TPP nations set to meet in Ottawa as U.S. pushes for deal



Officials from the 12 countries involved in a Pacific free trade initiative will seek to advance their stalled talks during a meeting in Ottawa starting Thursday, following U.S. President Barack Obama’s call for an agreement on the framework by November.

While advocates of the Trans-Pacific Partnership are calling for drastic progress at the 10-day gathering, negotiation sources say a hefty amount of work remains to be done before concluding the talks, which have been delayed partly due to Japan-U.S. bickering over tariff issues.

Talks for the TPP, which would create a free trade zone encompassing around 40 percent of global gross domestic product and a third of world trade, have entered their fifth year, with the member countries also taking pains to find common ground on the issues of intellectual property rights as well as reform of state-owned enterprises to ensure fair competition.

Last month, Obama said Washington wanted the 12 countries to produce a document on a TPP agreement in time for his trip to Asia in November, although he is struggling to secure the backing of Congress for the controversial free trade deal before U.S. midterm congressional elections, also in November.

Despite Obama’s rare mentioning of a time frame for a deal, Japan and the United States, which account for roughly 80 percent of the TPP members’ GDP, have found it hard to move closer on remaining issues.

The two countries resumed talks earlier this week in Tokyo to bridge their differences as much as possible before the session in Ottawa, but they remained apart over how to cope with Japanese tariffs and safeguards on beef and pork, one of Tokyo’s five off-limits farm product categories that it is seeking to protect.

The two sides agreed to hold another meeting in Washington on July 14 and 15, but a further delay in the Japan-U.S. talks could hinder the momentum for the wider negotiations, trade observers say.

No ministerial meeting is being scheduled on the margins of the working-level talks in Ottawa, the Canadian government said. It is uncertain whether a meeting at the ministerial level, at which trade chiefs could make final political decisions to strike a deal, will be held later somewhere else.

“For now, there has been no arrangement for a ministerial meeting at all,” said a Japanese government official with direct knowledge of the TPP negotiations, declining to be named due to the sensitivity of the matter.

“We’ll see clearer prospects for the TPP only after the Ottawa meeting. Until then, we can’t really say anything definitive,” he said.

The 12 countries last held a ministerial meeting in Singapore in May, but they spent most of the time discussing the current situation and evaluating progress made in the past.

Akira Amari, Japan’s minister in charge of the TPP, has reiterated that if the ministers are to meet again, it should come only after thorough working-level talks and when the stage is set for the ministers to reach a broad agreement.

  • David E.H. Smith

    Financial & Human Rights News;

    SECRET TPPartnership, C-CITreaty & CETA TRIBUNALS are INSIDER TRADING; corp. Canada fears China may Blow “Arrangements” between Can. Lobbyists’ Clients & Parties’ Executives (W.A.D. Accord*)?
    NON Shareholders HAVE TO PAY the arranged PENALTIES. Non

    (CAN) – Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s attempts to maintain the secrecy provisions in the Trans Pacific Partnership, the Canada – European Union CETA & the Canada – China Investment
    Treaty (C-CIT; FIPPA), et al,may be unraveling by way of the Canadian Senate, which is being threatened with being abolished, et al.

    There are several reasons for the secrecy (“omerta”) of the
    dispute resolution tribunals. They are:
    1) To Protect the parties to the treaty, &/or, agreement, ie. corporate sponsors, from having to reveal to the non shareholding tax payers the existing arrangements that it has with its own government. For instance, the Canadian W.A.D. Accord suggests that corporate Canada’s lobbyists pay considerations to the executives of the political parties for two main reasons:
    A) to promote corporate Canada’s agenda with governing party(ies) by:
    i) reducing its taxes & thus, the “net increase” in taxes for non shareholders
    ii) increase its funding for “economic development” which covers
    the cost of, among other things, the present & future advocacy,
    ie. lobbying & the cost of the considerations that corporate
    Canada pays out, etc. It may be regrettable that given the source
    of the accessed “economic development” funds, ie. those
    95% – 99% of Canadians who are non shareholding tax payers
    there is a great deal of room for discretionary spending & its
    B) to protect corporate Canada’s agenda by paying the other (non governing) political parties considerations in order to limit the scope of the “opposition” to manageable issues that can be compromised in order that “opposing” parties can claim victories (at least a limited victory) for their constituents. Under this
    arrangement both, the politicians & the lobbyists’ clients are
    protected from scrutiny by the role of the parties’ executives.
    2) To Protect the parties to the treaty, &/or, agreement, ie. corporate sponsor from having to reveal to the each others’ corporate sponsors their existing arrangements that it has with its own government &
    each counties’ corporate sponsors are not obliged to share the
    benefits & considerations (& future considerations) that they
    receive from their respective governments ie. their non shareholding taxpayers. Often the benefits are shared as an inducement to conduct business together in the more convenient jurisdictions.
    3) To Protect the parties to one treaty, &/or, agreement (referred to as the “original” treaty/agreement) from having to reveal to
    third parties the nature, &/or, details of their “original”

