Embedded Files
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Vsg] It would be great to
have some discussion of TPP though--
I think I have posted this before, but here
it is again: Fast track authority is a
straw man.
If Congress thinks a trade deal is flawed,
it can vote it down. Fast track simply says
that it cannot be amended. Without that,
you can just forget any international
agreement, because no government will sit
down and negotiate in thousands of staff-
hours a deal that can then be amended by a
group of rent-seeking US Representatives
with their own pork in mind.
After such a minor amendment (say a page
out of 1,000), the new deal would have to
be reviewed (and possibly amended) by every
other partner country. Then it would come
back to us and we would amend it again. It
is essentially impossible to have any
international agreement without fast track
authority. That is why it was an
uncontroversial policy tool until
Washington turned from a place of
decision-making into a place of policy
blood sport.
Anybody who wants to kill fast track is
just trying to prevent any future
agreements -- trade or otherwise -- from
being negotiated.
_________________________________
Thomas Jandl, Ph.D.
School of International Service
American University
202-363-6810
thjandl@yahoo.com
-------------------------------------------
-
On Wed, 11/20/13, Michael Montesano
<michael.montesano@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Vsg] It would be great to
have some discussion of TPP though--
To: "Jo" <ugg-5@spro.net>
Cc: "Vietnam Studies Group"
<vsg@u.washington.edu>
Date: Wednesday, November 20, 2013, 1:46 AM
And not a single mention of
"Vietnam" in the posting below. Time for
attention from the list's moderator?
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013
at 4:20 AM, Jo <ugg-5@spro.net>
wrote:
Thanks to Prof. Masina for his succinct
post, entered while
I was composing mine, which I have cut
after seeing his.
Hi Bill Hayton, if I may: The issue is not
so much the three
years of secrecy surrounding negotiations
on TPP, but the
"fast-track authority" being claimed for
the
Executive Branch of government.
Here’s an informative article from Truthout
on why the TPP
(Trans Pacific Partnership) could be
opposed in Congress,
and likely opposed by many foreign nations
some of whose
interests could be impacted and or stymied
by this
agreement.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/20064-
wikileaks-disclosure-of-trade-deal-
chapter-shows-it-will-kill-people-and-
internet-house-opposition-is-widespread
Here is an excerpt regarding one of the
issues:
"Wikileaks disclosed the end of August
version
(apparently two drafts behind current text)
of the
intellectual property chapter, which
includes the section on
drugs and surgical procedures.
The intent is to strengthen America's
aggressive patent
regime and require foreign countries to
comply with it. For
instance, the FDA considers minor changes
in existing drugs,
such as developing an extended release
version so that a
medication need be tak[en] only once a day,
to be a
"new drug application" and will extend
patents
based on that. The draft also would
severely limit the use
of generics. Higher prices will restrict
drug use and is
certain to have adverse health consequences
for some,
potentially many, citizens. And although
people overseas
will suffer the greatest consequences,
Americans will be
affected as well. As Public Citizen wrote,
'The U.S.
Trade Representative (USTR) has proposed
measures[,] harmful
to access to affordable medicines[,] that
have not been
seen before in U.S. trade agreements,' and
elaborated"-- [as follows--a list of
proposals too long
to include here.]
Quoting the article's conclusion:
"Twentieth
Century "Fast Track" is simply not
appropriate for
21st Century agreements and must be
replaced. The United
States cannot afford another trade
agreement that replicates
the mistakes of the past. We can and must
do better.
Let's hope that lame duck Obama overplaying
his hand on
the "trade" front will indeed rouse
Congress to
pull back authority that it has over the
years allowed the
Executive to abrogate. If so, this will be
an unexpected and
welcome important side benefit of blocking
these toxic trade
deals."
Cheers,
Joanna K.
