The government shouldn’t ignore workers’ rights in post-Brexit trade deals

Tony Burke

29 August, 2024 
Left Foot Forward

Trade unions must be consulted and have a seat at the table

Writing in the Observer last week, Labour’s secretary of state for business and trade, Jonathan Reynolds outlined the Government’s strategy on post Brexit trade negotiations.

Reynolds mentions three trade deals in particular that he says will help ‘drive growth’

The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal covering the Asia-Pacific trade bloc of 11 countries: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. Reynolds states: “It will mark a major milestone in our journey to full membership of a bloc that will boast a combined GDP of £12trn after the UK joins.”

But the CPTPP in the short and medium terms won’t replace what we have lost in leaving the EU single market and the customs union. The OBR has said that the CTPPT deal would only add 0.04% to GDP in the long term.

The employment rights protections in the CTPPT are wafer thin, complex and cumbersome and depend on governments bringing charges of violation of labour law against each other – as the TUC have pointed out.

China has applied to join the CPTPP (and was recently supported by Vietnam in its bid) Other countries wanting to join the CTPPT include Costa Rica, Ecuador, Taiwan, Ukraine and Uruguay.

Reynolds also refers to the India trade deal. The Modi government is anti-union and cracks down on trade unions at every opportunity. British trade unions and the TUC have good working relationship with Indian unions and keep a close dialogue so Labour need to think again about charging ahead on a trade deal with India that contains weak and non legally binding Labour rights clauses.
In a race to get a deal with India, the last government agreed to non-legally enforceable commitments on labour rights or environmental standards.
The Secretary of State also highlights a potential deal with the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) representing six states (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE).

The UK currently does not have a free trade agreement with any of these countries. A Labour government cannot ignore the dreadful record on trade union organisation and employment rights in these countries where labour and human rights are ignored and Labour needs to think again about rushing into a trade agreement with them.

In a press release on July 29th this year it was also announced the Government’s intention to deliver trade talks with Israel, South Korea, Switzerland and Turkey.

The thought of any trade talks with Israel given the International Court of Justice ruling against it on the issue of genocide is unthinkable.

In addition, Labour will need to fix the shambles left by the Tories in the suspended Canadian trade talks over agriculture.

Rather than negotiating trade deals with countries abusing workers’ rights, the government should focus on its welcome initiative to ‘reset’ the UK’s relationship with the EU, and build a partnership built on the highest standards for employment and environmental standards.
The government must pursue a strong workers agenda in its approach to trade.

Trade unions must be consulted and have a seat at the table. There must be protection for all workers from unfair trade practices while raising employment standards for working people with no race to the bottom.

Tony Burke is the Co-Chair Of The Campaign For Trade Union Freedom

 

Danaletchumi Langaswaran (Socialist Party of Malaysia): Building regional solidarity against war and imperialism

By Danaletchumi Langaswaran

Published 7 July, 2024

China’s role in the Asia-Pacific region is quite complex. With the exception of Vietnam, which China invaded over four decades ago, most countries in the region have peacefully coexisted with China. More recently, however, China has triggered disputes in Southeast Asian waters by building artificial islands and sending military vessels to patrol disputed areas. This has created certain tensions and anxieties among governments in Southeast Asia over whether China poses a threat to their country. The ambition of Beijing to “reunify” Taiwan with China without abandoning the use of military means to achieve this nationalist objective is also giving ammunition to US imperialism to increasingly militarise the region, thus creating instabilities and threats of war from time to time.

Tensions on the Korean Peninsula are another flashpoint for intensified geopolitical conflict that impact the Asia Pacific region.

The differing views of Malaysian leaders 

When we look at the views of Malaysian leaders, we can see differences in terms of whom they support. Former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad, for example, was more anti-US, having said in 2019 he would prefer to side with China if Malaysia was forced to take sides in the trade war. On the other hand, current prime minister Anwar Ibrahim has been more pro-US, while trying to not pick sides amid US-China geopolitical tension. In September 2023, Ibrahim made efforts to attract more investment and trade to Malaysia through meetings with several US giant companies, while in May 2024 he received the US-ASEAN Business Council Delegation To Maximize U.S.-Malaysia Business Relationship. In a recent interview, Ibrahim said he would continue doing business with China but stressed he had no intention of antagonising the United States.

During the Cold War and the two decades after, Malaysia was close to the US and strongly influenced by its policies and economic thinking. More recently, however, due to the US’ decline and closer economic relationships with China (which has overtaken the US as Malaysia’s biggest trading partner), Malaysia has started drifting away from US influence. It is evident that the government is moving closer to other countries, even if the US still has some influence in Malaysia. When disputes have emerged with China — for example in the South China Sea — the government has not adopted an aggressive stand. While protesting that Chinese vessels have crossed into Malaysian waters, it has refrained from beating the war drum. There are tensions, but not to the extent that they threaten regional military conflict.

Public opinion towards the US and China

As for the general public, the large majority among the Malay community (which makes up 60% of the Malaysian population) are against the United States because of Israel’s war on Palestine, in which the US is providing arms to Israel. There is an ongoing boycott of US and Israeli products and food chain companies in Malaysia. Many Malaysians were also not impressed with the way the US handled the COVID pandemic, and are unhappy that COVID vaccines were stockpiled by advanced countries rather than made available to poorer countries. 

Most of the Chinese community in Malaysia (24% of the total population) are happy with the emergence of China and feel proud that it is taking a strong stance against the United States on the Taiwan issue. They feel the US is being too aggressive with regards to Taiwan. PSM believes that the Taiwan issue can only be resolved through Cross-Strait peaceful negotiations based on respecting the right of Taiwanese people to self-determination.