    arrangements to other third parties who may want to enter into a
    treaty, &/or, agreement with either of the parties to the “original”
    agreement/treaty.That is to say, that acquiring
    having privileged information of an outsiders treaties, &/or,
    agreements will cause contention as the third party will undoubtedly insist upon more favorable terms & conditions to a new treaty/agreement than the original treaty/agreement. For example;
    “You did this with them, so I insist upon more, or, I’ll deal with
    them, or, others”. The European Union is particularly interested
    in preventing the Canada – European Union CETA from becoming
    divisive whereby individual EU member countries may be enticed,
    &/or, coerced into making preferential, but, “very secretive” side deals with corporate Canada, et al.

    By preventing the non shareholding taxpayers from learning about the aforementioned reasons for the tribunals’ secrecy whereby the non shareholding taxpayers pay for the increase in the value of the shareholders’ stocks & dividends is insider trading & stock

    Therefore, corporate Canada, AFN & their traditional media outlets have more than just a vested interest in the continuation of the most vulnerable Canadians (95% – 99% of Native & non Native Canadians) deprivation of the information such as the comprehensive version of The W.A.D. Accord and the comprehensive versions of the Canada – China Investment Treaty, the Canada – European Union CET Agreement, et al, that include the mechanisms, procedures, practices used in the adjudications
    of the dispute resolution tribunal & its disbursement of its punitive awards.

    And, while it may be regrettable that not all of the 95% – 99% most
    vulnerable, non shareholders are able, &/or, willing to move to a
    sovereign Quebec, or, other jurisdictions, in order to:
    1) avoid the “unethical” & “inhumane” (see; The W.A.D. Accord), but, “legal” practices and
    2) start getting the relevant & quantitative information regarding
    the above, et al.

    The issue of the secret tribunals raises some interesting questions that the “secret congress” of the lobbyists’ clients & the
    executives of the political parties have no intention of answering.

    For instance; what do the above arrangements say about the 95% – 99% of Canadians who are non shareholding tax payers & the version of “democracy” that they are developing in Canada in the
    context of the growing “global” economy
    what do the above arrangements say about the accelerating growth of the disparity of the wealth between the shareholders (1% – 5% of Canadians, et al) & the non shareholders (95% – 99% of Canadians), et al?

    What are you, the reader, learning about the Canada – China Investment Treaty that will help you to ascertain whether the Canada – European Union Agreement is better for you & perhaps, corporate Canada?

    What are some of the other questions that the non shareholders need to ask
    who can answer, &/or, is willing to answer (as opposed to “respond’ to) their questions that would make them willing participants & direct
    beneficiaries of the TPP, the C-CIT & the CETA?

    Have you & your family, friends & colleagues sent PM Harper &
    Mr. DAN HILTON (Executive Director of the Conservative Party) your:

    in order to enhance your opportunity to exculpate yourself from having to pay for:
    1) the aforementioned Compensation that is embodied in The W.A.D. Accord
    2) the costs, penalties, punitive damages that will be derived from the TPP, C-CITreaty & the CETAgreement?

    In conclusion, it may be regrettable that the TPP, the C-CITreaty &
    the CETAgreement has, so far, been successful at giving corporate Canada
    its representatives the much higher degree of legitimacy to their
    aforementioned secrecy (assisted by way of the international
    cache) that it needs in order for them to later, & once again, claim
    (see; NAFTA) that they are doing/did “their best” to protect
    the non shareholders from the over zealousness of their foreign
    Treaty, &/or, Agreement counterparts.

    Is it not easier & just prudent to discuss the preexisting arrangements & challenges to the Treaty & the Agreement prior to ratifying them in order to determine which is more egregious than the other (or, are both equally egregious) & thus, avoid any of the secret “dispute” resolutions & its “hefty” costs to the beleaguered non shareholding taxpayers, et al? And, how much more will
    these costs further erode the non shareholding taxpayers health
    care (privatize), educational services, etc.?

    How much has corporate Canada set aside to defend the CHALLENGES, et al, that corporate Canada & the non shareholders, et al, are anticipating?

    How far along are they in collecting this fund & how much more
    does corporate Canada & its shareholders need to set aside before the non shareholding taxpayers allow corporate Canada & its representatives to proceed?