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
___________________________________________
____
Vsg mailing list
Vsg@u.washington.edu
http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/li
stinfo/vsg
___________________________________________
____
Vsg mailing list
Vsg@u.washington.edu
http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/li
stinfo/vsg
>From pretty much every discussion I've had
with Vietnamese, Shawn's assumptions I can
confirm Shawn's propositions. There are a
number of people in the Vietnamese
government who are perfectly aware of the
problems that SOEs are causing. They absorb
some 40% of capital formation but create
only some 20+% of jobs (22, 24 are numbers
I have read recently). The ICOR for SOEs is
about 17 -- for the private sector it's
about 6, almost three times more efficient
use of capital. That means every dollar
invested in SOEs may create jobs, but the
same dollar invested in the private
domestic sector would create almost three
times as many. And the overspending on SOEs
with little efficiency depresses Total
Factor Productivity (the key factor of
growth to address to avoid the middle
income trap) while pushing up inflation (a
killer especially for poor people).
Many in Vietnam know this, but the SOEs
have their own power structures that reach
deep into the Party. TPP would give those
who want to reform the system the cover
they need. Just like WTO accession
negotiations pushed forward many
legislative reforms that had been stalled
by some interests before although everybody
knew they would be useful for Vietnam's
economy overall.
With regards to workers rights, ironically
the United States is demanding meaningful
unionization rights as part of the
negotiations. (I say ironically, because
here in the US some governors have made
reducing such rights a main part of their
political agenda).
Like every agreement -- every decision in
general -- TPP will open some doors and
close others. What I disagree with is the
idea that Vietnam is some powerless pawn
pushed around by the imperialistic United
States. TPP is a priority for the
Vietnamese, but only because they see it in
their interest. If on balance the United
States pushes too hard and too far, Vietnam
will re-orient toward RCEP; just like
Malaysia, that rejected a bilateral with
the United States (that would have been
quite beneficial for Malaysia but
undermined the ability of UMNO/the Barisan
to reward their cronies).
_________________________________
Thomas Jandl, Ph.D.
School of International Service
American University
202-363-6810
thjandl@yahoo.com
-------------------------------------------
-
On Wed, 11/20/13, Shawn McHale
<mchale@gwu.edu> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Vsg] It would be great to
have some discussion of TPP though--
To: "Pietro P. Masina"
<pietro.masina@gmail.com>
Cc: "Vietnam Studies Group"
<vsg@u.washington.edu>
Date: Wednesday, November 20, 2013, 8:32 AM
Finally --someone,
Pietro Masina, talks about the relevance to
Vietnam of the
TPP. Thank you.
I would be interested in hearing from
others on this
list, but I assume one reason Vietnam is
interested in the
TPP is to compel via foreign competition
what it cannot
accomplish through domestic political
negotiations -- the
demise of inefficient companies, including
domestic state
owned enterprises.
Masina writes, at the end of his post,
that "The new
trade agreements will make almost
impossible to implement
national policies to improve the quality of
industrial
productions and
workers rights." I did not see how this
followed from
his analysis. I have never been under the
impression that
the Vietnamese government really does much
to protect
workers rights as is. And why can't it
establish
policies to improve the quality of
industrial production?
Shawn McHale
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013
at 5:57 AM, Pietro P. Masina
<pietro.masina@gmail.com>
wrote:
Dear
Joanna and all,
it is difficult to discuss trade agreements
due to the high
level of technicality they involve. In
VIetnam TPP is going
to be accompanied by the signature of a
bilateral trade
agreement with the EU (who is now the
largest foreign market
for Vietnamese products). Both TPP and the
bilatera
agreement with the EU are part of a new
generation of trade
agreements that go far beyond the WTO
obligations. This is
probably not the place to engage in a wide
debate about the
pros and cons of a high levels of trade
liberalization for
countries at the early stages of industrial
development
(although I may recall that successful
Asian economies such
as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan have been
very selective in
opening their markets and used
simultaneously export
promotion and import substitutions). If we
want to keep to
the specific Vietnamese case I think it
would be relevant to
discuss the level of awareness about the
radical changes
that will be produced by these agreements.
I am pasting
below a link to an article on Thanhnien
about the trade with
agreement with the EU in which worries
emerge quite openly.
