Protectionism refers to the policies purposed to restrict the import of goods and services. The practice has been around for a while, seen as a form of national protection. There are many forms of protectionism, but the most common are tariffs. Tariffs are taxes inflicted on imports of a particular product (O’Brien and Williams 110). The taxes imposed go to the government of the importing country. However, protectionism has recently taken the form of non-tariff barriers such as import quotas, subsidies to domestic firms, administrative regulations, among other forms. The paper addresses the issue of protectionism and the stance of the United States on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.
I think the U.S should continue protectionism. The adoption of free trade by the U.S will greatly affect other countries especially less developed countries. U.S being an economic giant will motivate other countries into adopting free trade as well, especially the less developed nations. Free trade might seem a viable option, but it comes at a cost. It is a policy that most countries in the world never adapt. Especially after the events of the World War II, it had been adopted by some countries who later abandoned the concept for some reasons. Some of the factors could affect the U.S, but most concern the welfare of other developing countries. First, free trade increases economic dependence on nations for certain essential products such as food and raw materials. Such dependence could prove extremely harmful in needy times such as wars. The same economic dependence leads to political slavery. In abolishing political slavery, there should be economic independence that requires an abandonment of free trade. Another reason is that free trade could lead to an uneven development due to the resulting international specialization of individually developed sectors in the country. Such sectors will have an advantage of development leading resulting in a lopsided development.
Free trade might also induce dumping and cutthroat competition. In dumping, products are sold at extremely cheap rates, at times below the cost of their production to capture the foreign markets. Another critical issue is the movement of harmful substances. Trade restrictions are a necessary tool to monitor the importation of such products that could pose environmental and health hazards. Free trade may lead international monopoly by providing favorable ground for multi-national companies. Once such company gain power and monopoly position, they are a potent poison to the local people as other businesses will endure extreme difficulty in coping with the competition.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), is a multilateral free-trade agreement between the US and eleven other nations- Brunei, Australia, Chile, Canada, Japan, Peru, New Zealand, Malaysia, Mexico, Vietnam, and Singapore. The agreement is controversial as it promotes job offshoring, an aspect that could push down US wages as in some of those nations, the workers work for a fraction of what U.S workers earn. It also threatens American Sovereignty as foreign governments can react to American laws they do not agree with or understand. The TPP could also affect domestic industries in a positive or a negative way (Keith and Pollack).
The Congress should not approve the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement for some reasons. If the TPP passes, it would be easier for major corporations to ship American jobs overseas, severely declining the wages and favoring income inequality. It would replicate and expand North American Free Trade Agreement’s (NAFTA) privileges for firms that move abroad (Trans-Pacific Partnership). The firms would face fewer risks in relocating to low-wage countries. Income inequality would be achieved by the erosion of middle-class jobs, NAFTA’s legacy.
TPP would undermine food safety by allowing the unrestricted importation of food substance that does not meet the U.S food safety regulations. It would allow food importing as long as the exporting country’s safety regime is deemed an equivalent of the United States. That would disregard the violation of food safety laws in the U.S. Under the pact, any safety rule on labeling, pesticides, or additives higher than the present international standards would be an illegal trade barrier. The country would have to eliminate such procedures under the threat of a trade sanction. The free trade would have a great impact on seafood importing done by countries such as Vietnam and Malaysia.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement would also restrict the access to affordable medicine. It would do so by providing the major pharmaceutical corporations the power to limit consumer access to cheap medicine and increase medicine prices. Such organization would gain monopoly that allows them to hike drug prices and even a possibility of monopoly rights over surgical procedures. For the developing nations in the TPP, the rules could deny consumers access to cancer, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS drugs (Trans-Pacific Partnership). Another effect would be the establishment of rules that could undermine government actions to contain increasing medicine prices in highly developed countries such as the U.S.
The TPP would also empower corporations to attack nations by granting these foreign firms the extraordinary power to challenge the laws that the U.S relies on for a clean environment. Healthy communities, and essential services. They would gain the ability to surpass the local court and sue the government before the tribunal that sits outside the U.S legal system (Trans-Pacific Partnership). The situation could worsen further as the tribunal will have the ability to authorize the payment of millions of dollars to the corporations for the laws causing them inconvenience.
The TPP would create a pathway to undermining human rights. The pact would open the US market to Malaysia, a country heavily implicated in human trafficking. The administration went ahead and concluded TPP negotiations with Malaysia (Trans-Pacific Partnership) in spite of the discovery of mass graves believed to be for human trafficking victims. Vietnam, a country known for the use of child labor, suppression of trade unions, and political intolerance.
The Congress should reject the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. In light of the risks, it possesses to the country. If not, every detail should be redefined in a way that does not put the nation in jeopardy. However, the best decision would be to reject the TPP as it not only affects the U.S but could impact other countries in the pact negatively as well.
Works Cited
Bradsher, Keith, and Andrew Pollack. "What Changes Lie Ahead From the Trans-Pacific Partnership Pact." The New York Times. The New York Times, 05 Oct. 2015. Web. 28 Feb. 2016.
O'Brien, Robert, and Marc Williams. Global Political Economy: Evolution and Dynamics. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave, 2013. Print.
"Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): More Job Offshoring, Lower Wages, Unsafe Food Imports." Trans-Pacific Partnership. 09 Nov. 2015. Web. 28 Feb. 2016.
