TPP11. The government linked the discussion of TPP11 with the results of the Exit Plebiscite, according to two presentations delivered by the Deputy Chief Minister of International Economic Relations (Subrei), José Miguel Ahumada, before members of parliament.

• The first incident occurred on April 12, while accompanying Foreign Minister Antonia Urrejola to the Senate. His second chance was on August 9, when he exhibited -alone- in the Chamber of Deputies.

• On both occasions, he stressed that the questions most relevant to the TPP11, as well as other similar agreements, point to the fact that it has a different dispute resolution system from the new global trend of having a stable court than AD hoc.

Senate. It April 12, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Ahumada explained that what is related to TPP11 is “a Senate matter”. His advice, however, aims to take into account that there are new areas now being negotiated in the world, such as issues of gender, quality of work or value chains.

• In particular, it focuses on dispute resolution mechanisms. He paralleled TPP11 (officially called CPTPP) with RCEP (a pact between China and Southeast Asian countries) and others. “The world’s largest free trade agreement, RCEP, does not include the dispute resolution mechanisms that exist in most of our agreements that we signed decades ago. The free trade agreement between Australia and the UK also does not include a dispute resolution mechanism of this type. USMCA, Nafta 2.0, Canada are also excluded from this dispute resolution mechanism”.

• He stated, there is no clear evidence of the benefits of TPP.

• After the introduction, he mentioned the link between the TPP and the results of the Exit Plebiscite: “In the process of discussing this constitution, we should wait until we have the fundamental pillars of this new constitution in place to assess whether such an agreement follows the strategic steps behind this Constitution. So, therefore, when our Constitution is ready, hopefully later we will be able to see if this agreement is in line with the type of Constitution that we are proposing, namely what the citizens are proposing,” he said.

Deputy. The second official event where Ahumada planted the fate of the TPP on the outcome of the Plebiscite was August 9, before the Committee on Foreign Relations from the Chamber of Deputies.

• “We will wait for the results of the Plebiscite to start discussions about it. This is what we have been proposing for quite some time. And this is not on a whim: for a different reason. The first reason is that [propuesta de nueva] The Political Constitution does have several sections that emphasize the importance of having a permanent, independent and impartial dispute resolution mechanism. I remind you that article 289, paragraph 12, says that, when negotiating international investment agreements, the President will ensure that the dispute resolution mechanism is permanent, independent and impartial”.

• In this way, he told deputies, the first objective was to adapt the agreement to the new dispute resolution mechanism. “Therefore, it is important to be able to wait for the new constitution,” he said.

• He recalled the tendency to establish more permanent courts, such as the investment courts proposed by the European Union. “In such a way, while waiting for the plebiscite, we can continue this discussion on how to ensure that the trade agreement we want to ratify has a neutral, impartial and permanent dispute resolution mechanism,” stressed Ahumada.

Constitutional Proposal. The proposed constitution states the following in article 289, paragraph 12: “When negotiating international investment treaties or instruments or the like, whoever exercises the Presidency of the Republic will ensure that the dispute resolution body is impartial, independent and preferably permanent.”

• On September 4th, That text rejection is 62%, and Approval reached 38%. Thus, the proposal that is linked to the fate of the TPP by Deputy Secretary Ahumado.

Disputes in the Government. Now there is a confrontation between the two coalitions that support the Government regarding the TPP11.

• Meanwhile, the Executive presented the so-called strategy side letter (parallel letters): this is a proposal submitted to the other 10 signatories of the treaty, in which they were asked to exclude Chile from the investor-State dispute settlement chapter. New Zealand did something similar a few years ago and got approval from five countries (and Chile is not among them). In the best case, Chile can count on favorable responses from similar countries (Brunei, Malaysia, Peru, and Vietnam), in addition to New Zealand (where Chile should also provide equal treatment).

• The TPP11 is left on the table to be voted on by the Senate Chamber this Wednesday, but is likely to be delayed by at least another week when the ruling party bench calls for it by internal rules.

• While I Agree to Dignity (PC, Broad Front, FRVS) has explicitly rejected the treaty’s ratification, within Democratic Socialism there is a group of MPs who support it, including Ricardo Lagos Weber (PPD) and José Miguel Insulza (PS). Just one Democratic Socialism vote was enough for the Senate to approve the initiative, given that it was sent by a majority and the rights already had 50%.

• Another form of this conflict of views occurs in the Government itself. While Democratic Socialism ministers such as Mario Marcel (Treasury), Carolina Tohá (Interior) and Antonia Urrejola (RR. EE.) supported his approval, Dignidad Approve holders such as Camila Vallejo (Segegob), Jeannette Jara (Labour) and Antonia Irellana (Women) – members of the Political-Committee, keep silent (or at least be silent).

• President Gabriel Boric himself defined that as a government he was not pushing for a deal, but neither would they interfere in the legislative process in the Senate. However, an option emerged as a way out: if the Senate approved the TPP11, as expected, the President had exclusive constitutional power to ratify it. A) Yes, one option being studied is delaying ratification while waiting for the results of the strategy side letter.