One of the aspects of the current
Vietnamese debate on trade
liberalization that I find more dangerous
is the idea that
liberalization is useful to attract more
FDI. The point is
that Vietnam is already the Asian countries
attracting more
FDI in proportion to GDP (with the only
exception of
Singapore). This is not necessarily a good
thing as - in
lack of a highly selective and proactive
national industrial
strategy - FDI may contribute to dependent
development. I am
currently working on a comparative study of
the causes of
the so-called middle-inocme trap in
Thailand, Malaysia and
Indonesia and my view is that the trap is a
result of the
modality of integration in the regional
productive system
and excessive dependence on foreign
capital, technology and
management. Vietnam is moving fast in the
same direction
and is already facing the prospect of
middle-income trap.
The new generation of trade agreements is
likely to increase
the Vietnamese integration in the world
economy and create
more jobs in industry, but there is a high
risk that the
country will continue competing in terms of
low costs of
labour (and hard working conditions). The
new trade
agreements will make almost impossible to
implement national
policies to improve the quality of
industrial productions
and workers rights.
Best regards
Pietro
http://www.thanhniennews.com/index/pages/20
131115-eu-trade-deal-threatens-vietnams-
uncompetitive-firms.aspx
On 20 Nov 2013, at 04:20, Jo <ugg-
5@spro.net>
wrote:
> Thanks to Prof. Masina for his succinct
post, entered
while I was composing mine, which I have
cut after seeing
his.
>
> Hi Bill Hayton, if I may: The issue is
not so much the
three years of secrecy surrounding
negotiations on TPP, but
the "fast-track authority" being claimed
for the
Executive Branch of government.
>
> Here’s an informative article from
Truthout on why
the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) could
be opposed in
Congress, and likely opposed by many
foreign nations some of
whose interests could be impacted and or
stymied by this
agreement.
> http://truth-out.org/news/item/20064-
wikileaks-disclosure-of-trade-deal-
chapter-shows-it-will-kill-people-and-
internet-house-opposition-is-widespread
>
> Here is an excerpt regarding one of the
issues:
>
> "Wikileaks disclosed the end of August
version
(apparently two drafts behind current text)
of the
intellectual property chapter, which
includes the section on
drugs and surgical procedures.
> The intent is to strengthen America's
aggressive
patent regime and require foreign countries
to comply with
it. For instance, the FDA considers minor
changes in
existing drugs, such as developing an
extended release
version so that a medication need be tak
[en] only once a
day, to be a "new drug application" and
will
extend patents based on that. The draft
also would severely
limit the use of generics. Higher prices
will restrict drug
use and is certain to have adverse health
consequences for
some, potentially many, citizens. And
although people
overseas will suffer the greatest
consequences, Americans
will be affected as well. As Public Citizen
wrote, 'The
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has
proposed measures[,]
harmful to access to affordable medicines[,]
that have not
been seen before in U.S. trade agreements,'
and
elaborated"-- [as follows--a list of
proposals too long
to include here.]
>
> Quoting the article's conclusion:
"Twentieth
Century "Fast Track" is simply not
appropriate for
21st Century agreements and must be
replaced. The United
States cannot afford another trade
agreement that replicates
the mistakes of the past. We can and must
do better.
> Let's hope that lame duck Obama
overplaying his
hand on the "trade" front will indeed rouse
Congress to pull back authority that it has
over the years
allowed the Executive to abrogate. If so,
this will be an
unexpected and welcome important side
benefit of blocking
these toxic trade deals."
>
> Cheers,
> Joanna K.
>
>
>
>
> From: vsg-
bounces@mailman1.u.washington.edu
[mailto:vsg-
bounces@mailman1.u.washington.edu]
On Behalf Of Fox, Diane
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:06 PM
> To: Michael Montesano
> Cc: Vietnam Studies Group
> Subject: [Vsg] It would be great to have
some
discussion of TPP though-- The secret
"trade"
agreement we have to stop
>
> I'd find it really helpful if people on
this list
who pay more in depth attention to the
economy than I do
could share their thoughts on TPP. I'd love
to hear
arguments for and against and in between.
