Rik Dalvit/For the Capital Press

By the Capital Press

The Trans-Pacific Partnership, a big multi-nation trade pact, has been negotiated and within the month will begin a long process of ratification by member countries.

The agreement — known by its initials TPP — is designed to improve trade relations between the 12 participating countries, including the United States, Japan, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Vietnam, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Brunei Darussalam.

We are for trade. It’s the lifeblood of American farmers and ranchers, particularly those in the Northwest. Anything that facilitates the opening of markets abroad is probably good.

In a teleconference with reporters, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack touted these among the benefits of the pact:

• TPP eliminates or reduces tariffs or taxes assessed by other countries on U.S. agricultural products, including beef, pork, poultry, dairy, horticulture, rice, grains, soybeans, wheat, cotton and processed products.

• The agreement includes safeguards to protect U.S. markets from other countries essentially dumping product into the country.

• TPP gives the United States an additional opportunity to contest sanitary and phytosanitary standards that are not based on risk or science.

• Beef and pork producers will see reductions in taxes levied by Japan on their products. The deal expands the market for dairy products such as cheese and yogurt in Japan and Canada.

So, painted with a broad brush the deal sounds good for American agriculture. That said, this is a complex treaty with a lot of moving parts. The devil may well be hiding in the details that have yet to be made public.

Critics are concerned with portions of the pact that deal with intellectual property, the Internet and dispute resolution.

Opponents worry that one common component of recent trade agreements, known as “investor-state dispute settlement,” will allow big, multi-national corporations at odds with American laws to bypass U.S. courts in favor of an expert panel of arbitrators.

Where once such a provision made sense when companies didn’t want to risk the third-world judicial system, opponents point out that most if not all participants of the TPP have stable, established legal systems.

Critics say the deal includes provisions that could severely restrict the Internet and remove “fair use” protections for use of copyrighted material. Labor unions oppose the deal because they say it will move more American jobs overseas.

Although alleged drafts of the deal have been posted to Wikileaks, we probably won’t get official copies for another 30 days, after Congress has reviewed the pact. The public will then get 60 days to pore over the terms.

Congress gave President Obama “fast track” authority in negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership. As such, it can only give the deal an up or down vote, and it can’t amend it. So, weighing the relative benefits and potential harms of those details is all the more important.

Without benefit of a complete text, the deal appears to us to be positive for U.S. farmers and ranchers. We are for trade, but not for a deal for a deal’s sake. We await a vigorous debate.