Get help from the best in academic writing.

Trans – Pacific Partnership (TPP) History and Negotiations

Executive Summary The Trans – Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a now obsolete trade agreement between Australis, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and the United States, which was signed on the 4th of February 2016. Even after 11 years of negotiation the agreement was not ratified and then voided do to the change of presidents in the United States and their withdrawal. However, the other remaining countries did negotiate a new deal called the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which incorporates most of the provisions of the TPP and was enforceable from 30 December 2018. The TPP (for which is better known as) began in 2005 after an expansion of the Trans- Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPSEP) signed by Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, and Singapore in 2005. In the following years, additional countries joined the negotiations until it expanded into a very broad encompassing pacific rim treaty. In all twelve countries ended up signing the agreement, with the Untied Stated withdrawing during the first ninety days of Donald Trumps’ presidency. The TPP was a massive multi-government agreement that was intended to reduce tariff barriers, protect the environment, expand human rights, protect intellectual property, establish a fair investor-state arbitration system, increase labor rights, and facilitate regulatory cooperation, while increase economic trade between smaller and larger economies. The Beginning of the TPP traces it history back to the TESPA which was signed agreement in 2005 between four countries, Brunei, Chile, Singapore and New Zealand , these four smaller economies began the framework for what would become one of the largest trade agreements in the modern world. In 2008 the US decided to enter into negotiation with these four smaller economies which began the creation of the TPP as other countries began to follow the US’s lead over the next decade. Over this 11-year negotiation, there were nineteen formal rounds or negotiation with various other informal and smaller meetings between participating countries trying to ensure that their citizen’s best interest is protected while increasing trade and commerce. In the following paper, I will discuss certain Rounds of negotiation and how the techniques used were put to the test during this dynamic and highly complex multi-party negotiation was conducted. In particular, I will review the US Negotiation notes from four specific rounds; these are Round 1 Melbourne, Round 4 Auckland, Round 6 Singapore, Round 9 Lima. As the negotiation progressed through each round, the issues became more complex, and the skills and team sizes became even more difficult to maneuver through the complex web of stakeholders and interested parties. Round 1 Melbourne (2010) Eight Members of the TPP, with over 200 delegates, from the USA, Australia, Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam; meet to discuss and kick off the negotiations in a planning session. This round discussed the framework and how each country could provide input to the overall partnership and how the aspects of the treaty will be raised and discussed. This negotiation situation revealed all of the primary interests and issues making this a very complex integrative negotiation situation. This is true because an Integrative situation is one based off of focusing on the common issues and not their differences. So each country came into this first round trying to focus on these issues and ensure that each party understands the common issues. Without information sharing than the negotiation is more of a win-lose situation instead of a win-win. The benefits of approaching round one in such an open dialogue is to set the ground work to try and make the integrative negotiation a win-win for all parties, this then allows you in further rounds to: focus on the shared issues, bring out each parties needs and wants, which allows each party to address them in the negotiation, focus on the commitment to solve each parties issues, share information on the issues and create ideas on how to solve the issues and create options that solve each party issues. Communication during the initial negotiation phase creates information sharing, which can then lead to problem solving. Round 4: Auckland (2010) Round four is when the TPP negotiations seemed to pull out of the issues, positions, and interests of each participating party. Each country came to Auckland with an understanding of what they waited to achieve, and from my research it seems that each country showed up understanding their BATNA and what their stakeholders were expecting as an outcome. This round included more than 100 stakeholders from five countries who provided direct input directly to the negotiators. There was an entire day of exchanging and sharing ideas, while the lead negotiators tried to extract information from their counterparts. As we have learned, the issues that were discussed during this period, will eventually become our principle’s that one can enter a formal agreement. To understand the issue each country also need to understand the position of each party involved and also understand the interest of each stakeholder, which is why they care about each issue and take certain positions. Most importantly in this round is when the negotiators set their BANTA. There are four major reasons why a negotiators BATNA is the most important source of power, It increases your chances of making the initial offer, as we have learned making the opening offer and hearing the counteroffer will provide you with vital information as you try to find our your opponent’s BATNA. Having a strong BATNA increases your outcomes and as well as other outcomes. A BATNA gives you the ability and knowledge to know when to walk away, this is a power that is often over looked. A BATNA also provides you with leverage, knowledge is power and a good BATNA gives you great knowledge on the situation. This allows you to make informed decisions during the negotiation. And last but not least, a good BATNA increase your share of the pie, pie expansion and overall goal achievement is why we are in the negotiation in the first place. During Round 4 of the TPP negotiation, the parties involved where using their BANTA to increase their overall position, and many stakeholders met in small working groups trying to understand the issues, position, and interest of all parties involved. Round 6: Singapore (2011) This round of negotiation is where the TPP party members made significant progress and began laying out the framework and legal text that would be the base of the agreement. This was accomplished by the teams exchanging initial offers on services and investment, government procurement and product specific rules of origin. This specific round really lays out how this