>
> Diane
>
>
___________________________________________
____
> Vsg mailing list
> Vsg@u.washington.edu
>
http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/li
stinfo/vsg
___________________________________________
____
Vsg mailing list
Vsg@u.washington.edu
http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/li
stinfo/vsg
--
Shawn McHale
Associate Professor of History
George Washington University
Washington, DC 20052 USA
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
___________________________________________
____
Vsg mailing list
Vsg@u.washington.edu
http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/li
stinfo/vsg
___________________________________________
____
Vsg mailing list
Vsg@u.washington.edu
http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/li
stinfo/vsg
Finally --someone, Pietro Masina, talks
about the relevance to Vietnam of the TPP.
Thank you.
I would be interested in hearing from
others on this list, but I assume one
reason Vietnam is interested in the TPP is
to compel via foreign competition what it
cannot accomplish through domestic
political negotiations -- the demise of
inefficient companies, including domestic
state owned enterprises.
Masina writes, at the end of his post, that
"The new trade agreements will make almost
impossible to implement national policies
to improve the quality of industrial
productions and workers rights." I did not
see how this followed from his analysis. I
have never been under the impression that
the Vietnamese government really does much
to protect workers rights as is. And why
can't it establish policies to improve the
quality of industrial production?
Shawn McHale
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 5:57 AM, Pietro P.
Masina <pietro.masina@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Joanna and all,
it is difficult to discuss trade agreements
due to the high level of technicality they
involve. In VIetnam TPP is going to be
accompanied by the signature of a bilateral
trade agreement with the EU (who is now the
largest foreign market for Vietnamese
products). Both TPP and the bilatera
agreement with the EU are part of a new
generation of trade agreements that go far
beyond the WTO obligations. This is
probably not the place to engage in a wide
debate about the pros and cons of a high
levels of trade liberalization for
countries at the early stages of industrial
development (although I may recall that
successful Asian economies such as Japan,
South Korea and Taiwan have been very
selective in opening their markets and used
simultaneously export promotion and import
substitutions). If we want to keep to the
specific Vietnamese case I think it would
be relevant to discuss the level of
awareness about the radical changes that
will be produced by these agreements. I am
pasting below a link to an article on
Thanhnien about the trade with agreement
with the EU in which worries emerge quite
openly.
One of the aspects of the current
Vietnamese debate on trade liberalization
that I find more dangerous is the idea that
liberalization is useful to attract more
FDI. The point is that Vietnam is already
the Asian countries attracting more FDI in
proportion to GDP (with the only exception
of Singapore). This is not necessarily a
good thing as - in lack of a highly
selective and proactive national industrial
strategy - FDI may contribute to dependent
development. I am currently working on a
comparative study of the causes of the so-
called middle-inocme trap in Thailand,
Malaysia and Indonesia and my view is that
the trap is a result of the modality of
integration in the regional productive
system and excessive dependence on foreign
capital, technology and management.
Vietnam is moving fast in the same
direction and is already facing the
prospect of middle-income trap. The new
generation of trade agreements is likely to
increase the Vietnamese integration in the
world economy and create more jobs in
industry, but there is a high risk that the
country will continue competing in terms of
low costs of labour (and hard working
conditions). The new trade agreements will
make almost impossible to implement
national policies to improve the quality of
industrial productions and workers rights.
Best regards
Pietro
http://www.thanhniennews.com/index/pages/20
131115-eu-trade-deal-threatens-vietnams-
uncompetitive-firms.aspx
On 20 Nov 2013, at 04:20, Jo <ugg-
5@spro.net> wrote:
> Thanks to Prof. Masina for his succinct
post, entered while I was composing mine,
which I have cut after seeing his.
>
> Hi Bill Hayton, if I may: The issue is
not so much the three years of secrecy
surrounding negotiations on TPP, but the
"fast-track authority" being claimed for
the Executive Branch of government.
