With Washington standing as the most trade-dependent state in the nation, the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership is of particular interest to residents.
The agreement, which was finalized last summer between the United States and 11 Pacific Rim trading partners, returns to the spotlight this week as President Obama begins stumping in favor of the pact and the U.S. International Trade Commission begins hearings on it. As can be expected for a document that was more than seven years in the making and that includes 30 chapters and more than 4,000 pages, critics are able to find plenty to complain about.
But for the American economy and, in particular, for Washington, the benefits appear to outweigh the negatives of the sweeping agreement. From the U.S. standpoint, the impetus for the deal is a desire to eliminate or reduce some 18,000 tariffs levied by foreign governments upon goods and services exported from the United States. On a purely philosophical level, American interests are best served by a free-trade system that supports the exchange of goods while expanding markets for producers and making goods more available for consumers.
To echo one example The Columbian has noted editorially in the past: Vietnam currently extracts a 10 percent tariff on cherries from Washington state, while there is no tariff upon cherries from Australia. Under the proposed TPP, the tariff on Washington cherries would drop to zero percent over three years, improving the ability of this state’s growers to compete in a potential growth market.
Thousands of additional products also would have their tariffs reduced in multiple countries, and for a state that is dependent upon its ability to export aerospace goods, agricultural products, and industrial machinery — in addition to other items — the impact could be vast. Eric Schinfeld, president of the Washington Council on International Trade, said: “After careful consideration of all that is in the agreement, our board has concluded this is a good deal for Washington state. … Our workers will be able to better compete with foreign workers thanks to the strong labor and environmental provisions.”
It is those labor and environmental provisions that promise to be the most contentious portions of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Many American labor groups have decried the agreement, and many critics have asserted that the environmental protections are not strong enough. But the important thing in evaluating the TPP is not to compare it with a perfect American-centric document, but to compare it with the alternative — which is nothing.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership would help bring labor and environmental regulations in many countries closer to the standards embraced by the United States. For example, a side agreement includes requirements that Vietnam legalize independent trade unions, a provision that could help build the kind of middle class better suited for the consumption of American goods. Equally important, the TPP would provide some leverage for U.S. interests against the growing economic presence of China, which is not a party to the agreement.
Overall, objections to the Trans-Pacific Partnership tend to be that it does not adequately address issues such as human rights, worker health, climate change, or currency manipulation — items for which a trade agreement is poorly suited. Instead, the deal focuses upon the free flow of goods and services, along with protections for the producers of such items. In the end, that would prove beneficial for American workers and consumers.
