More at stake in US trade bills than a mere Pacific deal

The devil is not always in the detail; sometimes it's in ignoring the detail. Friday's votes on the trade bills in the US Congress have either been hailed as a victory for ordinary Americans or mourned as a defeat for US leadership in the world economy. Both views are questionable.

Judging by the headlines, the US House of Representatives was voting on a trade deal among 12 countries spanning the Pacific Ocean — the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), including Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei, but not Thailand.

Strictly speaking, it was not — not yet. It was voting on giving the US government the authority to negotiate and conclude trade deals, and separately on authorising assistance for workers struggling to compete with imports as a result of trade deals.

The negotiating authority bill (Trade Promotion Authority, TPA) actually passed, by 219 to 211. But the House rejected the adjustment assistance bill, so the Senate will review the negotiating authority bill.

"Negotiating authority" actually means that after a final deal is struck, Congress would vote either to accept or reject it but not be able to make any amendments (also called fast-track). That's when Congress would actually vote on the Pacific deal (although no one knows whether an agreement can be reached at all).

This kind of bill is common sense. Without it there could be no international negotiations. In Paris later this year, close to 200 countries will negotiate a global deal on climate change. Imagine an agreement is reached, but those 200 countries add the condition that the deal could still be amended by each of their parliaments, requiring massive renegotiation. There would be no point in going to Paris at all.

That does not mean that Congress is left out. While the talks proceed, US negotiators are in constant contact with their politicians, and this is reflected in the US's negotiating positions. The same is true of most countries.

However, this is where "secrecy" becomes an issue in some regional and bilateral talks. By failing to trust the public, governments lose the public's trust, a lesson they should have learnt decades ago.

But even the current talks are not as secret as some believe. Partly in response to pressure from the European Parliament, the EU Commission posts all its negotiating texts in its talks with the US on its website, complete with explanations, a level of transparency not quite matched by its US counterpart.

The Pacific trade talks were the focus of last week's Congressional vote on negotiating authority — and media reporting — because that is the US government's immediate priority. President Obama's sales pitch focused on the benefits Americans could enjoy from a Pacific deal. Also priorities are US-EU talks (the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP), and negotiations on a Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) among a group of countries disillusioned with the lack of progress.

A far lower priority is the World Trade Organisation's (WTO) own Doha Round talks.

All of those would be covered by the negotiating authority bill, and all will probably grind to a halt if the bill does not become law. Some would argue that this would be a disaster because "free trade is good for you"; others would welcome it because "trade negotiations only benefit the multinationals".

Sadly, both would be wrong. Trade agreements result in a complex mix of winners and losers. The gains to consumers, and producers using imported goods and services, are often overlooked. So is the need for governments to help those who have to adjust. Not negotiating can produce losers too.

Also wrong is the view that this is all about the US. It's a view coming from the US itself, but not shared elsewhere. Some parochialism on reporting about trade is to be expected. After all, this comment mentions "Thailand" in its headline/second paragraph. However, the Pacific talks involve 11 other countries. Each has its own agenda.

Peter Gallagher, an Australian trade expert, says the talks should continue without the US. "Let #TPP go ahead [without the] USA," he wrote on Twitter. He argued that the US offers no new market access for the other countries in the talks, shuts out China, and demands more on intellectual property rights. "This fiasco is still far from over!"

Opposition to the Pacific, US-EU and services talks has focused on a handful of issues such as secrecy and the prospect of private companies prosecuting governments for failing to implement the deals, so-called investor-state dispute settlement. But these talks cover much more than that and opposing them on such narrow criteria seems misguided. Some of the issues, such as improving the rules on product standards, could benefit both producers and consumers. And, the survival of investor-state dispute settlement is not guaranteed, given the strength of opposition in the European Parliament and elsewhere.

Little has been said about the impact on the WTO's Doha Round. That's understandable considering the talks have been at a standstill since 2008. However secrecy is not an issue with the WTO since all draft texts, most proposals and comprehensive explanations are publicly available. The WTO has a Secretariat. TPP, TTIP and TISA do not. Rather, the issue is neglect.

Now, some countries want to wrap up the round but they have been holding back to see whether the US gets its negotiating authority.

Some issues cannot be negotiated in regional or bilateral talks. Agricultural subsidies cannot because the impact is global, affecting sub-Saharan cotton growers and Asian rice farmers alike. On the global WTO table are pledges to scrap all export subsidies on agro-products, and to lower the ceilings on domestic support for farming by 70-80% (EU) or 60-70% (US and Japan), depending on the category.

Killing the US trade bills would kill the prospect of those and other reforms. Sometimes it pays to look at the details.

Peter Ungphakorn is a former Bangkok Post business editor and World Trade Organisation information officer, currently based in Switzerland. The opinions expressed here are his own.