Will Trans-Pacific Partnership Talks Update or Downgrade NAFTA?

By Keith Edmund White, Editor-in-Chief

New Zealand's trade minister thinks Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade talks could be a springboard for opening up NAFTA.  Is he right?  CUSLI-Nexus looks at how TPP talks could update NAFTA, but then asks the tough trade question:  do bilateral and regional free trade agreements help international trade, or do they just kick the can on the big divides within the international trading system?  Thanks to iPolitics, Rabble.ca, Skynews.com.au, and Tax-News.com from their excellent reporting that stretches from Toronto to Singapore.

On Monday, New Zealand’s trade minister—at a convention hosted by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives—“said the TPP [Trans-Pacific Partnership] talks could allow negotiators for Canada, the United States and Mexico to update the 18-year old NAFTA deal.”

How would TPP update NAFTA?  From an excellent iPolitics report by Elizabeth Thompson:

In an interview with iPolitics following his speech, [NZ trade minister Tim] Groser said changes to NAFTA wouldn’t be part of the formal TPP agenda but the TPP agreement could trump NAFTA provisions the same way NAFTA superceded the original Canada-U.S. free trade deal.

So what is there to update in NAFTA? U.S. chicken and dairy sectors want more access to the Canadian market, with other U.S. industries wanting to keep pushing Canada on strengthening their intellectual property regime. From a Rabble.ca Wednesday article reviewing the lingering Canada-U.S. trade barriers in the NAFTA-era:

U.S. industry groups, including the main poultry and dairy associations, complained about Canada's supply management policies and intellectual property regime during a Monday hearing at the United States Trade Representative on Canada's entry to the ongoing Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations. Meanwhile, in its presentation to the USTR, the AFL-CIO urged the U.S. government to incorporate "a new approach to trade policy, one that prioritizes benefits for working families, not simply benefits for multi-national or global enterprises (MNEs)."

Reuters reported Monday that the U.S. dairy and chicken sectors are sore they never received access to Canada's market as promised in NAFTA. High tariff walls and low quotas prevent exports of these goods from any country from flooding the Canadian market, which is supplied mainly by Canadian farmers and farm production.

Now getting a TPP agreement is by no means a sure thing.  From an excellent article in today’s SkyNews.com.au emphasizing that 2013 will be the make-or-break year for TPP:

While it's believed around half of the TPP's 29 chapters are finished, Australian Trade Minister Craig Emerson concedes most of the low-hanging fruit has been picked.

'It'll be 2013 when the big negotiations on the hard issues are conducted,' Emerson told AAP on the sidelines of the APEC Summit in Russia this month.

Emerson points to market access as the toughest nut to crack.

And, of course, what about the macro-question:  Do ‘small’ regional trade pacts or possibly ‘big’ regional trade pacts like TPP good or bad for encouraging a free-flow of trade world-wide?  From this there’s perhaps no better—if perhaps biased—source than Pascal Lamy, the Director General of the World Trade Organization (from today’s Tax-News.com):

While noting that the increased negotiation of regional trade agreements has contributed to freer trade, he drew attention to the fact that regional trade agreements have sprung up due to an impasse in global free trade talks under the auspices of the Doha Development Agenda.

He reiterated that on average, each member of the WTO belongs to no fewer than 13 separate preferential trade agreements. "This means that in addition to their multilateral commitments, WTO members on average have to manage an additional 13 separate trade regimes. I do not think you will disagree with me that this cannot be the most efficient way to trade and to do business across national frontiers."

In addition, Lamy—talking at a Singapore event hosted by the European Chamber of Commerce—lists five drawbacks of pursuing free trade agreements (FTAs) on a bilateral and regional level, skipping over WTO talks:

• FTAs create trade costs:  multiple, overlapping trade pacts create their own trade costs.

• New FTAs undermine old FTAs.  Newer FTAs-instead of building on past ones--lower of the value of existing trade pacts.

• The FTA box-out factor:  If you’re not in the FTA club, the FTA is—in effect—now a trade barrier to non-members.

• FTAs reward procrastination:  Countries are selectively picking how to pursue free trade, skipping over tougher issues, which mainly impact smaller, weaker members of the world trading system.

• FTAs Undermine WTO consensus:  the more bilateral and regional FTAs you make, the harder it can be to get countries to agree to world-wide agreements on trade.

Naturally, there's an easy rejoinder these concerns:  let's have freer trade where we can have it. 

In any case, international trade may be the big, under-reported story of 2013.  And it will be interesting to see if TPP can be finalized, and what impact a finalized TPP agreement--a trans-Pacific trade pact that would exclude China--might have on trade disputes between China and the United States, and--from that--on divisions at the WTO.