PSM’s assessment of the US and China

The US and Chinese economies are both organised on capitalist principles: goods are produced for profit and are exchanged in the market, workers work for wages, and big capitalists in both countries are getting richer all the time. But there are significant differences between China and the US. For example: 

• The US Congress is controlled by billionaires, the arms industry and giant pharmaceutical companies. In China, the Communist Party is in control, and has acted against the interests of certain groups of capitalists (Alibaba, tuition industry, social media platforms, etc.)
• US foreign policy is greatly influenced by the military-industrial complex. As a result, the US regularly intervenes militarily in other countries and has started many wars. It maintains hundreds of military bases around the world. China has not intervened militarily in any other country since the Korean War, apart from its border war with Vietnam in 1979. 
• The US has a much higher GDP per capita, but channels a lot of this economic surplus towards the military and not the people. China, despite being poorer in terms of GDP per capita, has managed to utilise a significant part of the surplus to benefit the people through transport infrastructure, housing and healthcare and rapidly developing renewable energy. During the COVID pandemic, China built a multi-storey hospital in just 10 days.

Many contradictions continue to exist in China given the lack of workers’ democracy and concentration of power in the hands of party bureaucrats. But while China and the US are both capitalist, when it comes to its practices and systems China is better because it seems on the surface more concerned for the welfare of the people. This is due to the government being controlled by Communist Party and not by billionaires and arms manufacturers, as is the case in the United States. 

PSM actions

Having been built by elite groups and imperialist powers, Malaysia is still not fully independent. Even today, its economy and politics are controlled by the 1% of billionaires and elites, and thus do not benefit the people. The PSM has been involved in numerous anti-imperialist actions. These include:

• Mobilising as part of the global anti-Iraq war protests that took place on February 15, 2003, with a protest in front of the US Embassy in Kuala Lumpur.
• Highlighting and campaigning against the bad effects of the US-Malaysia FTA in 2008 ,which was subsequently called off. When Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) negotiations started in 2013, PSM formed a coalition against the TPPA, organised campaigns and protests, and handed over a memorandum against the agreement. While the TPPA was endorsed by the Malaysian government, it was not implemented as US president Donald Trump withdrew the US from the agreement. The TPPA was then changed to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). Malaysia has signed that agreement, despite protests by the coalition PSM is a part of.
• Leading a protest in 2018 in front of the US Embassy to voice opposition to US plans to attack Syria and against US military actions in Syria.
• In 2020, PSM led a protest against any US war on Iran outside the US embassy, calling for an end to military action against Iran. 
• Last year, PSM released a statement to stop the Ukraine war and handed a memorandum to both the European Union Office in Kuala Lumpur as well as the Russian embassy.
• PSM has joined protests, marches, and rallies, and released statements against Israel’s genocide in Gaza. We also did some briefing sessions for members about the conflict. PSM was part of a group that occupied a car park about 50 metres from the US Embassy in Kuala Lumpur for a week in February. 
• PSM youth wing leads a coalition called Gegar Amerika that supports Palestine and has organised protests in front of the US Embassy.

Prospects for building regional peace and solidarity

There are prospects for building solidarity, but left and people’s groups in the region must work together for it.

At the height of the Cold War, ASEAN declared Southeast Asia a Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality (ZOPFAN) in 1971. The declaration, which was signed by ASEAN’s five founding states, stressed their commitment to “the principles of respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states” and “the right of every state, large or small, to lead its national existence free from outside interference in its internal affairs”. To this end, “the neutralisation of South East Asia” was viewed as a “desirable objective” that should be explored and realised. In reality, however, ASEAN was established with the US support to contain the influence of Communism, shape the terms of Sino-US competition and rapprochement, and deepen the US presence in Southeast Asia.

In June 2022, a group of Southeast Asian left parties, including the PSM, raised the need to “promote and advance progressive regional peace initiatives”. The statement lists certain peace initiatives, including the closure of all US military bases in the Asia-Pacific, which we see as a main factor contributing to escalating tensions in the region. It also demands, among other things, the dismantlement of all imperialist intelligence infrastructure, upholding the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone Treaty and expanding the nuclear weapon-free zone treaty to the entire Asia Pacific region. 

But another important peace initiative we need to take is bolstering working class solidarity and internationalism from below. We cannot just rely on governments — the movements, the grassroots, need to promote solidarity against military escalation in the region, wherever this is happening. For example, transnational grassroots movements could bring together different forces for joint actions on certain issues. If there is a conflict between countries — for example, there have at times been tensions between Malaysia and Indonesia — we could get the left in both countries to demonstrate to help defuse tensions. Such actions could be very important. More importantly, we need to organise movements at home capable of capturing political power. This would give us more space to promote peace and avoid conflicts among countries in the region.

The left should be under no illusions that the emerging so-called multipolar world will help our struggles. Our struggles will always depend on on-the-ground organising and our ability to build movements capable of challenging the capitalist order. A multipolar world will not do this for us. Of course, a multipolar world provides us with a new situation, new openings, new opportunities and new challenges when it comes to organising struggles. We need to understand these new dynamics that a multipolar world unleashes. But we should be under no illusions that a multipolar world is good for the left. 

The left, whether in government or opposition, should push Global South governments to uphold a position of non-alignment in the face of geopolitical rivalries among major powers, such as the US, Russia and China, and refuse to support particular camps or be dragged into endless conflicts. That is not the way forward for the left. At the same time, non-alignment and non-interference in domestic affairs should not stop the left and progressives from building peoples-to-peoples movement and solidarity between struggles. 

As the left, we need to build solidarity while building a movement with a progressive program for international peace that is capable of taking power. We should have no illusions in right-wing governments or governments that only seek a better foothold within a multipolar world. It is meaningless to the working class to have a multipolar world if the same repressive regimes are in power.

These issues are very difficult; there are still a lot of discussions to be had. Here, in Malaysia, we are holding conferences and events to discuss and debate these issues. How to deal with these new situations is a dilemma for the left. What we need is further discussion and a greater understanding of, for example, China’s rise, the new challenges we face internationally and its impacts on struggles domestically. We need more debates and discussions to enhance our understanding of the situation, and develop more concrete and useful strategies for advancing our struggles without subordinating them to the interests of imperialism.

