Is TPP A Protective Umbrella For The Interests Of Pnational Corporations?

Global trade rules game upgrading

The recent p Pacific Partnership Agreement (

The signing ceremony was held, and all countries striving for the agreement to take effect in 2 years. As the population of TPP's 12 member countries is 11% of the total population of the world, its total economic volume and trade volume are 40% and 1/3 of the world respectively, becoming the largest trade agreement in the world in the past 20 years.

However, the significance of TPP lies not in its trade and economic volume but in the beginning of the evolution of Global trade rules, which means the upgrading of Global trade rules.

The evolution trend of the new generation of international trade rules is based on the establishment of regional trade rules, supplemented by the development of the multilateral trade rules that regulate a certain field. After the integration of the rules of trade, investment and service trade, new multilateral trade rules have been gradually formed. The global trade protectionism has become more intense and covert, and is shifting from free trade to regular trade and preferential trade.

From the perspective of the evolution of the rules of international trade, the major powers of international trade rules were launched to form a small core group of countries and then spread it to multilateral agreements and multilateral trading systems.

The economic interests of pnational corporations are placed first.

Far from being closer, TPP is not "fair, just and pparent" as it emphasizes externally.

Because TPP is highly confidential in the whole negotiation process, many core contents and details are not known to the outside world through closed door negotiation.

Judging from what has been declassified, in fact, the biggest difference between TPP and previous free trade agreements is not that the level of tariffs has been reduced. The deepening of cooperation does not mean that trade is more convenient, but rather that multinational corporations break up the judicial barriers of sovereign states.

Haq Rasmus, author of the book "fragility of the global economic system", once pointed out that TPP represents a significant leap towards the political system of a multinational company, and the economic interests of pnational corporations are placed first.

At present, pnational corporations control more than 70% of the world's foreign direct investment, 2/3's world trade, more than 70% of patents and other technology pfer.

According to UNCTAD (2013) statistics, around 80% of the total in 2010.

It is related to the global production network of multinational corporations, which indicates that multinational corporations are the main force of GVC division of labor.

A typical example is Apple's iPione value chain.

After iPione completed its product design in the US, it provided main components from Korea LG, Samsung, American Broadcom, TI, Japan's AKM and European STMicroelectronics, Hon Hai, Taiwan, China, and finally assembled in China Foxconn, Yinghua and other companies to export to Apple Corp.

From the perspective of profit, the value contribution of each iPhone mobile phone is 49.4%, 34% and 13% respectively by the US, Japan and South Korea. The value created by China's processing and assembly is only 4% of the mobile phone's factory price.

It can be seen that in fact, the sale of iPhone has brought the trade surplus to the US economy, rather than the trade deficit brought by the traditional research method to the US economy.

Because of the absolute dominance of multinational corporations in the United States, TPP is a preferential trade based on the exception of the International Trade Organization (WTO) and tends to protect pnational corporations.

First of all, in the original WTO framework, it involves the free (low tariff) flow of commodity goods among the agreement countries, and multinational corporations must abide by the laws and arbitration of sovereign state in doing business in a sovereign state, which forms a great barrier to the multinational corporations in the United States.

In order to circumvent these constraints, TPP introduced the "investor to state dispute settlement mechanism" (ISDS clause) for the first time, and designed a new procedure independent of WTO's national dispute settlement mechanism.

According to the provisions of ISDS, within the framework of TPP, the law of sovereign state must be subordinated to the spirit of the TPP agreement (breaking the barrier of sovereign state, and the tariff is almost zero, so as to achieve free capital flow). If the government's decision to invest in a foreign country damages the rights and interests of foreign investors, investors can bypass the judicial system of the country and submit disputes directly to the international commercial arbitration institutions, so as to compensate the loss of the government.

Thus, under the TPP framework, compensation for losses caused by changes in the laws and policies of the signatory governments can be compensated, which greatly expands the welfare and interests distribution of multinational corporations.

Therefore, the US economy dominated by multinational companies has also become the biggest beneficiary of the TPP agreement.

It can be said that compared with the previous dispute settlement mechanism, TPP's ISDS has pushed the power of pnational corporations to a new height and become an umbrella for the interests of pnational corporations.

The "fair trade" of the United States is for national interests only.

In fact, the US's global policy has always been based on the national interests of the United States. The United States has always advertised itself as a model for free trade, but the global industrial division has increased the trade deficit of the United States, but it can not give up the banner of free trade. In recent years, the United States has made a substantial adjustment to international trade relations and put forward the so-called "fair trade".

The purpose is to expand the share of monopoly industries in the international market, and to keep trade value added and profits in their own hands.

On the other hand, the United States has criticized other countries for unfair trade practices and distorting market competition.

TPP has successfully established rules for the pnational operation of state-owned enterprises.

The United States insists that China has been gaining unfair competitive advantage through subsidies to state-owned enterprises for a long time. The expansion of state-owned enterprises by monopoly and state support is a disturbance to the world economic order.

TPP first made a comprehensive response to the market behavior of state owned enterprises, demanding privatization of state-owned enterprises and full compliance with market rules, which means that China's state-owned enterprises will face major obstacles in the future.

To a large extent, the history of the evolution of pnational corporations is a history of the evolution of American capitalism.

The United States has opened up a convenient door for multinational corporations, and its privileges have a long history.

In order to ensure the monopolistic advantage of US multinational corporations, it began in the 90s of last century.

Through the super clause 301 and the Special 301 clause, the government has unilaterally imposed economic sanctions against the host countries which do not conform to the "free trade" or threatened them with sanctions, or forced them to open their markets through trade negotiations.

It can be seen that the so-called "fair trade" put forward by the United States, which is completely at the core of its national interests, is more reasonable in name, but it is more covert in form and more offensive in the form of "ultra trade protectionism".