large multi-party negotiation is one of the most complex integrative negotiations in recent history. This round of negotiation showed cooperation, tried to create a win-win situation, the problems where set as overall agenda items, it was interest based and overall everyone was concerned on the overall mutual gain that would be accomplished if the TPP was successful. The interest based overall negotiation was reinforced during the closing moments of this round with the release of a memorandum where the participants agreed to continue to work and collaborate to further build on the momentum achieved during round 6. I think this memorandum was one of the key outcomes of this round as this publicly and privately continued to build trust within the ranks of the party member’s. Allowing the negotiators to come back to their stakeholders and show that progress was made, as we have learned in the intercultural negotiations, saving face and showing progress is very important to all cultures, however, some take trust building more importantly than others. This round also showed that the negotiators were able to focus on interests, and not positions. In this round the member states showed the importance of communication and how they used it successfully to maintain relationship between all parties. There are many reasons why communication breakdown’s happen within group . The first reason and I feel the most important reason is the informational and computational issue, which is as you add more parties to the negotiation the communication path becomes more complex. As with any conversation, when you begin sharing information and increasing the number of senders and receivers, the message can become muffled. In a dyad you may be able to take turns speaking and exchanging ideas. Whereas in a multi-group scenario, parties might be fighting for time or one party in the group might not be giving sufficient time to speak. When it comes time to close the deal this one-party might be the reason why a deal wasn’t met. The next reason is that communication breakdowns in larger groups is that in these larger groups there is larger more complicated social structure, this social complexity is the dynamics that the social environment will have on the negotiation, there could be coalitions controlling the conversation which will make other parties potentially feel excluded from the negotiation and may affect the group’s ability to come to an agreement. The communication process is another attribute why the multi-party communication is more complex than one-to-one conversations. This process can be confusing for the parties involved, there can be confusion on who’s turn is it, or perhaps misunderstanding on what the agreement was. Because of these reasons, I feel this memorandum was very important, as it showed the participating parties and their stakeholders that there was good communication and alignment with in the groups to ensure a positive outcome for all parties involved. Round 9: Lima (2011) This was one of the more interesting round of negotiation, as we will see a small emergence of the Asia-pacific coalition forming. From my research, I do not feel that this was combative or for the reason to block any agreement, instead it seemed that the smaller Asian economies know that they will be a major player in the 21 century economic growth. What truly bound this coalition together was an understanding that their emergence on the global stage and that the six smaller countries still held great opportunity for investment for the larger economy’s. This band together to make ourselves a larger force, helped it gain traction and put a larger emphasis on swaying the negotiation towards a favorable outcome for them. The power of this coalition is because Asia already accounts for a larger percentage of export jobs and import material, and for many years we have heard how these economies will grow faster that the world average. What was interesting about the Lima discussion’s is that the smaller APAC countries decided to protect themselves; they remembered that each party has an interest and is as powerful as the other party. To do this one needs to make sure you understand your resistance point and stick to it. Do not feel obligated to stick a deal, just because the other party is more powerful. As shown in the fourth session each country has a strong BATNA- this is important because it will give you the information required to ensure your position is strong, so that you will know where you stand if your current negotiation falls through. You may want to try and let the other party know what your alternative is (maybe partner with china), this can help restore some power to your side of the table. It is important to make sure your negotiation has an alert system, this is a system that will let you know that you are approaching your resistance points. You may also improve your power, this can be done by using some different strategies, you many enlist a third party to help improve your power, the power holder (other party) may surrender some power, and you as the powerless may take power back. There are many tactics that help the powerless achieve more power through the contextual source of power. The benefit of this is that as a negotiator try’s to change the power level within a negotiation, it will become more collaborative. As each party will begin to see that a hardline win-lose approach is not worth it and the power party will naturally begin to release some power back to the party in the low-power position. TPP Overall After detailed analysis of the TPP and seeing that it took over 10 years, 19 formal rounds of negotiation and included thousands of various stakeholders, I would say that the TPP was a very successful collaborative negotiation. This complex treaty was setting the TPP countries up for economic successes and could have laid the ground work for many other multi- party negotiations specific to this region. All the negotiators in the TPP, where patient, collective, calculated, understood their BANTA, responsive to their Stakeholders, and collaborative, which I feel is why this was such a success. The ability to share information and ensure that the outcome was for the greater good of all involved is shown by when the United states withdrew their bid, the remaining parties then formed another alliance without the US called Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), which has many of the same fundamental agreements and articles that was in the TPP. This shows that each of the 12 parties, negotiation not for one beneficiary, but instead for the greater good of the group, as this second agreement was easily ratified by the remaining 11 countries. Reflection Who am I (Tough/Soft/ /Carrot and Stick/Collaborative) As a negotiator, I feel that I am a Hodge podge of negotiation personality’s I switch between, tough, soft, carrot
Comparisons of the Religions and Plato’s Allegory of the Cave essay.

Short essays- you may use parenthetical citations for the Main text and the Reader as follows: (MT p. number) or Reader p. number). If you use a secondary source please include a works cited page including citation of this source in body of the paper. 1) Write an essay comparing and contrasting Judaism, Christianity and Islamic thought on the following themes: 1) Messianic v Prophetic tradition 2) The nature of Sin stemming from Creation 3) The resulting differences of viewpoints on how salvation in understood in the 3 traditions. 2) Write a brief essay on Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” from the Reader. Use the information on the Divided Line, the Forms and role of education to interpret the allegory.
Comparisons of the Religions and Plato’s Allegory of the Cave essay

American Foreign Policies International Communist Expansion Discussion

American Foreign Policies International Communist Expansion Discussion.

Required Resources Read/review the following resources for this activity:
OpenStax. (2019). U.S. history. OpenStax CNX. Retrieved from[email protected]:[email protected]/… (Sections 28.2, 29.1, 30.3, 31.3)
Minimum of 1 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook)

Instructions Pick three (3) of the following American Foreign policies:
Marshall Plan
Berlin Airlift
Anti-Communist Freedom Fighters
Vietnam (conflict) War
Camp David Accords
Strategic Defense Initiative (nicknamed “Star Wars”)
Then, address the following for your selections:
Explain how each of your choices was an effective policy to thwart international communist expansion.
Based on your selections, analyze if the United States should have feared international communist subversion during the Cold War era (1945-1991).
American Foreign Policies International Communist Expansion Discussion

positive aspects of strategic leadership

nursing essay writing service positive aspects of strategic leadership.

1. Choose a CEO of a prominent firm that you believe exemplifies the positive aspects of strategic leadership. What actions does this CEO take that demonstrate effective strategic leadership? What are the effects of those actions on the firm’s performance?2. Select a CEO of a prominent firm that you believe does not exemplify the positive aspects of strategic leadership. What actions did this CEO take that are inconsistent with effective strategic leadership? How have those ineffective actions affected the firm’s performance?3. Select an organization that has a unique organizational culture. What characteristics of that culture make it unique? Has the culture had a significant effect on the organization’s performance? If so, what is that effect?
positive aspects of strategic leadership

Critical Decision Making for Providers

Critical Decision Making for Providers.

View the scenario called “Critical Decision Making for Providers” found in the Allied Health Community media (…)In a 750-1,200 word paper, describe the scenario involving Mike, the lab technician, and answer the following questions:What were the consequences of a failure to report?What impact did his decision have on patient safety, on the risk for litigation, on the organization’s quality metrics, and on the workload of other hospital departments?As Mike’s manager, what will you do to address the issue with him and ensure other staff members do not repeat the same mistakes?A minimum of three academic references from credible sources are required for this assignment.Prepare this assignment according to the APA guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.This assignment uses a grading rubric. Instructors will be using the rubric to grade the assignment; therefore, students should review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the assignment criteria and expectations for successful completion of the assignment.You are required to submit this assignment to Turnitin. Refer to the directions in the Student Success Center. Only Word documents can be submitted to Turnitin.
Critical Decision Making for Providers

study many different aspects of humanity in order to fully understand the diversity of the human species. Remember, evolution can apply to both physical and societal changes, so things like language and customs can evolve just as much as bodies and brains. In this assignment, you will examine how anthropologists from two different subfields can study evolution (change over time). Be sure you download the attached worksheet, fill it out, and submit it. Other formats (for example, a paper, will not be accepted)

Directions: In the table that is provided, type your answers to these questions: Explain what physical anthropology is, and how physical anthropologists study evolution. Find at least one scholarly source that identifies a specific research project in which physical anthropologists study evolution (e.g. the Human Genome Project- conduct your own original research, do not use this example). Describe the research project and its significance in our understanding of evolution. Choose a second subfield of anthropology (cultural anthropology, linguistic anthropology, or archaeology). Explain what the second subfield focuses on, and how anthropologists in this subfield study evolution. Find at least one scholarly source that identifies a specific research project in which anthropologist from this subfield study evolution. For example, an archaeologist may look at how tools have changed through time, and what has caused that change (conduct your own original research, do not use this example). Describe the research project and its significance in our understanding of evolution. Compare and contrast how physical anthropologists and anthropologists in the subfield you chose study evolution. Writing Expectations: All written submissions should be submitted using APA formatting. In part, this includes: APA formatting for citations and references used in your assignment. Typewritten in double-spaced format with a readable style and font and submitted inside the electronic classroom. Arial 11 or 12-point font or Times New Roman styles. Page margins Top, Bottom, Left Side and Right Side = 1 inch, with reasonable accommodation being made for special situations and online submission variances. Submit a .doc, .rtf, or .pdf