Fynsa
The TPP11 faces the most favorable political scenario for its approval in recent years. The result of the referendum, the need to revive the economy, and public opinion that is less susceptible to myths and fake news surrounding the agreement put the TPP in its best position for ratification.
The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP or TPP11) is the most modern and far-reaching agreement in the Asia-Pacific region, the center of gravity of the global economy and where Chile has doubled its exports in 30 years. The Agreement not only addresses tariff issues, but also a set of regulatory issues that reflect the new realities of the global economy: services, the digital market, global value chains, and higher environmental and labor standards.
The advantages of the TPP11 are clear. At the commercial level, it improves access for nearly 3,000 products that previously did not enjoy tariff preferences – such as agricultural, dairy, and seafood products – especially in markets such as Japan, Canada, and Vietnam.
Second, it establishes common rules for a market of nearly 500 million people representing 13% of global GDP. Third, it incorporates modern rules that are not contained in Chile's bilateral agreements with TPP countries, such as those with Japan and Vietnam, signed more than a decade ago.
In any case, the opportunities are also geopolitical Does the country want to be at the table where the future rules of the most dynamic economic zone globally are being defined? It is no coincidence that this has been understood by the eight countries that have already ratified the Agreement (only Malaysia, Brunei, and Chile remain), but also by many others that want to join, such as the United Kingdom, Korea, Uruguay, and China itself. Furthermore, for Chile, it allows it to diversify its global economic integration, which is highly dependent on the Chinese and American markets which account for half of our international trade. Precisely, the TPP does not currently include the two powers.
Motivated by an ideological bias against free trade agreements, opponents have tried to spread myths that have been debunked one by one. The latest of these is that the TPP11 would affect Chile's sovereignty, which is not true. The Agreement does not compromise Chilean sovereignty, but rather creates obligations for the State that are typical of any international agreement that generates reciprocal commitments and rights. Furthermore, the mechanism for resolving investor-state disputes is the same as the international arbitration bodies used in other agreements signed by Chile. Finally, the TPP11 itself explicitly states that the State can establish its own regulations and public policies, as New Zealand did with its foreign investment reform, Japan with its amendments to the drug law, and Mexico with its labor reform. In no case was the Agreement an obstacle.
Unlike in the past, a majority of the political class, a sector of the government, and, most importantly, public opinion are more aware of the need to revive the Chilean economy and less susceptible to ideological slogans against this agreement. Not signing it would simply be an ideological whim that would end up costing the country dearly in terms of its reputation.
