Mungunda 1

Alphonce Mungunda
Professor Mary Barker
POLS 2100
23 October 2015
Semester Research Project: On the Trans-Pacific Partnership
Until recently enigmatic and shrouded in mystery, the Trans-Pacific
Partnership Agreement (TPP) is a proposed trade agreement between 12
Pacific Rim countries. These countries are Brunei, Chile, New Zealand,
Singapore, Australia, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, the United
States, and Vietnam. After eight years of secret negotiations, the
participating representatives from these countries finally reached a
consensus on the agreement, and Congress will have 90 days to review the
document before President Obama signs it (Goodman). The participation of
all these countries means that if the TPP goes through, it will successfully link
40% of the worlds economy and GDP (Bradner). Because of the super
secretive process under which it was drafted and negotiated, and because
the agreement has potential far-reaching negative effects that would be
restrictive of things like workers rights, uninhibited media sharing, and
access to affordable medicine, many organizations have taken a stand
against and been vocal about their dislike and distrust of the TPP. This paper
will compare the economic policy set for in the TPP to that of the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), discuss some of the history and

Mungunda 2
controversies surrounding the TPP, and make a case for why the US should
not participate in the TPP.
NAFTA was introduced and ratified in 1994, under the Clinton
Administration. This trade agreement cut tariffs and changed laws so that
Canada, Mexico, and the United States could trade freely. The TPP has often
been compared to NAFTA. The trade and investment barriers that analysts
expect the TPP to lower are similar to those of NAFTA, but on a much larger
scale. The stated benefits of this are supposed to allow competitive firms to
move into new markets, increase workers wages, cut business costs, as well
as improve the quality of goods and services available to consumers (Flynn).
Those in favor of the TPP, such as the US Coalition for TPP, say that the pact
with give the United States access to some of the worlds fastest growing
markets. They claim that the result of this will be that more jobs will be
created for American workers (http://tppcoalition.org/tpp/). Those who
remain in favor of the changes that occurred under NAFTA look forward to
these promised results. However, opponents of NAFTA have argued that
although NAFTA did in fact create jobs, the jobs that the agreement created
paid less and were less desirable than the original jobs that were lost as a
result of the agreement. Critics of TPP worry that the same thing will happen
again, but on an even larger scale (Flynn). For these reasons, many
prominent politicians, even those who once stood in favor of the TPP, are
against the agreement. Hilary Clinton previously stated that the TPP was the
gold standard in trade agreements, an improvement even on NAFTA, an

Mungunda 3
agreement to which she has an undeniable connection, but she has changed
her position on the subject. Most recently, in the Democratic Party Debates,
she said, Based on what I know so far, I cant support this agreement
(https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip3/press.html).
The secrecy surrounding the TPP is one of the major reasons that
opponents of the trade deal have to speak out against it. Supposedly wary of
information leaks that might undercut their own negotiators, the
governments of the countries involved in the TPP have taken drastic
measures to ensure that only those who are absolutely trusted are allowed to
see the drafts of the documents (Bradner). They say that this is the way the
trade deals must be devised in order for them to be successful. However,
opponents are a little more skeptical. Senator Elizabeth Warren is one of the
most outspoken among them. She said, Why are the Trade [Talks] secret?
Youll love this answer. Boy, the things you learn on Capitol Hill. I actually
have had supporters of the deal say to me, They have to be secret because
if the American people knew what was in them, they would be opposed
(Goodman). Even members of US Congress, who are supposed to decide on
whether or not to approve the deal, were not allowed to have either print or
digital copies of the document before it was finalized. Instead they were only
allowed to read it for short periods at a time, and they were required to do it
in a highly secured underground reading room in the nations capitol. They
were not even allowed to take handwritten notes out the door with them.

Mungunda 4
Despite such security, specific chapters of the 30-chapter document
were released by WikiLeaks, an international non-profit journalistic
organization that leaks secrets and documents obscured by this very kind of
secrecy. According to their website, the organizations goal is to bring
important news and information to the publicOne of our most important
activities is to publish original source material alongside our news stories so
readers and historians alike can see evidence of the truth
(https://wikileaks.org/About.html).
Many influential organizations and individuals have taken this evidence
of the truth of the TPP and have made powerful statements regarding their
opposition to it. Two of these organizations have been the highly respected
Doctors Without Borders and the Public Citizens Global Access to Medicine.
Article QQ.E.16 1(b) of the recently leaked chapter on Intellectual
Property Rights states the following :
If a party permits, as a condition of granting marketing approval
for a new pharmaceutical product, the submission of evidence of
prior marketing approval of the product in another territory, the
Party shall not permit third persons, without the consent of a
person who previously submitted such information concerning
the safety and efficacy of the product, to market a same or a
similar product based on evidence relating to prior marketing
approval in the other territory for at least five years from the
date of marketing approval of the new pharmaceutical product in
the territory of the Party (https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip3/WikiLeaksTPP-IP-Chapter/WikiLeaks-TPP-IP-Chapter-051015.pdf p. 24).