Danaletchumi (Dana) Langaswaran is a labour rights activist in the Malaysian Socialist Party (PSM) based in Perak state.

 CPTPP

U.K. urges Canada to ratify its entry into Pacific trade pact

Brian Platt, Bloomberg News

Pigs on a farm in Ormstown, Quebec, Canada. A coalition of agriculture groups says the Pacific trade deal doesn’t do enough to ensure market access for Canadian food products. , Photographer: Graham Hughes/Bloomberg

A British trade official called on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government to ratify the U.K.’s entry into a Pacific trade deal by the end of the year, despite opposition from some Canadian agriculture groups.

The two countries are at an impasse in their bilateral free trade talks, which may also be delaying Canadian action to help the U.K. join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, known by the acronym CPTPP.

The U.K. signed onto the latter accord last July, and its Parliament formally ratified the deal last week. But before it can start enjoying the benefits, the U.K. needs six of the CPTPP’s 11 members to ratify its accession — and so far only Singapore, Japan, and Chile have done so.

Canadian Trade Minister Mary Ng has yet to introduce a ratification bill in the country’s House of Commons.

Jennifer Fagan, head of economics and trade at the U.K. High Commission in Canada, said her country is especially keen to have Canada’s support, given their close ties as allies and Canada’s status as chair of the CPTPP Commission this year.

“We understand that it’s a busy parliamentary season for Canada, but we’re hoping that it’ll be imminent that Canada will put that legislation forward,” Fagan said in an interview.

Fagan said she believes the U.K. will get enough other countries to ratify before the end of 2024, but would hope that Canada does so given that it was “an early champion of the U.K. accession.”

‘Significant Barriers’

Fagan made the comments shortly before British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak called an election for July 4, which polls suggest the Labour Party will win. 

Under Sunak, the U.K. suspended free trade talks with Canada after Trudeau’s government allowed some post-Brexit trade provisions to expire. Those included a temporary arrangement that permitted low-tariff exports of British cheese to Canada and another that affected British auto exports to Canada.

Canadian and British officials insist those issues are separate from discussions around CPTPP. But there may be other reasons Canada is dragging its heels. An alliance of Canadian agriculture groups is lobbying against the U.K.’s accession to the Pacific pact, arguing that it doesn’t give enough access for producers currently blocked from the U.K. market.

“This agreement does not achieve any meaningful market access for the Canadian beef and pork industries and creates significant barriers for Canadian farmers, ranchers and producers,” the coalition says on its website. 

Ng said Canada still supports the U.K.’s entry into CPTPP but remained non-committal on a timeline for a vote in parliament. “It’s definitely in the queue,” she said in a phone interview while attending a trade forum in Peru. “It’s certainly something we’ve committed to doing, and we intend to.”

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for CPTPP 

TPP

Legal Advice Sought Over Canadian Backflip On Dairy Trade

Friday, 3 May 2024
Press Release: Inside Government NZ

Trade Minister, Todd McClay, has slammed Canada’s refusal to comply in full with a CPTPP trade dispute ruling over dairy trade as “cynical” and says New Zealand has no intention of backing down.

Mr McClay said he has asked for urgent legal advice in respect of the Government’s “next move” and says the Canadian Government still has time to honour its obligations to New Zealand both in the spirit and substance of the agreement.

New Zealand initiated the dispute because Canada was not complying with Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) rules, blocking dairy exporters’ access to its market, the Minister said.

A CPTPP arbitration panel ruled decisively in New Zealand’s favour. Canada had until 1 May to change how it administered its tariff rate quotas – to stop giving its own domestic industry priority access, and to allow exporters to benefit fully from the market access negotiated in good faith between Canada and New Zealand.

“The changes Canada has published today do not comply with the ruling. Canada’s ongoing failure to meet its legal commitments is disappointing, but we have no intention of giving in on this. We back our exporters and we will defend hard-won free trade agreement commitments,” Mr McClay says.

“New Zealand’s prosperity depends on international trade, making up 60% of the country’s total economic activity. It is only through a strong economy that we can reduce the cost of living and afford the public services Kiwis deserve."

“We continue to engage in good faith throughout this process and I’ve asked officials to provide advice on next steps. I will be making an announcement on that in due course.

“New Zealand supports trade rules and takes seriously its obligations to trade partners. We expect others to show us the same courtesy,” he said.

Government of Canada urged to take action on transnational repression of Hong Kongers in Canada

Today, Hong Kong Watch published a new briefing on the safety of Hong Kongers in Canada in the face of transnational repression and foreign interference.

This briefing warns about new threats expected to be faced by Hong Kongers with the passing of the new Safeguarding National Security Bill under Article 23 of the Basic Law of Hong Kong. It also includes case studies of transnational repression experienced by the diaspora in Canada, and recommendations for the Government and parliamentarians.

This briefing was presented to Canadian Parliamentarians in an online briefing session today. Among those in attendance were the offices of Senator Leo Housakos, Jean Yip MP, Tom Kmiec MP, Stéphane Bergeron MP, Jenny Kwan MP, and Greg McLean MP.

Hong Kong Watch’s key recommendations for the Government of Canada and Parliamentarians are as follows:

Condemn Hong Kong’s Article 23 legislation and clearly state that the extraterritorial provisions of the law will not be applied in Canada, and any attempts to do so will be duly prosecuted according to domestic law;


Create an interdepartmental agency to combat transnational repression;


Establish a foreign agent registry;


Relevant committees undertake a study on transnational repression in Canada; and


Establish a reporting hotline in Cantonese for Hong Kongers facing transnational repression in Canada.

The full briefing can be read here.

