TONY BURMAN
New deal looks good for business, bad for refugees
It may not be a Trojan horse, but the TPP is bad for the developing world,
One of the 21st century’s most existential questions was dramatically thrust upon us this week with all of its contradictions: Are we becoming a truly borderless world?
In one sense, the answer seems to be “Yes” — if we are talking about multinational companies allowed to roam the Earth, freely and with minimal regulation, to improve their lot in life. How else should we interpret the latest landmark free-trade agreement, called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), worked out this week as usual in the dead of night?
But, in another sense, the answer seems to be “No” — if we are talking about refugees and migrants being blocked from moving to other places to improve their lot in life. Only a month since we saw 3-year-old Alan Kurdi lying lifeless on a Turkish beach with his face in the sand — we haven’t forgotten that, have we? — how else should we interpret this week’s aggressive military effort by the European Union to intercept boats full of refugees trying to reach Europe from the chaos of Libya?
In one case, when corporate and political power works in tandem, borders are a detail to be dispensed with. In the other case, when it’s simply about the powerless, borders are to be strengthened and made impenetrable. It all seems to depend on whose interests you value most.
The TPP free-trade pact, supported by the current Canadian government, is the most sweeping agreement of its kind in a generation. But in spite of our political leaders’ election posturing, this is not something that will produce quick wins for one party over another.
It is simply too complex and the agreement’s final text won’t be known for weeks, if not for months. So there is time to debate the several fundamental issues underlying the agreement. And that is crucial.
Trade ministers from 12 countries — including the United States, Japan, Australia and Canada, but excluding China — announced the agreement. They would form a trading bloc representing about 40 per cent of the world’s gross domestic product, and “set the rules for the 21st century for trade.” In contrast, critics say the “secret” deal would gut regulations and destroy the environment.
The developing world, in particular, stands to lose from this agreement. It reinforces the pattern of underdevelopment that helps explain why the refugee crisis started in the first place.
There has been criticism of the agreement from influential quarters, including Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton. Robert Reich, who served as secretary of labour under former president Bill Clinton, says the TPP doesn’t protect jobs and guts health and environmental regulations: “If the TPP is enacted, big corporations, Wall Street and their top executives and shareholders will make out like bandits. Who will the bandits be stealing from? The rest of us.”
Beyond the orchestrated chorus of praise from corporate leaders and conservative media in Canada and the United States, this agreement will not sail through without controversy. Voters no longer hold political leaders in high esteem, and the idea of free trade is less popular than before.
But more importantly, the issue of income inequality is now widely acknowledged. In both North America and abroad, the economic system is widely seen as rigged to support the wealthy.
This week, a new World Bank report suggested that the number of people living in extreme poverty worldwide in 2015 will probably fall under 10 per cent for the first time. But it added that 900 million people still live on less than $2 a day. And a recent UNICEF report said that the number of minors living in poverty in the world’s most affluent countries has increased to 76 million.
As if to reinforce this, Thomas Piketty, the bestselling French economist, who specializes in wealth inequality, gave the prestigious Nelson Mandela annual lecture at the University of Johannesburg in South Africa. He shocked his audience with this statement: “We are now 25 years after the fall of apartheid . . . (but) in some ways income inequality is even higher today than 20 years ago.”
That was a dramatic reminder of how precarious the state of the developing world still is, in spite of ambitious free-trade announcements.