. . U.S Department of State 2015.
Isfeld, Gordon (12 October 2015). . Financial Post (: National Post) 2015.
Schott, J Kotschwar, B Muir, Julia (2013). Understanding the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Peterson Institute for International Economics. pp. 17–18.  .
. Reuters. 29 June .
. whitehouse.gov 2015.
Jason Fakete (5 October 2015). . .
. New Zealand Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. .
Needham, Vicki. . TheHill.
(Press release). Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. 3 December . Canada formally joined the TPP on October 8, 2012.
Nishikawa, Yoko (13 November 2010). . Reuters 2010.
. The Donga-A Ilbo. 18 December 2010.
. . 4 October .
Fifield, Anna (15 April 2015). . Washington Post 2015.
. 10 November .
. 23 September .
. 19 March .
. Canon Institute for Global Studies. 10 July .
. The Jakarta Post. 25 June 2013.
Theara, Khoun (22 November 2013). . Voice of America Khmer 2013.
Sobhan, Md Abus (15 September 2013). . Dhaka Tribune 2013.
Kumar, Arun (2 August 2013). . Business Standard 2013.
Hookway, J Brereton-Fukui, Natasha (28 June 2013). . Wall Street Journal 2015.
Mireya, Solis. . Brookings Institution 2014.
Needham, Vicki (17 September 2013). . <. Archived from
on 20 September 2013.
Devadason, Evelyn S. (17 January 2014). "The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): the Chinese perspective".
23 (87): 462–479. :.
Agence France-Presse in Washington (27 October 2015). . The Guardian.
. The Hindu. . &#160;.
. www.dailynews.lk.
. mfat.govt.nz.
(PDF). mfat.govt.nz 2015.
(PDF). NZ Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade. .
Daniels, Chris (10 February 2008). . The New Zealand Herald 2008.
, New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade,
. The Agenda.
Ed Gerwin (November 27, 2015). "Small Businesses With a Big Stake in the Pacific Trade Deal". The Wall Street Journal.
. . 13 November .
Musil, Steven (12 November 2013). . The Guardian (UK) 2013.
. . 26 October 2014.
Hernando Otero and Omar García-Bolívar,
Hauser Global Law School Program. NYU, December 2011. Retrieved 14 December 2014
Wallach, Lori (16 July 2012). . The Nation 2014.
. . 26 March 2015.
Jonathan Weisman (25 March 2015). . . Retrieved 31 March 2015.
Kelsey, J. (2013). The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement: A Gold-Plated Gift to the Global Tobacco Industry?. American Journal Of Law & Medicine, 39(2/3), 237-264.
Sarah Zhang (). . .
L. Johnson, L. Sachs and J. Sachs, CNN, 19 Feb 2016
CALMES, JACKIE. . New York Times 2016.
Meltzer, Joshua (16 May 2012). . Brookings Institution.
Shuaihua Cheng
YaleGlobal, 14 October 2014
Weisman, Johnathon. . < (NYT) 2015.
(press release). Ministry of Trade and Industry Singapore,. November 2012. p.&#160;3.
Needham, Vicki. . The Hill 2016.
Hufbauer, Gary Clyde (February 5, 2016). . PBS 2016.
J. Capaldo and A. Izurieta, Global Development and Environment Institute, Working Paper No. 16-01 Jan. (2016)
T. Peters, Centre for Research on Globalization, 10 Feb 2016
Janyce McGregor (3 February 2016). . .
(PDF) 2013.
. Reuters. 29 February .
Zach Carter and Michael McAuliff (9 January 2014). . . Retrieved 10 January 2014.
Weisman, Jonathan (16 April 2015). . The New York Times. &#160; 2015.
, , 21 May 2015. Retrieved 20 September 2015.
Ted Barrett (22 May 2015). . CNN 2015.
Susan Davis (18 June 2015). . USA Today 2015.
Jonathan Weismanjune (14 June 2015), , New York Times 2015
. CBS News. Associated Press 2015.
Steven Dennis (17 June 2015).
Danielle Haynes (29 June 2015). . UPI 2015.
, Bloomberg, 19 April
Palmer, A Bresnahan, John (14 October 2015). . Politico 2015.
Hammond, P.,
Foreign & Commonwealth Office, UK 30 January 2015 accessed 8 October 2015
Messerlin, Patrick, , ECIPE Policy Brief, no.11/2012, European Centre for International Political Economy, &#160;.
Matthias Bauer, Fredrik Erixon, Martina Ferracane and Hosuk Lee-Makiyama
ECIPE Policy Briefs, No.9/2014, page 1-13, European Centre for International Political Economy, &#160;
Wollacott, Emma (10 December 2013). . Forbes 2014.
Tatsuhiko, Yoshizaki. .
Schneider, Howard. . Washington Post 2014.
. The Asahi Shimbun 2014.
Stephen Harner (20 May 2015), , Forbes 2015
, CBS News, 24 December
(PDF). Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Steven Chase (5 August 2015), , The Globe and Mail (Ottawa, Ontario) 2015
RT, 2 Feb 2016
OHCHR, 2 Feb 2016
Palmer, Doug (13 May 2012). . .
