The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Was the U.S. Wise to Pursue It?

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was a complex trade agreement that aimed to integrate the economies of the United States and its partners across the Pacific region. However, many argue that the pursuit of such an agreement was misguided, with significant concerns over its impact on various stakeholders.

The Role of Investor-State Dispute System (ISDS)

One of the primary criticisms of the TPP was its inclusion of the Investor-State Dispute System (ISDS). This system was designed to allow foreign investors to challenge the regulatory actions of host countries in international arbitration. Proponents of the ISDS argued that it would provide a fair and neutral method for resolving disputes. However, critics, such as those within the SEO community, believe that it could undermine regulatory standards on critical issues such as environmental protection and public health.

The ISDS mechanism was seen as a stark example of how trade agreements can prioritize corporate interests over the common good. This leads to a "lowest common denominator" in regulatory standards, often rolling back environmental protections and drug regulations in favor of corporate interests.

Flaws in the TPP Framework

The Trans-Pacific Partnership suffered from several fundamental flaws that made it an ill-fitting tool for true economic cooperation:

Discarding Minority Interests: The agreement often prioritized the interests of larger trading partners at the expense of smaller ones, disregarding their unique needs and concerns. Bias in Legal Objectivity: The inclusion of statutory provisions in international law further diluted the objectivity needed for fair and impartial legal processes. This lack of adherence to legal requirements was not a new phenomenon but a clear and deliberate choice. Turning Trade into Extortion: The TPP was criticized for turning global trade into an extortion racket, where multinational corporations could use ISDS to force host countries to comply with their demands, often at the expense of public interests.

Political Motivations and Focusing on the Wrong Partners

Moreover, the TPP was heavily influenced by political motivations, particularly to placate and serve the interests of Obama's allies in the media, Hollywood, and other intellectual property stakeholders. The agreement was not about promoting free trade but about serving parochial mercantilist interests.

For example, the inclusion of countries like Australia and a few smaller nations, many of which already had existing trade agreements with the US (like NAFTA with Mexico), while excluding rapidly growing economies like India and South Korea, seemed to be a strategic misstep. The promise of increased trade with less significant partners did little to address the broader economic challenges the U.S. faced and did not align with the greater utilitarian interests of the region.

Conclusion: A Path Forward for Trade Agreements

Given these criticisms, one might wonder if the U.S. would have been better off pursuing a different approach to trade agreements. Perhaps a more coherent framework, focused on inclusive and fair trade, could have been developed. This might have involved rebuilding the framework to better serve the interests of the American people and smaller trade partners, rather than catering to the interests of larger corporations and IP stakeholders.

Only time will tell if a Capitalism 2.0 framework will emerge, one that is not dominated by parasitic franchises of governments and big business. Instead, it might be driven by individuals who are dedicated to objectivity and principles, paving the way for true free trade.