Will the TPP Be Completed before Obama Leaves Office?

Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 6 August 2015
by Yin Chengde (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Joe Matthews. Edited by Helaine Schweitzer.
On July 31, America and the other 11 member countries of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TTP) ended three days of tense negotiations. All sides have been unable to reach a consensus on a web of issues including intellectual property rights and access to agricultural markets. The U.S. has kept member countries in marathon negotiations, but to no avail. However, the negotiations are showing signs of progress and appear to be focusing on the “finishing touches.” There are still two major obstacles to the deal: opposition in the U.S. Congress and issues concerning agricultural products in Japan. The former has already been basically resolved and there appears to be progress on the latter, which will help solve the issues with Japan. It looks as though this year, or at the latest, early next year, the TPP negotiations will be completed. A new trans-Pacific regional free trade institution will officially come into being.

The original members of the TPP were Chile, Brunei, Singapore and New Zealand, which, in 2005, began negotiations and were able to produce and sign a free trade area-style economic and trade agreement. Later, America found that it would be advantageous to join this agreement, and in 2008, entered into discussions, later becoming the driver of negotiations. America took the lead to expand the plan, bringing in Japan, Canada, Vietnam, Malaysia and other countries to broaden the group to 12 members. The TPP would have its own rules for joining, based on the absolute acceptance of free trade. This agreement would break free from the traditional framework for free trade agreements to create the 21st century’s first high standard, comprehensive free trade agreement. It would touch upon labor, environmental protection, intellectual property rights, investment resolution mechanisms, infrastructure and government procurement rules, as well as other areas.

America’s high standard agreement, under broad leadership, has met a number of problems in each of the member countries, causing negotiations to drag on. Reaching an agreement will require each country to weigh the pros and cons, as well as make compromises. In the end, however, the agreement will reflect the thinking of American policy. If the agreement can be reached, it will be a major piece of Obama’s legacy.

America’s pushing of the TPP and the political and economic evolution of the Asia-Pacific and East Asian regions are closely connected. East Asia has already become the major economic center of the world. It is now the largest market, the fastest developing, and the market that is most full of vitality and potential. As America’s influence has declined, so has its market share, which now lags behind China.

A free trade region between the nations of East Asia is developing — one agreement of note is the free trade area between China and ASEAN, which doesn’t include the United States. To restore its old position, America has pushed the TPP to achieve several goals at once. America aims to increase its exports, maintain involvement in the integration of East Asia, and to maintain its position in the geo-economic, geopolitical and safety issues of the region. To this end, America seeks to hold to the rule establishing authority for 21st century global free trade agreements.

Therefore, America has pushed forward on TPP negotiations with great vigor, to the point of making great “sacrifices.” If America compromises too much in negotiations, especially with regard to the demands of Vietnam and other developing countries, then there will be a transfer of benefits to these countries. According to figures from an authoritative American research institute’s 2014 report, the TPP will only add .4 percent to annual per capita income for Americans, compared to an increase of 14 percent for the Vietnamese.

To establish the TPP, America has invested a large amount of political, economic and diplomatic resources that are not commensurate with the gains to be had. This shows that the real motives for America’s actions are political and strategic, and can be thus called 30 percent economic and 70 percent political. The real goal is for America to occupy the top position in a unified Asia-Pacific region, and to re-establish its dominant and unrivaled leadership position in this strategically important region, and ultimately maintain its dominant position as the world’s only superpower. Even more important is the fact that reaching a final TPP agreement is a critical element of the United States’ “pivot to Asia,” and its plan to act as a buffer and inhibit the rise of China. America has brought countries which have territorial disputes with China and ASEAN, such as Japan and Vietnam, into TPP discussions, clearly in a bid to counter China. It is no wonder that some media sources have labeled the TPP an “economic NATO.” America has inserted stipulations with regard to government procurement to hold back China’s move to establish the Asia Investment and Infrastructure Bank. Recently, President Obama said, “If we don’t establish the rules for global free trade, then China will.” These words show that America is pushing the TPP not for the economic benefit of member states, but to inhibit the rise of China.