>
> Here’s an informative article from
Truthout on why the TPP (Trans Pacific
Partnership) could be opposed in Congress,
and likely opposed by many foreign nations
some of whose interests could be impacted
and or stymied by this agreement.
> http://truth-out.org/news/item/20064-
wikileaks-disclosure-of-trade-deal-
chapter-shows-it-will-kill-people-and-
internet-house-opposition-is-widespread
>
> Here is an excerpt regarding one of the
issues:
>
> "Wikileaks disclosed the end of August
version (apparently two drafts behind
current text) of the intellectual property
chapter, which includes the section on
drugs and surgical procedures.
> The intent is to strengthen America's
aggressive patent regime and require
foreign countries to comply with it. For
instance, the FDA considers minor changes
in existing drugs, such as developing an
extended release version so that a
medication need be tak[en] only once a day,
to be a "new drug application" and will
extend patents based on that. The draft
also would severely limit the use of
generics. Higher prices will restrict drug
use and is certain to have adverse health
consequences for some, potentially many,
citizens. And although people overseas will
suffer the greatest consequences, Americans
will be affected as well. As Public Citizen
wrote, 'The U.S. Trade Representative
(USTR) has proposed measures[,] harmful to
access to affordable medicines[,] that have
not been seen before in U.S. trade
agreements,' and elaborated"-- [as
follows--a list of proposals too long to
include here.]
>
> Quoting the article's conclusion:
"Twentieth Century "Fast Track" is simply
not appropriate for 21st Century agreements
and must be replaced. The United States
cannot afford another trade agreement that
replicates the mistakes of the past. We can
and must do better.
> Let's hope that lame duck Obama
overplaying his hand on the "trade" front
will indeed rouse Congress to pull back
authority that it has over the years
allowed the Executive to abrogate. If so,
this will be an unexpected and welcome
important side benefit of blocking these
toxic trade deals."
>
> Cheers,
> Joanna K.
>
>
>
>
> From: vsg-
bounces@mailman1.u.washington.edu
[mailto:vsg-
bounces@mailman1.u.washington.edu] On
Behalf Of Fox, Diane
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:06 PM
> To: Michael Montesano
> Cc: Vietnam Studies Group
> Subject: [Vsg] It would be great to have
some discussion of TPP though-- The secret
"trade" agreement we have to stop
>
> I'd find it really helpful if people on
this list who pay more in depth attention
to the economy than I do could share their
thoughts on TPP. I'd love to hear arguments
for and against and in between.
>
> Diane
>
>
___________________________________________
____
> Vsg mailing list
> Vsg@u.washington.edu
>
http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/li
stinfo/vsg
___________________________________________
____
Vsg mailing list
Vsg@u.washington.edu
http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/li
stinfo/vsg
--
Shawn McHale
Associate Professor of History
George Washington University
Washington, DC 20052 USA
___________________________________________
____
Vsg mailing list
Vsg@u.washington.edu
http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/li
stinfo/vsg
Dear Joanna and all,
it is difficult to discuss trade agreements
due to the high level of technicality they
involve. In VIetnam TPP is going to be
accompanied by the signature of a bilateral
trade agreement with the EU (who is now the
largest foreign market for Vietnamese
products). Both TPP and the bilatera
agreement with the EU are part of a new
generation of trade agreements that go far
beyond the WTO obligations. This is
probably not the place to engage in a wide
debate about the pros and cons of a high
levels of trade liberalization for
countries at the early stages of industrial
development (although I may recall that
successful Asian economies such as Japan,
South Korea and Taiwan have been very
selective in opening their markets and used
simultaneously export promotion and import
substitutions). If we want to keep to the
specific Vietnamese case I think it would
be relevant to discuss the level of
awareness about the radical changes that
will be produced by these agreements. I am
pasting below a link to an article on
Thanhnien about the trade with agreement
with the EU in which worries emerge quite
openly.