Mungunda 5
The leaders and spokespeople of these world health organizations are
opposed to the TPP because of some of the information laid out in this
portion of the document. This clause gives multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical
companies the ability to form a monopoly for up to five years and charge as
much as they want for the medication they produce without allowing generic
brand alternatives. Health organizations are concerned that this would limit
access to affordable medicines. Peter Maybarbuk, the Program Director of
Public Citizens Global Access to Medicines said, If TPP is ratified, people in
the Pacific-Rim countries would have to live by the rules in this leaked text.
The new monopoly rights for big pharmaceutical firms would compromise
access to medicines in TPP countries. The TPP would cost lives
(https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip3/press.html).
Doctors Without Borders (MSF), an internationally renowned non-profit
healthcare provider and advocate of easy and inexpensive access to
healthcare, shares this somber sentiment. In a press release posted on their
website on March 3 2013, the organization called the TPP the most harmful
trade pact ever. This statement was made in the context that the
agreement potentially restricts access to affordable medicines to those who
need them in developing countries. MSF argues that the TPP favors the
already wealthy pharmaceutical industry while crushing under its corporatist
boot heel the patients who actually need medicine the most. The MFF says
that potentially millions of people could be negatively affected by this deal.
The press release closes with a statement that encourages the US to

Mungunda 6
withdraw from negotiations and the other participating governments to reject
proposals that limit access to medicines ("Trading Away Health: The TransPacific Partnership Agreement).
There is also much fear that the TPP will take away the rights of
citizens to use the internet and their own purchased devices in the way they
please, while giving more power to providers and corporations. According to
Maira Sutton of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), says that TPP
threatens internet and digital rights by extending copyright term protection
by 20 years in six out of the 12 countries who have worked on the deal. This
same clause also prevents all countries from shortening the length of their
copyright terms any time in the future. TPP also sets forth the groundwork to
apply harsher punishments for those who unlock technological protection
measures. This also includes a ban on devices and tools that allow for this
type of unlocking. An example of this would be taking a cell phone or device
such as an iphone or ipad to an engineer so that they could unlock it to allow
for the device to use a data plan from a carrier who does not make the
device (Sutton). Under the TPP people will not be able to use their own
personal property in the way they wish, even when their actions are not
harming anybody else or causing any damage. However, the White House
insists that the TPP, unlike Nafta, will protect an open and free internet
(Nelson). If the language surrounding information technology is anything like
that surrounding medicine, then such a claim is dubious.

Mungunda 7
There is no question that the TPP is problematic. Influential and
educated from all over the world agree on that fact. However, there is also
no question that the trade agreement will also generate a hefty profit.
Unfortunately, this profit will go to those who already have money and take
away the rights that people have to affordable healthcare, private property,
and free expression on the internet. For these reasons, the United States
government should serve the interest of its citizens and choose not to ratify
the TPP. However, after investing eight years and a seemingly limitless
amount of money into helping to prepare the document, it is unlikely that a
rejection of the TPP will happen. Only time will tell.

Works Cited

Mungunda 8
Bradner, Eric. "How Secretive Is the Trans-Pacific Partnership? CNNPolitics.com." CNN.
Cable News Network, 12 June 2015. Web. 09 Oct. 2015.
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/11/politics/trade-deal-secrecy-tpp/>.
Flynn, Meagan. "NAFTA and the TPP: A Comparison." GlobalEDGE Blog.
GlabalEDGE, 10
Aug. 2015. Web. 09 Oct. 2015.
<http://globaledge.msu.edu/blog/post/27968/nafta-and-the-tpp--acomparison->.
Goodman, Amy. "NAFTA on Steroids: Consumer Groups Slam the TPP as 12
Nations Agree
to Trade Accord." Democracy Now! Democracy Now!, 06 Oct. 2015.
Web. 09 Oct.
2015.
<http://www.democracynow.org/2015/10/6/nafta_on_steroids_consume
r_groups_slam>.
"International Copy Rights Chapter." TPP Treaty: Intellectual Property Rights
Chapter,
Consolidated Text (October 5, 2015) (2015): n. pag. Wikileaks. 9 Oct.
2015. Web. 9 Oct. 2015. <https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip3/WikiLeaks-TPPIP-Chapter/WikiLeaks-TPP-IP-Chapter-051015.pdf9>.
Nelson, Greg. "Chart of the Week: How the Trans-Pacific Partnership Improves
on NAFTA."
The White House. The White House, 23 Apr. 2015. Web. 05 Oct. 2015.
<https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/04/23/chart-week-how-transpacific-partnership-improves-nafta>.
Sutton, Maira. "What We Know So Far About Digital Rights in the Still Secret
Final TPP
Text." Deeplinks Blog. Electronic Frontier Foundation, 8 Oct. 2015. Web.
9 Oct. 2015. <https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/what-we-know-sofar-about-digital-rights-still-secret-final-tpp-text>.
"Trading Away Health: The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP)."
Briefing
Documents. MSF USA, 03 Mar. 2013. Web. 09 Oct. 2015.
<http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/news-stories/briefingdocument/trading-away-health-trans-pacific-partnership-agreementtpp>.
"What Is the Trans-Pacific Partnership?" US Coalition for TPP. US Coalition for
TPP, 2014.

Mungunda 9
Web. 07 Oct. 2015. <http://tppcoalition.org/>.