Katherine Leung, Hong Kong Watch’s Policy Advisor for Canada, commenting on the briefing, said:

“With the passage of new security legislation under Article 23 in Hong Kong and its extraterritorial implications, it is increasingly important for the Government of Canada to take seriously the issue of transnational repression faced by the Hong Kong community in this country. The rights and freedoms that Hong Kongers came to Canada for are under threat.

We urge the Government to implement a strong framework to protect Hong Kongers who now reside in Canada from transnational repression and foreign interference, ensuring that the long reach of Beijing cannot harm those who are now on Canadian soil for exercising their rights and freedoms.”

香港監察就在加港人安全發表簡報 促請加國政府採取行動應對跨國鎮壓

今天，香港監察就香港人在加拿大面對跨國鎮壓和外國干預時的安全問題發表新簡報。

香港當局最近通過根據《基本法》第23條所制訂的《維護國家安全條例》（俗稱23條），這份簡報就香港人在新法下料將面臨的新威脅作警告。此外，簡報載有加拿大離散社群所經歷的跨國鎮壓個案研究，以及給加拿大政府和國會議員的建議。

香港監察在今天舉行的網上簡報會上，向加拿大國會議員匯報這份簡報。與會者包括參議員Senator Leo Housakos、國會議員Jean Yip MP、Tom Kmiec MP、Stéphane Bergeron MP、Jenny Kwan MP、Greg McLean MP或其辦事處代表。

香港監察向加拿大政府和國會議員提出的主要建議如下：

譴責香港23條立法，並明確表示23條的域外條文不適用於加拿大，任何企圖這樣做的行為均將根據國內法律受到適當起訴；


成立跨部門機構打擊跨國鎮壓；


設立外國代理人登記處；


相關委員會就加拿大發生的跨國鎮壓展開研究；及


為在加拿大面對跨國鎮壓的香港人設立廣東話舉報熱線。

請在此處閱讀簡報全文。

香港監察加拿大政策顧問Katherine Leung表示：

「有見香港根據23條通過新國安法及其潛在域外影響，加拿大政府愈須認真對待香港社區面對的跨國鎮壓問題。香港人赴加所尋求的權利和自由現正受到威脅。

我們促請政府制訂穩固的框架，保護現居加拿大的香港人免受跨國鎮壓和外國干預，確保北京的長臂不會危害現時在加拿大國土上行使權利和自由的人。」

UK facing Brexit realities after failed Canada talks


By AFP
January 26, 2024
Véronique DUPONT


The UK’s failed free trade talks with Canada show that it is struggling to deliver on its promises to thrive after Brexit, experts said on Friday.

London has been seeking to sign new trade pacts around the world to show it was right to sever ties with its nearest neighbours nearly four years ago.

But negotiators paused talks with Ottawa late Thursday, with sources pinpointing British cheese imports to Canada and Canadian beef exports to the UK as major sticking points to agreement.

“We will only negotiate deals that deliver for the British people, and we reserve the right to pause negotiations where progress is not being made,” said a spokeswoman for Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.

“We’re open to restarting talks with Canada in the future.”

The main opposition Labour party, which is widely expected to win this year’s general election, called it “another significant failure from the Conservatives to honour their promises”.

Keith Pilbeam, economics professor at City, University of London, said the pro-Brexit government had overplayed its cards.

“It undermines the UK and shows that the Brexiteers considerably overstated how easy trade deals would be to do alone in the world with our much smaller economy compared to that of the EU,” he told AFP.

“The UK did well rolling over existing EU deals but is finding it very hard to negotiate its own trade deals as the concessions that other countries like Canada and the US want from us are not acceptable to UK citizens, businesses and farmers.”

– Unrealistic –

King’s College London economist Jonathan Portes talked down the direct impact on UK trade, given that Canada is not one of the UK’s biggest trading partners.

But he added: “More broadly it shows the limitations of the government’s trade strategy… to use post-Brexit trade deals to offset the negative impacts of Brexit on trade.

“That was never realistic.”

Brexiteers have repeatedly talked up the benefits of leaving the EU since Britons voted narrowly in favour of quitting the bloc in 2016.

They promised “sunlit uplands” of economic prosperity, while Boris Johnson, the former prime minister, said Brexit would free the UK to project itself on the world stage.

Opponents, though, claim that alongside restrictions to freedom of movement and increased red tape, departure has helped fuel rampant inflation and worsen a cost-of-living crisis.

Some trade deals have been signed, including with faster-growing economies such as Australia, New Zealand and Singapore.

The UK also joined 11 Asia-Pacific countries who are members of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).

A much sought-after free trade deal with the United States remains elusive.

With Canada, an interim deal with the UK preserved many of the same conditions as under the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the EU.

But its provisions for British cheese imports to Canada expired last month, leaving some UK exporters facing customs duties of 245 percent, according to the British Chambers of Commerce.

“Some exporters will not find it competitive to export to Canada anymore… They are in a worst position than they were before Brexit,” BCC head of trade policy William Bain told AFP.

– Protectionism –

Added to the picture, the rules of origin — which stipulate how much of the value of UK car exports must be produced in Britain — are due to expire in March.

That could slap customs duties of 10 percent on car exports heading to Canada, the BCC says.

The failure of talks between two G7 and Commonwealth allies which share a king showed the “rise in protectionism across the world”, with exporters suffering the consequences, said Bain.

The president of Britain’s National Farmers Union (NFU), Minette Batters, called it “the right decision”, however.

“On products such as beef and cheese, Canada was demanding too much and offering too little,” she said.

“We understand that Canada made repeated attempts to force the UK to change its food safety rules and to extract unreasonable concessions for maintaining our preferential access to its cheese market beyond the end of 2023.”

David Henig, trade expert at London-based think-tank the European Centre for International Political Economy, said Britain was looking to preserve its food and veterinary standards after criticism of its previous deal with Australia.

UK farmers contend they face competition from cheaper Australian exports like beef and lamb due to industrial farming methods and relaxed food safety requirements.

“This pause shows that the realities of trade negotiations are catching up with the UK, that protecting food standards can lead to problems in talks, and that choices have to be made,” he said,

“The UK has chosen — after a backlash from farmers to the Australia deal — to not repeat this experience.”

Factbox-Vietnam's 'bamboo diplomacy' shifts into higher gear
Reuters
Wed, December 27, 2023 

FILE PHOTO: 13th national congress of the ruling communist party of Vietnam in Hanoi

HANOI (Reuters) - Communist Party-ruled Vietnam has upgraded ties with the world's top powers, including former foes, China and the United States, as part of its "bamboo diplomacy", which it has pro-actively pursued since 2021 to navigate rising global tensions.

After a string of deals this year and last, the Southeast Asian country's top partners include the United States, China, India, South Korea and Russia, which for decades has supplied most of Vietnam's military equipment.

Below are details of Vietnam's increasingly dynamic foreign policy approach and its most important diplomatic agreements over the last 12 months.

WHAT IS 'BAMBOO DIPLOMACY'?

A regional manufacturing powerhouse, Vietnam is an increasingly strategic player in global supply chains.

To bolster this position, the country's most powerful figure, Communist Party General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong, used in 2021 the imagery of "strong roots, stout trunk, and flexible branches" of the bamboo plant to describe Vietnam's foreign policy approach of having "more friends, fewer foes".

CHINA

Vietnam and China earlier this month agreed to build a community with a "shared future" during a visit to Hanoi by Chinese President Xi Jinping, his first to an Asian country this year.

The two nations signed 36 cooperation documents in areas such as transport infrastructure, trade, security and digital economy, and published a joint declaration with wide-ranging commitments.

China is Vietnam's largest trading partner and a vital source of imports for its manufacturing sector, but the two communist countries have been for years embroiled in disputes in the South China Sea - the latest in May. Tensions have subsided somewhat more recently as Beijing's attention has focused on another claimant in the waterway, the Philippines.

UNITED STATES

Vietnam and the United States elevated in September their relationship to a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, the highest level in Vietnam's ranking, and announced closer cooperation on semiconductors and critical minerals during a visit to Hanoi by U.S. president Joe Biden.

The United States, which is the top importer of Vietnam's goods, pushed for the upgrade as part of its strategy to secure uninterrupted access to global supply chains and to contain China in the South China Sea.

JAPAN

Vietnam and Japan in November upgraded their relations to Vietnam's top tier during a visit by Vietnamese president Vo Van Thuong to Tokyo, agreeing to boost security and economic cooperation.

Japanese multinationals, including Canon, Honda, Panasonic and Bridgestone, are among the largest foreign investors in Vietnam.

SOUTH KOREA

Vietnam and South Korea elevated their ties to a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership in December 2022 during a visit to Seoul by then Vietnamese president Nguyen Xuan Phuc, focusing on trade, investment, defence and security.

South Korea is the largest source of foreign investment in Vietnam, with Samsung Electronics being the largest single foreign investor in the country where it assembles half its smartphones.

In June the two countries signed 17 additional agreements, including on security and critical minerals during a visit to Vietnam by South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol.

VATICAN CITY

Vietnam and the Vatican agreed in July to have the first post-war resident papal representative in Hanoi during a visit to meet Pope Francis by Vietnamese President Vo Van Thuong. The representative was appointed in December.

Home to nearly 7 million Catholics, Vietnam broke relations with the Vatican after the Communists took over the reunited country at the end of the Vietnam War in 1975. Talks to appoint a papal representative had started in 2009.

TRADING HUB

Vietnam is part of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) economic union and has free trade deals with the European Union, Britain, Chile and South Korea. In July it added Israel to its list of free-trade partners.

It is also a member of wider trade pacts, including the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), which includes Canada, Australia and Mexico, and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) which includes China and Japan.

WHO'S NEXT?

In 2024, Vietnam is expected to upgrade ties with Australia to a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership.

A visit to the country next year by French President Emmanuel Macron is also being considered, as the former colonial power seeks to boost ties on security and infrastructure development.

(Reporting by Khanh Vu and Francesco Guarascio; Editing by Kanupriya Kapoor)

Economic statecraft with American characteristics

MARK BEESON VAN JACKSON

The United States keeps pitching Asia regional deals for
economic arrangements that are not politically viable at home.

Pressing trade deals that do little more than insulate American tech oligopolies from the laws and regulations of Asian nations will not restore US primacy or counteract China’s influence 

(Dall.e/Canva)

Published 29 Nov 2023 

 Follow @WonkVJ

Once upon a time, trade policy was a bit dull and the preserve of pointy-headed specialists. Its ends were rarely scrutinised. Its means were obscure to the public and largely exempted from political friction.

Now, however, trade policy is increasingly integral to a nationalist form of “economic statecraft” that has come to define inter-state competition, especially between the United States and China. Consequently, “getting trade policy right” is a highly political question subject to a range of conflicting interests and priorities that make identifying – let alone pursuing – a clear-cut “national interest” all but impossible.

The difficulties of separating economic and strategic policies are unusually acute for the United States.

For example, Donald Trump signalled just how dramatically American priorities can change with the abrupt departure of the United States from negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). But American attitudes toward globalisation and neoliberal economics have changed too, and Trump’s possible return highlights just how persistent the theme of American unpredictability is likely to be as it struggles to accommodate competing goals and interests within the fractious world of Washington.
China is already the region’s dominant economic actor and the principal economic partner of all its neighbours.

The latest iteration of regional economic statecraft is the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF), an initiative that many in the region would struggle to name, let alone benefit from. And the plan has become increasingly tangled with domestic politics, with criticism about the influence of “Big Tech” lobbyists that not only advocated for but literally wrote portions of the IPEF text for the Biden administration. Members of the Democratic Party in Congress are increasingly vocal about the agreement’s failure to protect labour rights and the environment, forcing a promised grand announcement about IPEF at the recent APEC summit in San Francisco to be reined in at the last minute.