One of the aspects of the current
Vietnamese debate on trade liberalization
that I find more dangerous is the idea that
liberalization is useful to attract more
FDI. The point is that Vietnam is already
the Asian countries attracting more FDI in
proportion to GDP (with the only exception
of Singapore). This is not necessarily a
good thing as - in lack of a highly
selective and proactive national industrial
strategy - FDI may contribute to dependent
development. I am currently working on a
comparative study of the causes of the so-
called middle-inocme trap in Thailand,
Malaysia and Indonesia and my view is that
the trap is a result of the modality of
integration in the regional productive
system and excessive dependence on foreign
capital, technology and management.
Vietnam is moving fast in the same
direction and is already facing the
prospect of middle-income trap. The new
generation of trade agreements is likely to
increase the Vietnamese integration in the
world economy and create more jobs in
industry, but there is a high risk that the
country will continue competing in terms of
low costs of labour (and hard working
conditions). The new trade agreements will
make almost impossible to implement
national policies to improve the quality of
industrial productions and workers rights.
Best regards
Pietro
http://www.thanhniennews.com/index/pages/20
131115-eu-trade-deal-threatens-vietnams-
uncompetitive-firms.aspx
On 20 Nov 2013, at 04:20, Jo <ugg-
5@spro.net> wrote:
> Thanks to Prof. Masina for his succinct
post, entered while I was composing mine,
which I have cut after seeing his.
>
> Hi Bill Hayton, if I may: The issue is
not so much the three years of secrecy
surrounding negotiations on TPP, but the
"fast-track authority" being claimed for
the Executive Branch of government.
>
> Here’s an informative article from
Truthout on why the TPP (Trans Pacific
Partnership) could be opposed in Congress,
and likely opposed by many foreign nations
some of whose interests could be impacted
and or stymied by this agreement.
> http://truth-out.org/news/item/20064-
wikileaks-disclosure-of-trade-deal-
chapter-shows-it-will-kill-people-and-
internet-house-opposition-is-widespread
>
> Here is an excerpt regarding one of the
issues:
>
> "Wikileaks disclosed the end of August
version (apparently two drafts behind
current text) of the intellectual property
chapter, which includes the section on
drugs and surgical procedures.
> The intent is to strengthen America's
aggressive patent regime and require
foreign countries to comply with it. For
instance, the FDA considers minor changes
in existing drugs, such as developing an
extended release version so that a
medication need be tak[en] only once a day,
to be a "new drug application" and will
extend patents based on that. The draft
also would severely limit the use of
generics. Higher prices will restrict drug
use and is certain to have adverse health
consequences for some, potentially many,
citizens. And although people overseas will
suffer the greatest consequences, Americans
will be affected as well. As Public Citizen
wrote, 'The U.S. Trade Representative
(USTR) has proposed measures[,] harmful to
access to affordable medicines[,] that have
not been seen before in U.S. trade
agreements,' and elaborated"-- [as
follows--a list of proposals too long to
include here.]
>
> Quoting the article's conclusion:
"Twentieth Century "Fast Track" is simply
not appropriate for 21st Century agreements
and must be replaced. The United States
cannot afford another trade agreement that
replicates the mistakes of the past. We can
and must do better.
> Let's hope that lame duck Obama
overplaying his hand on the "trade" front
will indeed rouse Congress to pull back
authority that it has over the years
allowed the Executive to abrogate. If so,
this will be an unexpected and welcome
important side benefit of blocking these
toxic trade deals."
>
> Cheers,
> Joanna K.
>
>
>
>
> From: vsg-
bounces@mailman1.u.washington.edu
[mailto:vsg-
bounces@mailman1.u.washington.edu] On
Behalf Of Fox, Diane
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:06 PM
> To: Michael Montesano
> Cc: Vietnam Studies Group
> Subject: [Vsg] It would be great to have
some discussion of TPP though-- The secret
"trade" agreement we have to stop
>
> I'd find it really helpful if people on
this list who pay more in depth attention
to the economy than I do could share their
thoughts on TPP. I'd love to hear arguments
for and against and in between.
>
> Diane
Page updated
Report abuse