    Similarly, due to a psychiatrist’s previous linking of the deprivation of information with the unconscionably high rates of despair,
    disenchantment, suicides, unemployment, poverty, etc., that are found in many communities across Canada, what are the various different ways that non shareholders can guarantee that corporate Canada & its shareholders have enough financial reserves set aside in order to pay for the CHALLENGES by the non shareholders and those who will be the new victims of the aforementioned deprivation of information?

    On the other hand, are there actually any non shareholding taxpayers who think that corporate Canada is actually anxious to explain to them, or, corporate China, or, corporate EU, just how effective their secretive relationship between:
    1) lobbyists’ of corporate Canada
    2) the executives of the parties that are operating in Canada, has
    been & is continuing to be?

    And, finally, without:
    1) a meaningful forum in which to “further question” the Treaty
    & Agreement without the fear of recriminations, etc.,
    2) a predetermined list of circumstances whereby corporate Canada can terminate the Treaty & the Agreement without penalties, &/or, costs to the harmless non shareholding taxpayers
    3) et al,
    the ratification of the TPP, the C-CITreaty & the CETAgreement will
    eliminate for most Canadians the last remnants of “democratically”
    effecting the treaty/agreement by the non shareholding taxpayers
    thus, corporate Canada, et al, will finally be able to give these
    arrangements the luster of legitimacy that they need that is based upon the logic that

    “It can’t be another gilded cage that will cause another economic
    melt down like the “derivative type conspiracy”**

    that is continuing to debilitate international finance, etc., because
    there are just too many vanguards of industry promoting the public
    financing of the TPP, the C-CITreaty & CETAgreement”.

    The secrecy of the TPP, the C-CITreaty & CETAgreement arrangements are not dissimilar to insider trading, whereby the shareholders who are on “the inside” use secret, &/or, privileged information to make money for themselves at the expense of the group that is on the “outside”, the non shareholding taxpayers, who are being deprived of the aforementioned information & thus, are being deprived of the opportunity to enjoy the direct benefits of the treaty/agreement. And, just as some of the means to counter these arrangements are also not dissimilar to those counter measures that can remedy insider trading & pay punitive damages, etc. to the harmless non shareholders. And, while it is likely that the “coveted” Chinese investor*** may have enough of the insider information regarding the more “unethical”, &/or, “inhumane” arrangements in the C-CITreaty to navigate the mechanisms of the secret dispute resolution tribunal in his favor & at the peril of corporate Canada, it may be regrettable that it is highly unlikely that the European Union has been as fortunate regarding the CETA arrangements. This disparity between China’s benefits from the C-CITreaty & the benefits that the EU may derive from their CETA will continue to be dangerously contentious.

    And, finally, it may also be regrettable that there is yet another
    vulnerability that corporate Canada, especially its Alberta chapter,
    is particularly desperate to be kept secret for as long as possible
    and it only remains to be seen when it will be most advantageous to “leak” the secret & by which party.

    * The W.A.D. Accord; Reference:

    For those who may not be familiar with The WAD Accord, &/or, its
    recent developments, The Accord can be accessed on line by way of the submission
    “Towards a More Informed Opinion regarding the Environmental Impact & Context of the NGP (Pipeline), et al”, Researched &
    Submitted by D.E.H.S., July 24, 2012 to the Enbridge Co.’s NGP Joint Review Panel..
    Ms. Colette Spagnuolo,
    Process Advisor, Northern Gateway Project
    (22nd Floor, 160 Elgin St. Ottawa ON K1A 0H3)

    For the other information that may lead the non shareholders, corporate China and corporate European Union & their shareholders & the non shareholders, et al, to a greater certainty regarding what corporate Canada may be sharing with you regarding the accessing of the aforementioned, information & Canadian natural resources, et al, I can be contacted at:

    David E.H. Smith, 2173 Bradford Ave., Sidney, British Columbia, CANADA. V8L 2C8.,

    Non shareholders & the other potential participants in the TPP, the
    C-CITreaty & CETAgreement can access more of the relevant articles that have been researched & posted on Facebook (& several online newspapers, et al)
    Facebook; “David Smith”, Sidney, British Columbia.
    GOOGLE; “David E.H. Smith” to access RECENT ARTICLES, LETTERS & NOTIFICATIONS by DEHS, below.

    **”derivative type conspiracy”; “The $58 Trillion Elephant in the Room” by Jesse Eisinger. Upstart Business Journal, October 15, 2008, 8:00am EDT. Re; the “industrialized credit derivatives”

    ***the “coveted” Chinese investor; Who is the “coveted”
    Chinese investor who said:
    “It’s not that we are racist when we are dealing with Canadians,
    it’s just that we can’t stand the way that you suck up to us.”?
    NEXT Article by DEHS;
    What did U.S. president George H.W. Bush mean when corporate America reneged on corporate Canada in the NAFTA dispute resolution tribunal’s decision/arrangements against the USA: