Trans-Pacific Partnership: Aimed but missed

Apparently, as Pres. NoynoyAquino (PNoy) and the lawmakers assumed office in 2010, concerns like water and power inadequacy, were all valid and directly felt by the citizenry. Likewise, we could surmise that they were of knowledge that issues concerning foreign direct investments (FDIs) were felt too by the citizenry through the lack of job opportunities.  Likewise, they must have felt that other ASEAN members have already figured out ways of cornering FDIs too through their dreamed inclusion in the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a trade agreement among twelve Pacific Rim countries, namely, Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam.  Incidentally, they are all APEC members.  Started in 2005 by Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore, the TPPis just an expansion of what was then called the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPSEP or P4).  Though it has expanded its membership last month (October 5, 2015), the agreement’s objectives (after 7 years of negotiation as it started in 2008)) remain the same-to "promote economic growth; support the creation and retention of jobs; enhance innovation, productivity and competitiveness; raise living standards; reduce poverty in our countries; and promote transparency, good governance, and enhanced labor and environmental protections.”

Notably, among the additions are fellow ASEAN member countries Malaysia and Vietnam. The question many of us might ask is, with TPP’s lofty objectives why are we not joining the group?  The truth is, we did express our intentions.  To recall,PNoy, in his address before the Council on Foreign Relations on September 23, 2010 at the CFR Auditorium, 58 East 68th St., New York City, he emphatically said that “With keen interest, we note the Obama administration’s focus in negotiating a regional, Asia-Pacific trade agreement, known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement.

Envisioned as a platform for economic integration across the region, the TPP countries would be in a best place to become the region’s leading hub for trade, investment and growth.The Philippines aims to engage the US in joint trade initiatives that would serve as mutual building blocks for our eventual participation in the Trans Pacific Partnership. Just like other ASEAN Member States, the Philippines is already positioning itself as a viable member of the Trans Pacific Partnership. We seek US support for this, as we recognize its leadership role as host of the APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Community) in 2011.”

To our dismay, however, our interest or intent was never considered. According to law professor Edmund Sim (an international trade attorney and regular editorial contributor to the Singapore Straits Times and Opinion Asia on trade and diplomacy in ASEAN) in 2013, our country, just like the other countries that didn’t make it,“needed to change their protectionist trade policies in order to join the TPP.”

So that, henceforth, we shall be further pushed to the tail end as far as investments and trade are concerned. Among the ASEAN countries, Singapore will continue to corner much of the FDIs. Likewise, new TPP members Malaysia and Vietnam will be able enhance their capabilities of attracting foreign investments too.  With Cambodia also expressing its interest to join the TPP, we might even be pushed further down.  Lacking in fresh investments, consequently, unemployment woes shall persist and inclusive growth will be consistently missed.

Realistically, local investments could hardly put a dent on our unemployment woes. Their (locals) capitals have already been placed and possibly exhausted. Thus, there is an apparent need for foreign direct investments or FDIs.  However, probably riding on the tag that our economy is one of the fastest growing in Asia, our government leaders are in the belief that what we’ve so far done are all appropriate and will bring us to our dreamed target.  That there is absolutely nothing to change.

However, going deeper, it is very clear that we are undercapitalized and are technologically inept. The root of the problem-the apparent lack of incentives for foreign investments. Despite these realities, however, our government has remained adamant in giving additional incentives to prospective foreign investors because, allegedly, of some nationalistic fervor. So, then, we may ask, is there a nationalistic view better than giving the poorest of the poor the chances to work and the opportunity to live and not merely exist?

On second thought, is this obvious dislike not perpetrated by the oligarchs?  Undeniably, some oligarchs (who are in politics or have strong political influences) with unquenchable thirst for power and money could simply make up stories and put forward the so called “nationalistic fervor”. After all, who benefits from these foreign ownership restrictions? Frankly, the oligarchs or the affluent families not those in dire straits. Why? Because they have the money to put up as counterparts in 60:40 corporations. Or, if foreign companies should opt to use Filipino dummies, who else will they go to but the moneyed individuals because they have the assets or resources that can back them up, “on paper”, their supposed ownership in the corporation. Definitely, they agreed to it not for free but for a fee.  It’s a no-brainer.