As happened with the TPP, which was eventually adopted as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), the United States has solicited the support of Asian governments for an economic arrangement that is not politically viable for the United States itself. And even if the Biden administration was willing to make IPEF a vessel for worker interests and environmental protections, insisting on either may make the agreement much more difficult for countries in Southeast Asia to accept, especially given that it offers no privileged market access to the United States.A launch event for the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF) in May 2022 ahead of the Quad summit in Tokyo (Adam Schultz/Official White House Photo)

More fundamentally in the context of the United States’ long-term competition with China for regional influence, IPEF is unlikely to change the existing direction of travel. China is already the region’s dominant economic actor and the principal economic partner of all its neighbours.

Enthusiasts of great-power rivalry often overlook that in the decades since the 1997–98 Asian Financial Crisis, Asian governments have constructed a financial and economic architecture that buoys their economic interdependence largely to the exclusion of the United States. The Chiang Mai Initiative for intra-regional currency swapping, the Asian Bond Market Initiative, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Plus-Three (China, Japan, and South Korea), the ASEAN Surveillance Process, the Northeast Asia Trilateral Cooperation Secretariat, and the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) are just a handful of the arrangements that constitute Asia’s economic order.

China is party to most of them; the United States is party to none of them. And this list excludes the numerous Sino-centric institutions networking the region such as the Belt and Road Initiative, or the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (RCEP), which excludes the United States but includes all its key regional allies.
Unpalatable and unlikely as it may be, perhaps there is something that American policymakers might learn from the Chinese approach.

The salutary lesson is that America does not run the table on Asian political economy anymore. Pressing trade deals that do little more than insulate American tech oligopolies from the laws and regulations of Asian nations will not restore US primacy or counteract China’s influence. America’s “Build Back a Better World” initiative is a pale imitation of China’s grandiose Belt and Road Initiative, which despite much criticism, has delivered tangible outcomes that are literally cementing China’s place in the Indo-Pacific and beyond.

Unpalatable and unlikely as it may be, perhaps there is something that American policymakers might learn from the Chinese approach. Successful economic statecraft depends more on addressing the key concerns of potential partners: poverty alleviation, transitioning to sustainable economic growth, and delivering useful infrastructure and investment.

But at a time when the United States is distracted by conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine, not to mention the polarisation of domestic politics, it may prove difficult for American foreign policymakers to move beyond the all too familiar staples of containment and zero-sum competition with its principal rival.

It’s worth remembering the long peace of Asia owed a good deal to the development of cooperative coexistence between the United States and China. Economic interdependence could still be a force for more stable great power relations, and one that would likely be welcomed throughout the Indo-Pacific. Whether any country’s economic statecraft can rise above the short-term national interest may prove to be the defining issue of our time.

UK’s Sunak makes pre-election pitch in first King’s Speech since 1951

AFP

November 6, 2023

King Charles III deputised for his mother Queen Elizabeth II at the State Opening of Parliament in May last year - Copyright POOL/AFP Ben Stansall

Peter HUTCHISON

Charles III gives the first King’s Speech in more than 70 years Tuesday, formally opening the UK parliament with a run-down of his government’s legislative plans as an election looms.

The 74-year-old head of state will outline Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s wish list of new laws that are expected to underline differences with the main opposition Labour Party.

The address from a golden throne in the House of Lords comes as the Tories, in power since 2010, trail Labour by double-digits in most opinion polls before an election widely expected next year.

“The King’s Speech represents one of the last chances for Rishi Sunak to set out his stall,” said Richard Carr, an associate professor in public policy and strategy at Anglia Ruskin University.

“Being a low-polling prime minister, one of the few virtues he currently has is he can set the national agenda, control what his supportive newspapers print, and thereby try and set a series of hurdles for the opposition to jump through,” he told AFP.

The ceremonial address, and the traditions that accompany it, is Charles’s first as monarch, although he had a dry run deputising for his mother Queen Elizabeth II in May last year.

It is also Sunak’s first since succeeding Liz Truss, who took over from Boris Johnson as prime minister just two days before the queen’s death and lasted only 49 days in office.

In the speech, Sunak will reinforce clear dividing lines that he is drawing with Keir Starmer’s centre-left Labour party over the environment and energy.

It will propose a law granting new licences for oil and gas projects in the North Sea annually that Sunak says will reduce Britain’s reliance on foreign energy and create jobs.

He had already announced a rollback of green energy policies in September, positioning himself as a champion of motorists in a bid to turn around his party’s fortunes.

Labour has said it will not award any new oil and gas exploration licences and has pledged instead to boost investment in green energy

– Rituals –

Sunak’s proposals may make uncomfortable reading for Charles, who has devoted his life to environmental causes.

The speech, which should last around 10 minutes, is also expected to announce tougher sentencing guidelines around life terms and an end to early release for some violent sexual offenders.

Sunak is likely to include a phased smoking ban, which he announced at last month’s Tory conference, and reforms to home ownership laws.

The King’s Speech signifies the start of a new parliamentary year and was last delivered by a male monarch in 1951 — although not in person as King George VI was unwell.

It indicates the types of laws the government hopes to get through parliament in the next 12 months.

Although a Tory defeat at the next election is far from a foregone conclusion, owing to their sizeable parliamentary majority, a loss would mean much of the legislation never seeing the light of day.

“The problem for Sunak is he’s running out of time, the public are both bored and angry at Conservative governance,” added Carr.

Tuesday’s state opening typically involves the sovereign travelling to the Houses of Parliament by carriage from Buckingham Palace.

An MP is ceremonially held “hostage” to ensure the king’s safe return.

Royal bodyguards ritually search the basement of the Palace of Westminster for explosives — a legacy of the failed attempt by Catholics to blow up parliament in 1605.