112th Congress (2012) (23 May 2012). . Legislation. GovTrack.us 2012. A bill to require the United States Trade Representative to provide documents relating to trade negotiations to Members of Congress and their staff upon request, and for other purposes.
;, Vol.&#160;158, Page&#160; (23 May 2012)
(15 March 2014). .
Zach Carter (19 June 2013).
. Retrieved 15 July 2013.
Zach Carter (18 June 2013).
. Retrieved 15 July 2013.
, , Deirdre Fulton. February 3, 2016. Retrieved 4 February 2016.
Harris, Scott (25 June 2014). . Council of Canadians.
Sanders, Bernie (29 December 2014). . p.&#160;3 2015.
Michael Wessel
19 May 2015, accessed 8 October 2015
Shabad, Rebecca (6 June 2015). . The Hill 2015.
Flynn, S Kaminski, Margot E.; Baker, Brook K.; Koo, Jimmy H. (6 December 2011). . Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property.
, , 31 October 2011. Retrieved 10 November 2011
Paul Krugman, The New York Times, 22 May 2015
, Danny Vinick, New Republic, April 7, 2015
; Hersh, Adam S. (), , MarketWatch
J. Sachs, The Huffington Post, 11 Nov 2015
Kapczynski, Amy (16 July 2015). "The Trans-Pacific Partnership — Is It Bad for Your Health?".
373 (3): 201–203. :.
(PDF). infojustice.org. 3 August .
(PDF). keionline.org. 1 December .
(PDF). 19 October .
(PDF). 8 September .
. 3 News NZ. 5 December 2012.
. 3 News NZ. 5 December 2012.
. 3 News NZ. 3 December 2012.
Hughes, K Krolicki, Kevin (5 October 2015). . Reuters via Fortune. Atlanta 2015.
Deborah H. Gleeson, Kyla S. Tienhaara and Thomas A. Faunce, "". Med J Aust
(5): 354–356
. Scoop Independent News. 18 February .
. , 5 February 2015
. Doctors Without Borders. 5 November .
(), , Democracy Now
. The Sydney Morning Herald. 9 December .
. . 11 December 2013. Retrieved 17 December 2013.
. . 18 July 2013
. . September 2013
Zach Carter and Ryan Grim (13 January 2014). . . Retrieved 13 January 2014.
. , 16 January 2014. Retrieved 23 January 2014.
(27 February 2014). .
(Video upload). MoveOn.org on YouTube. Google. 29 January .
Robert Reich (6 January 2015). . Alternet. Alternet 2015.
Shuaihua Wallace Cheng (). . YaleGlobal Online.
Matthew Rimmer. . .
Cam Walker (2 October 2015). . Friends of the Earth Australia.
Rowena Dela Rosa Yoon (). . .
Ibrahim Balkhy (9 December 2013). . . Retrieved 10 January 2014.
(Press release). . 14 January .
Howard, Brian Clark (17 January 2014). . . Retrieved 23 January 2014.
. The Washington Post. 16 January .
. teleSUR English 2015.
S. Greenhouse, The Guardian, 21 May 2015
. . 8 December 2013. Retrieved 17 December 2013.
. . Retrieved 17 December 2013.
. . 12 November 2013. Retrieved 17 December 2013.
Gabrielle Chan (11 November 2014). . The Guardian.
Shannon Deery (5 March 2012). . Herald Sun 2014.
itsourfuture (17 September 2013). . Itsourfuture.org.nz 2013.
. Scoop.co.nz. 23 October .
. 3news.co.nz. 8 November .
. 3 News NZ. 12 December 2012.
. commondreams.org. 13 March .
Daniel Lau (21 February 2014). . The Malaysian Insider 2014.
Matthew Theunissen, Teuila Fuatai (21 February 2014). . The New Zealand Herald 2014.
. Scoop Independent News. 28 March .
(). 8 November .
Stewart, M Rilkoff, Matt (8 November 2014). . . Archived from
on 8 November 2014.
Carter, Zach (5 January 2015). .
. . 27 January .
MAXWELL, JOEL. . Stuff.co.nz 2015.
. Stuff.co.nz. 15 August .
. RadioNZ 2015.
. Yahoo News NZ 2015.
. NZ Herald 2015.
. Malaysiakini.
Radio New Zealand, 30 Jan 2016
. . 4 February .
. . 4 February .
. . 4 February .
Lois Williams (3 February 2016). .
J. Jorgensen, New York Observer, 7 Apr 2016
J. O'Sullivan, Seattle Times, 6 Apr 2016
State of Washington House of Representatives, 6 Apr 2016
has original text related to this article:
Wikimedia Commons has media related to .
, (), from the depositary
Greer, Evan (5 November 2015), , Fight for the Future
Malcolm, Jeremy (), , Electronic Frontier Foundation
Sutton, Maira (), , Electronic Frontier Foundation
Ian F. Fergusson, Bruce Vaughn
– Congressional Research Service report for Congress. 21 pages, 12 December 2011. (PDF)
: Hidden categories:}