That was the penultimate sentence in the column by Joanna Shelton that appeared in the Montana paper The Missoulian on May 4.  The final sentence was, "We can do better."

In her critique of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Ms. Shelton cites TPP's "unprecedented scope and the incredible complexity of its provisions."  She clearly has misgivings about some of those provisions.   At bottom, however, it seemed to us that Ms. Shelton was suggesting that the promised deal - the one described in glowing terms by various negotiators - just isn't there.

We took note of this analysis of TPP mainly because it came from Joanna Shelton.  You editor has not seen her for over a decade but in years past, we benefitted from her help more than once.  As a member of the staff of the Trade Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee and later as Deputy Secretary General of the OECD, Ms. Shelton was always generous, insightful, and helpful.  When she explained in her May 4 column that she had spent "a career promoting open markets and the benefits they can bring," we thought that an understatement.

That is not to say that we agree with all that she wrote in that piece.  We do not.  She spoke for example of "our [U.S.] insistence on giving investors special mechanisms for disputing government laws," suggesting that she is not a fan of investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms.  We are. 

As for her suggesting that TPP should fade away, we don't necessarily share the view that that should happen; rather it seems to us that it is happening.  Why?  Because despite the secrecy surrounding the TPP negotiations, the American political system is fairly open, and the eleven other TPP countries can see for themselves the gulf that separates Congress and the Administration on trade.

Though his focus was TPA  (Trade Promotion Authority), not TPP, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), made the point forcefully in his opening statement at the Committee's May 1 hearing.  Speaking to USTR Michael Froman, Senator Hatch, the Committee's Ranking Member, said:

Earlier in his statement, Senator Hatch had said, "Without TPA, your trade agenda will almost certainly fail."

And what if TPP does just fade away, what then?  As we have noted elsewhere, American exporters will increasingly find themselves with uncompetitive products in world with an array of new trade rules - including unfavorable tariff rates - from agreements that do not include the United States.   Without the hope of TPP or something like it, how will the U.S. respond?  Unfortunately, it is all too easy to imagine some rather unattractive policies resulting, beginning with more punitive actions against the alleged unfairness of others.
With apologies for what may seem like a non-sequitur, we note that Canada's Council of Chief Executives recently published a report suggesting that all of Canada be made a free-trade zone.  Get rid of all the tariffs, they suggest, arguing that doing so would generate $20 billion a year in new economic activity.  "Unilateral tariff elimination" the reports says, "would propel us forward toward a more productive and technologically advanced industrial base, raising Canada's overall standard of living."

We have no idea where that is going.  But how refreshing that Canada's CEOs would propose it.  More to the point, countries with the confidence to produce that kind of thinking may find it a lot easier to make deals around the world than ones that feel the need to cling to every last scrap of import protection they have.

"Good Bye."