The monarch leads a procession through the House of Lords, parliament’s unelected upper chamber, before giving the speech there to assembled lords and ladies, plus invited members of the elected lower House of Commons.

King's speech: UK government to focus on crime, economy – and rolling back climate measure

Agence France-Presse
November 7, 2023 

Britain's King Charles III and Queen Camilla attend the state opening of parliament at the Houses of Parliament in London on November 7, 2023.© Leon Neal, AP

Britain's government set out its plans to tackle crime, boost growth and water down climate change measures on Tuesday, an unashamedly political agenda that could offer clues to how Conservatives plan to campaign ahead of elections next year.

In an agenda written by the government of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak but delivered by King Charles III to lawmakers at parliament's ornate House of Lords, Sunak signalled his intent to create a dividing line with the opposition Labour Party before elections that must be called by the end of 2024.

The speech, which lasted just over 10 minutes, set out the government's modest slate of 21 bills, ranging from changes to the way soccer teams are run to a clampdown on unlicensed pedicabs.

The government also announced plans to continue watering down environmental measures, a trend begun by Sunak when he lifted a moratorium on North Sea oil and gas extraction in July. A planned law will require new oil and gas drilling licenses in the North Sea to be awarded every year. The government argues that will protect jobs, cut Britain’s reliance on foreign fuel and increase energy security while environmentalists and opposition parties say it will just make it harder for the UK to make the switch to renewable energy.

With Labour running way ahead in the opinion polls, the prime minister's team is hoping that his agenda will close the gap by reducing the "burden" of Britain's climate targets on households and by toughening sentences for violent offenders.

There was little new in the King's Speech, more a collection of what Sunak has worked on since becoming prime minister last year on a pledge to bring stability after two fellow Conservative leaders were forced from power in a matter of weeks.

Reading some of the government's climate policies might have jarred on Charles, who has campaigned on environmental issues for more than 50 years. But government officials have repeatedly said ministers were not giving up on the overall targets, just being more "pragmatic" in how they get there.

"My government will, in all respects, seek to make long-term decisions in the interests of future generations," Charles, wearing the Imperial State Crown and royal robes, told a hushed audience of lawmakers in the upper house of parliament.

"By taking these long-term decisions, my government will change this country and build a better future," he added.

It was the first time Charles had made the speech as king – though he stood in for his mother Queen Elizabeth II months before her death last year – in a ceremony marked by pomp and pageantry.


Arriving at parliament from Buckingham Palace in a grand carriage procession, he then led a ceremony, with some of its traditions traced back to the 16th century, that delivers the government's agenda in line with Britain's unusual constitutional division of executive powers.

Election campaign

What Charles read out suggested Britain has already entered campaign season.

The government signalled it would move ahead with the Sentencing Bill that will bring forward tougher jail sentences for the most serious offenders, and repeated its pledge to boost economic growth and reduce inflation.

But, in a possible sign that calls from some Conservative lawmakers to offer voters tax cuts will go unheeded, the King said: "My ministers will address inflation and the drivers of low growth over demands for greater spending or borrowing."

Sunak also confirmed he would phase out tobacco sales to young people in England and press on with attempts to tackle illegal migration.

In an attempt to win over younger voters, the government also said it would press ahead with reforms to the housing market, outlawing no-fault evictions for renters and amending a system described by a minister as "feudal" which forces the owners of some properties to pay rent to a freeholder.

But Sunak faces an uphill struggle to win back voters, with Labour holding an around 20-point lead in the polls. His party is mired in allegations of sex scandals, under scrutiny over its actions during the Covid-19 pandemic and is deeply divided over its strategy before the next election.

He is hopeful his agenda can turn things around.

"We have turned the corner over the last year and put the country on a better path," he said in his introduction.

"But these immediate priorities are not the limit of our ambition. They are just the foundations of our plan to build a better future for our children and grandchildren, and deliver the change the country needs."

(FRANCE 24 with Reuters and AP)

Britain bans 'laughing gas' to curb anti-social behaviour

2023/11/08


LONDON (Reuters) - A ban on the recreational use and possession of nitrous oxide, also known as 'laughing gas', comes into force in Britain on Wednesday, with people caught producing, supplying or selling the drug facing long prison sentences.

The substance, which causes a feeling of euphoria, relaxation and dissociation from reality, has grown in popularity, particularly among young people but the government said it fuelled nuisance behaviour and posed a health hazard.

"For too long the use of this drug in public spaces has contributed to anti-social behaviour which is a blight on communities. We will not accept it," Britain's policing minister Chris Philp said in a statement.

Under the new ban, people who repeatedly misused laughing gas could face fines or up to two years in prison, with a maximum jail punishment for dealing the drug doubled to 14 years.

According to health ministry figures, nitrous oxide is the third most common drug used by 16 to 24-year-olds, and heavy use can result in anaemia, and in more severe cases, nerve damage or paralysis.

In September, interior minister Suella Braverman said people were "fed up" with the use of drugs in public spaces, with discarded gas canisters being littered across Britain's streets.

The ban exempts its legitimate use including for healthcare, dentistry, and in other industries. Licences will not be required, but users will need to demonstrate they are "lawfully in possession" of the drug and not intending to inhale it, the government said.

Under the ban, nitrous oxide will be prescribed as a "Class C" drug and classified in "the least harmful" category of drugs under Britain's laws alongside anabolic steroids, benzodiazepines and growth hormones.

(Reporting by Farouq Suleiman; editing by Michael Holden)

© Reuters

Factbox-The laws British PM Sunak wants to pass before the next election

2023/11/07


LONDON (Reuters) - King Charles set out the British government's plans for legislation over the coming months on Tuesday with a highly political package of measures, including the promise of tougher sentences for serious criminals, before a national election expected next year.

The King's Speech - given by the monarch but written by government ministers - opens the new session of parliament.

This is likely to be the last one before the election, which must be held by January 2025, and many policies were aimed at appealing to voters.

