The website JusTrade.nz, launched this week, heralds a new forward-looking campaign for a progressive 21st century trade agenda.
The JusTrade project builds on a two-day hui in late October that debated what an alternative and progressive trade strategy for Aotearoa New Zealand should look like. The live-streaming attracted over 17,000 page views. The website carries videos and transcriptions of all ten panels.
Hui convenor, University of Auckland law professor Jane Kelsey, says ‘for too long we’ve been told there is no alternative to the current model, epitomised in the recently adopted Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.’
‘Today, the global trade regime faces an existential crisis. Mega-negotiations are being abandoned, delayed or pared down, and the World Trade Organization is fractured and paralysed.’
‘Critique is no longer enough. If anything is to really change, we need to step away from the existing framework and take a first-principles approach to rethinking what will work for the 21st century.’
‘The message from the hui was very clear: we need to generate real alternatives that confront climate change and disruption, while supporting sustainable local businesses and jobs that pay a living wage, in a nation founded on te Tiriti o Waitangi.’
‘A new progressive vision would see trade as driven by relationships, within our communities and with the wider world, that enable innovation, resilience and wellbeing, instead of enabling the corporations and markets that currently dominate our trade policy.’
‘The recent hui and the new website are a first step in the JusTrade project, bringing together experts on economics and business, geopolitics, te Tiriti, climate and environment, livelihoods, development, knowledge and health and wellbeing.’
Over the next few weeks, further media releases will highlight specific aspects of the new vision, starting with contributions on the economy and on climate change.
Two other targeted initiatives – on regulation of the digital economy and on alternatives to international investment agreements – will be launched to coincide with international forums in which the New Zealand government will be taking part.
The project will also monitor and support Stage Two of the Waitangi Tribunal claim on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (Wai-2522), and other Maori initiatives.
Whether by accident or design Donald Trump is, by applying sanctions left right and centre all over the globe,demonstrating to the world the small wisdom of nations becoming dependent on trade for the vital needs of their people. For Venezuela their dependence on imported food as their own food production was allowed to atrophy while oil exports earned their living has given the US the opportunity to destroy a socialist government by starving it’s people. As in Iraq between invasions. Neither by Trump’s initiative of course , but he is carrying on the process left right and centre.
Agains Russia however it has not been so effective. They have too many options and too many resources and the result of forcing greater self sufficiency there has resulted in a healthier more secure and independent economy than they had before the sanctions started.
I believe most international trade would stop in it’s tracks if it were only driven by real natural advantage. It would not stop as climate and resources do vary around the globe, but I am sure that most is driven by uneven distribution of poverty in the world providing cheap labour in some countries, and perhaps even more by currency exchange rates that are overwhelmingly driven by speculation and manipulation and seldom reflect a genuine valuation of the goods and services exchanged.
We may be at a disadvantage in manufacturing because of economies of scale, but we used to build our own locomotives for god’s sake. Long ago.
And we were set up to make modern ones till Jonky went to China instead.
If global trade were to advantage people in every country equally, and not wastefully and environmentally damagingly shift stuff all over the world , and for no country to be disadvantaged, there would need to be a world government. Short of that each country needs to manage it’s own housekeeping budget for the benefit of it’s own people. That means full employment being the primary goal. And importing only what we can’t sensibly produce ourselves , and exporting what other countries freely wish to buy without any pre imposed constraints.
Every country is seeking to better it’s own position and wealth, so of course China will buy up all our farms and forests if we let them.
But the most pervading aspect of trade as it is done and agreed to these days is that a few individuals and companies are allowed to capture the social and natural advantages of all countries, syphoning off the value of all to a tiny global elite , while nations and peoples become ever more indebted.
Each country must manage it’s own economy for it’s own population. The market is not going to do it and neither is the other country.
D J S
What is the cost? Oh, too much, will go back to my usual retailer who exploits workers and ruins the environment, never mind, I am separated by mental and emotional walls.
That is why its a job for government regulation. But the government has to be pretty tough minded because its gonna have to be the rich that contribute more to the change. You can bet they will squeal like stuck pigs but if a person cant see that there is a limit to the amount that they can accumulate before it becomes obscene then let everyone hear their screams. The MSM would be one long wail but who except the very well off and politicians believes what they say anymore.
At some point in chasing the cheap product you reach the level of the Crafar Farms. You may still be happy purchasing product cheaply that is produced with zero concern for dehydrating calves to death but it is unbelievable that we now live in a country where such a choice can be offered. Its too much to expect individual consumers to keep tabs on production. Thats what regulations are for and the bar needs to be continually raised as the needs of the environment and people and planet are identified. Jonky dropped the ball deliberately and laughing because he was always a match fixer and as such should go to jail.
we need the professor on our trade negotiating team she has all of our best interest at heart
To do that we must cease our involvement in this farce called the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans Pacific Partnership.
Comprehensive codswallop? YEP.
Progressive sell out of values? YEP.
Tyrannical? YEP.
Poisonous? YEP.
Partnership.
We had a chance at the Copenhagen Conference on climate in 2002 to settle the status of China. It’s pulled in every U.S. President since Nixon and arguably cost to of our own Prime Ministers (Key and Clark) and basically we’ve blown any long term trade links with China. Now what has climate denial done? It has entrenched the Pentagon in the South China Sea. Now instead of sea the word “China” in the South China Sea the pentagon sees it as not China. And of course this is inflaming Chinese nationalism. In a very large measure the United a states of America created Xi Jinping. Xi is now President of China for life so he can just play the long game and wait out Trump.
So we’ve bitten off more than we can chew, instead of taking the longer view that Russia and China can obliterate America and vis versa. We now need a policy, a policy of extremely armed neutrality, energy security, food security and water security.
Comments are closed.