T

he concept of fair trade is a simple and undeniable one. Billions of people around the world have already benefited from it '€” perhaps no more so than in Asia, the world'€™s most dynamic region.

So it is clear that continued '€” and, importantly, more broadly enjoyed '€” prosperity will demand the protection afforded by high standard free trade agreements (FTAs)

By their very nature, of course, multilateral trade agreements are complex to finalize. But, again by their nature, that'€™s because they serve a long-term, broad interest. In other words, they'€™re worth the time invested in getting them right.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is no exception and it is significant that Japan has just sought '€” and been given '€” the opportunity to join the negotiations aimed at making this partnership a reality.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has made it clear that he considers the TPP critical to his plans for opening his country'€™s economy to more competition and reviving growth. That'€™s potentially a game changer not just for Japan'€™s economy but also regionally and internationally. With Japan now joining other TPP countries '€” the United States, Canada, Mexico, Peru, Chile, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Australia and New Zealand '€” the proposed pact would cover nearly 40 percent of global economic output and one-third of all world trade.

The importance to the global economy of the TPP has brought into sharp relief the need for acceptance of the underlying principles of any such pact and the inevitable challenges created by unilateral demands or special interests.

Of course there will be caveats. No multilateral trade agreement is flawless in the sense that there are always some exceptions or concessions within the framework; in that respect the negotiations among countries can be rather like a multi-dimensional chess game.

But the TPP'€™s true potential depends on each country demonstrating the maturity, foresight and pragmatism necessary to make it the gold standard of trade agreements.

For example, it cannot include carving out whole industry sectors for special protection or different treatment '€” that'€™s a very slippery slope we don'€™t want to get onto '€” or allow state-owned enterprises to behave in ways that would be unacceptable for commercial ones.

Clearly, a comprehensive, high-standard TPP would be impossible to achieve if, instead of pursuing trade-enhancing solutions that improve the viability and accessibility of their economies, negotiators were focused on one-off protectionist policies

Which is why '€” on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) gathering in Surabaya earlier this month '€” the Asia-Pacific Council of American Chambers of Commerce (APCAC) issued a declaration outlining the standards to which we believe any trade agreement, including the TPP, must aspire.

The language is clear, so I will quote part of the declaration rather than paraphrase it:

'€œThe broadest open and reciprocal market access possible should be ensured for all product groups as well as services and investments. Product exclusions and differential treatment create systemic risks for the global trade networks, thereby undermining WTO provisions, restricting trade and setting dangerous regulatory precedents that would turn back the clock on trade liberalization.'€

Crucial to the TPP and all future trade agreements also are the highest standards of protection of investment and intellectual property rights, including patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets across all industries. This level of protection, APCAC believes is what will '€œstimulate innovation, economic growth and job creation.'€ Which, after all, is the whole point, isn'€™t it?

Is all of the above an easy ask? Of course not. Concessions and compromises are rarely straightforward in a multilateral situation. Paradoxically '€” and particularly for economies just coming to grips with certain aspects of liberalization '€” change is a lot easier to accept within a multilateral forum. If it'€™s about '€œsharing the pain'€ '€” and about keeping in mind that it'€™s a short-term pain aimed at a long-term gain i.e. future competitiveness.

The United States '€” like any country involved in a trade agreement '€” has its own interests to protect. Intellectual property rights is always a stand-out in that respect. But in some ways, that'€™s the whole point. We are vocal and vigilant on the issue precisely because we know the value of IP '€” we'€™re home to some of the best in the world '€” and so we know that for other economies taking an equally strong stand on IP rights protection will see them move up the value chain.

The 17th round of TPP talks will take place in Lima, Peru, in May. Already an 18th session is planned for July and it'€™s unclear how many rounds will be necessary to reach a final agreement. Japan'€™s participation inevitably adds an additional '€” but ironically, in this case, welcome '€” layer of complexity to the negotiations.

It'€™s still possible we will wrap things up within 2013 but if the talks do end up stretching into 2014, it should be because of an intense focus on achieving the long-term mutually beneficial goals of the TPP and not because negotiators are wrangling over self-interested issues clearly at odds with the objectives of a high-standard '€” hopefully a gold standard '€” trade agreement.

The writer is United States Chamber of Commerce Vice President, Asia Division. APCAC groups 28 chambers representing some 10,000 US businesses in Asia-Pacific.