By Teodoro Ribera Neumann (Rector of the Autonomous University of Chile and former Minister of Foreign Affairs)

A section of those who see international trade as a modern expression of capitalism have launched a crusade against the TTP11, lobbying parliamentarians and mobilizing citizens with arguments based on lies. They claimed that this treaty would have been imposed on Chile, would prevent public policies, consolidate extractivism, usurp indigenous cultural knowledge, among other pithy and biased arguments. This went so far that, with a majority to approve the treaty in the Senate, it could not be voted on due to pressure exerted by the groups on the parliamentarians. In order to provide more guarantees, it was necessary to sign an explanatory protocol in 2019, which would respond to the concerns of citizens and ensure the protection of the arguments of members of Congress.

That the National Congress finally approved the TPP11, which eliminates or lowers tariff barriers, especially with Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam, Canada and Mexico, is extremely important for Chile, not only because of its virtuous effects on the economy, but also because of the strategic value of a treaty that gives enormous political impetus to a trading system that has been battered by WTO problems.

This approval, however, does not mean that this treaty enters into force immediately. In our constitutional order, the President of the Republic has the power, as absolute king, to ratify or not to ratify a treaty, the approval of Congress being only a simple enabling authorization. In other words, it will be up to President Boric to ratify it so that it enters into force for Chile. As an MP in 2019, Boric voted against the treaty and now, knowing the vote in favor of the Senate, he expressed that “this is not the result I would have liked, but we will comply”.

Meanwhile, Mexico’s leftist government considers the TPP “the most relevant and modern trade agreement in the world”, as it regulates cutting-edge, broader and more diverse aspects than those covered by the trade agreements. existing free trade. Among those that can be highlighted, the facilities it offers to SMEs and e-commerce, among others, the Chilean government looks at it with reluctance and is stressed between past speeches and current reality.

He suggests that by preventing disputes with foreign investors from being decided by international organizations, a matter contemplated by various other treaties, TPP11 could be ratified. And what if one or more of the other signatory states simply do not respond or do so in the negative? If the rejection of international arbitration is a turning point, will it be the same for the other treaties, including the one awaiting association with the European Union?

The consensus on Chile’s trade openness, which is a state policy, is challenged by one of the two coalitions of its government. Those are the side letters necessary or is it just an artifice to block the ratification of the TPP11? It would be good for the government to remove this doubt, committing to support it over the following months.

(The content expressed in this op-ed is the sole responsibility of its author, and does not necessarily reflect the editorial line or position of Septima Página Noticias).