When the NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) treaty was being proposed during the Clinton Administration, I first looked upon it with a jaundiced eye. But then as persuasive advertising and messages from the White House persisted, in addition to the possibility that NAFTA could slow the illegal border crossings by providing more home jobs for Central and South American labor, my attitude towards the treaty became more benign. This despite presidential candidate Ross Perot’s dire predictions of a “giant sucking sound”. Well, as we have all seen since that time, NAFTA has not delivered on its promises.

Is Transpacific Partnership (TPP) more of the same? There appears to be little in the way of comprehensive information as to the exact terms of the treaties being negotiated. To make an informed decision is next to impossible. We certainly need a lot more transparency, that I hope will be forthcoming before too long. But this I know:

Dealing with Asian countries will be a completely different experience than anything we have witnessed to this time. And we also have the so-called “Global” businesses where they actual head honchos are practically unknown, or even where they are located. Being born and spending the first 20 years of life in an Asian country gives a person a somewhat different perspective, especially where doing business is concerned. First and foremost we must examine the legal aspects, for what is permitted or not permitted under United States laws differs substantially from the methods applied in Asia.

My dad ran an importing and exporting business in Yokohama, Japan, A.M. Apcar & Co., established by his father sometime in the early 1890’s. Being a child I knew little of the actual business activity, except that I possessed an inborn curiosity, visited the office with fair frequency, even typing some of his English correspondence for him, and of course addressed questions when he had time to answer them. But what stands out in my mind even after all these years, is one statement he made.

“I have to keep two sets of books” he said, “One for the Japanese Government and the other for the business.”

As he went on to explain, the firm employed the long time services of a British accountancy firm or Chartered Accountants as they called them. But before long, the fact that the Japanese Government during its progress into global trade commenced imposing onerous rules, penalties and taxation upon foreign businesses, the company found itself obliged to hire yet another accountancy firm, this time Japanese, simply because Japan refused to recognize the tax statements of a foreign firm. To his surprise, the Japanese accountancy firm was able to legitimately add many “credits” and deductions to his tax bill, fully acceptable to their Government, that the British firm could not.

Probably this is just one facet in a complicated trade agreement, but one worth considering. We have already seen the devastating effect on the United States of “outsourcing” on both our labor and technology. Rare is the “Made in USA” label seen any more, even in simple household products. And if indeed the item is actually produced here, most of the component parts that make up the final purchase are not.

Of course “protectionism” is a dirty word in many circles. But we have to consider the fact that by giving up our right to protect our biggest asset, the American worker, can and quite possibly will, put us in a position of subservience to Asian interests should make us stop and think carefully.

Lucille Apcar,
Mariposa