Below are some of the main proposed new laws:

LAW AND ORDER

The government plans to introduce five pieces of legislation intended to toughen sentences and deter crime in a sign that the governing Conservatives hope to make this a key election issue.

The Sentencing Bill will mean murderers who carry out sexually motivated or sadistic attacks will automatically face life in jail without the prospect of parole.

The Criminal Justice Bill will also mean that criminals will be made to appear in the court when they are sentenced so they can hear statements from victims.

This comes after a nurse who was found guilty of murdering seven babies and a man who shot a nine-year-old girl this year refused to attend their sentencing hearings.

The legislation will also give the police powers to enter a property without a warrant to seize goods if they have reasonable proof that a stolen item was at an address.

CIGARETTES AND VAPES

The Tobacco and Vapes Bill will deliver on Sunak's promise made last month to phase out all tobacco sales in England.

Under the legislation, anyone who was born on or after Jan. 1, 2009, will never be allowed to legally buy cigarettes.

The government said it was also looking to bring in rules regulating the flavours and descriptions of vapes that critics say are targeted at children.

OIL DRILLING

The Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill will set up annual licensing rounds for oil and gas exploration in the North Sea, in a move the government said would create certainty for the industry during a transition to greener energy.

The opposition Labour Party, which has a double-digit lead in opinion polls, has said it would stop issuing new oil and gas licences in the North Sea, though it will respect any that are granted before an election.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

The government will introduce the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill, which will give ministers new powers to tackle "drip pricing" where companies advertise a low price online before adding extra fees.

Consumers will also be given powers to make it easier to get out of subscription contracts, which the government said cost people around 1.6 billion pounds ($1.97 billion) a year.

HOUSING

The government will amend the system, described by the housing minister as "feudal", which forces the owners of some properties to pay rent to a freeholder.

The Leasehold and Freehold Bill means all new houses in England and Wales will be exempt from having to pay these extra costs.

The Renters' Reform Bill will push ahead with a plan to end no-fault evictions in England, four years after the legislation was first promised.

SOCCER REGULATOR

The government plans to set up an independent football regulator, who will be responsible for scrutinising club owners and their financial resources.

The new legislation will require owners to ensure fans are consulted on changes to club's badges, names and shirt colours.

The regulator will have the power to stop clubs joining breakaway leagues, after six English clubs attempted in 2021 to join a new European Super League.

TRADE

Britain will bring forward a bill to allow it to meet its obligations as it accedes to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).

Britain in March struck a deal to join the 11-country trans-Pacific trade pact, which includes Australia and Japan, and formally signed the treaty in July.

The bill gives CPTPP parties greater access to the government's procurement market, enhances regulatory co-operation and expands copyright protections, as has been agreed under the terms of Britain's accession to the agreement.

($1 = 0.8130 pounds)

(Reporting by Andrew MacAskill and Alistair Smout, editing by Elizabeth Piper, Alex Richardson and Barbara Lewis)

© Reuters

CPTPP panel sides with New Zealand over Canada dairy supply-management rules

Story by The Canadian Press •

CPTPP panel sides with New Zealand over Canada dairy supply-management rules© Provided by The Canadian Press

OTTAWA — A Pacific Rim trade dispute panel has found Canada's dairy-sector protections violate obligations that Ottawa signed with New Zealand and other countries.

The Liberal government, however, insists the ruling is a win, pointing to a clause that confirms Canada has some discretion over its imports.

The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership includes certain quotas for countries to export dairy at preferred tariff rates into other member countries.

New Zealand says Canada is limiting its quotas to protect domestic dairy processors, who operate under federal rules regulating the cost and supply of products such as milk and cheese.

The country argues its dairy sector has lost the equivalent of $96 million in revenue from the Canadian market in the past three years due to the federal government "effectively blocking access for our dairy industry to upscale its exports" to Canada.

The dispute settlement panel issued a report on Tuesday that says it agrees with part of New Zealand's complaint, which dates back to May 2022. The panel ordered Ottawa to change how it uses tariff rate quotas, often called TRQs.

"It’s an important recognition that our exporters have not had fair access to the Canadian dairy market, in line with what we negotiated and paid for under CPTPP," wrote New Zealand's High Commissioner to Canada, Martin Harvey, in a statement.

“The outcome of the panel process leaves Canada no choice but to finally make TRQs available to those market players who have an incentive to use them," Harvey wrote, adding that he is confident the ruling wouldn't hinder relations between the two countries.

Australia and Japan filed submissions in support of New Zealand, while Mexico, Peru and Singapore also expressed an interest in pushing back against Canada's use of dairy quotas.

Tuesday's dispute-settlement report sided with New Zealand on two complaints, finding the country could not use Canada's quotas and that Canada gave priority access to its own dairy processors, while rejecting two other arguments.

The report noted it was "informative" that Washington had won a separate case on similar grounds to those raised by New Zealand, during a dispute under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, which replaced the NAFTA trade deal.

Canadian Trade Minister Mary Ng did not speak to Ottawa's losses, instead saying it was a "clear victory" that the ruling acknowledged Canada has some leeway in how it applies the trade agreement.

"It confirms that Canada has the discretion to allocate TRQs, and that's really important to us," Ng told reporters Wednesday in Jakarta.

"They didn't think that we were allocating our TRQs in the way that they would like."

Canada's influential domestic dairy lobby is calling on Ottawa to see whether it can launch retaliatory complaints against New Zealand.

"Dairy Farmers of Canada is disappointed with the dispute panel’s ruling," wrote the group's president David Wiens.

"We now call on the federal government to do a thorough review of the measures the government of New Zealand has put in place to support its dairy sector, to ensure that they are consistent with its international trade obligations."

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 6, 2023.

Dylan Robertson, The Canadian Press

Note to readers: This is a corrected story. A previous version said the dispute settlement panel for the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership issued its report on Wednesday.