If the TPP negotiations take longer and become drawn out, America may revisit its thinking. America has not invited China to join the TPP and has effectively shut out China and thus politicized the TPP. America is using the TPP has a tool to curb the rise of China, which will hurt the U.S., China and the TPP in the end. The U.S. should reverse its thinking and position, and turn these “three losses” into “three wins.”


7月31日,美国等12个“跨太平洋伙伴关系”(TPP)成员国在夏威夷结束了为期3天的紧张谈判。由于各方在棘手的知识产权、农产品市场开放等问题上仍未能弥合分歧,美国操控的TPP成员国经过5年多超“马拉松”式谈判再次拖而不决。但此轮谈判使各方立场进一步接近,现在只差“临门一脚”。基于完成TPP谈判是奥巴马政府当务之急,其两个最大障碍——美国会反对和美日农产品谈判僵局都出现关键性变化,前者已基本解决,后者已取得实质进展,预计今年内或最晚在奥巴马明年底离任前,TPP协议谈判可能修成“正果”,一个新的跨太平洋区域自贸组织可望正式问世。

  TPP原名“跨太平洋战略经济伙伴关系”,是由智利、文莱、新加坡、新西兰四国于2005年发起成立,并签署和生效了自贸区式的经贸协议。后来美国发现有利可图,遂于2008年加入TPP,并“鸠占鹊巢”,全面主导其谈判进程。它包办扩员计划,将日本、加拿大、越南、马来西亚等亚太7国拉入其中,使TPP成员扩为12国;为TPP量身定制规则,将其绝对自由贸易理念引入谈判,提出要突破传统的自贸协定模式,将TPP打造成一个面向21世纪的高标准、综合性自贸协议典范,将劳工政策、环境保护、知识产权、有关投资的国家争端解决机制和包括承建基础设施建设的政府采购原则纳入协议内容。美国所定高标准和极宽泛主张曲高和寡,各国争议很大,这是谈判久拖不决的要因。未来可能达成的协议将是各国权衡利弊,互作妥协的产物,但它仍将基本反映美国的政策思路。如果能达成将是奥巴马一大政治遗产。

  美国力推TPP协议,同亚太特别是同东亚政经格局的演变密切相关。东亚已崛起为世界主要经济中心,是全球规模最大、发展最快、活力和潜力最大的市场,而美国在东亚影响下降,其市场占有率明显降低,落在中国之后;东亚各国之间自贸区建设蓬勃发展,其中中国和东盟自贸区尤为成功,而美国都在其外。为挽回颓势,美力推TPP,以求一箭三雕,即打开庞大的东亚市场,为其“出口倍增”计划找到主要支撑点;掌控亚太经济一体化整合进程,维护其地缘经济、政治、安全利益;谋求21世纪全球贸易规则制定权。

为此,美国对促成TPP协议谈判费尽心力,甚至作出重大利益“牺牲”。如它在谈判中作出妥协让步最多,特别注意照顾越南等发展中伙伴的处境和需求,甚至向他们进行利益输送。据美国权威机构2014年研究报告,到2025年,美国加入TPP后国民收入只比不加入增加0.4%,越南却将增加14%。

  美国为了建成TPP这一跨太平洋自贸区机制,投入了大量政治、经济、外交资源,其经济收益却与之很不相称。这说明其“醉翁之意”主要不在经济,而在于政治和战略方面, 即所谓“三分经济,七分政治”。其主旨在于占据亚太区域一体化制高点,以重振它在这一至关重要的战略区独一无二的主角和主导地位,进而维护和加强其在世界的独超霸权地位。更重要的是,缔结《跨太平洋伙伴关系协议》是美国“重返亚洲”战略的重要组成部分,主要矛头是应对与遏制中国崛起。它把亚太地区的盟国和同中国有领土主权争端的日本,越南纳入其中,显含拉帮结派对付中国之意,难怪有的媒体把TPP称为“经济北约”。它把政府采购原则引入协议条款,显系牵制中国倡建的亚投行之举。奥巴马总统不久前更是明确声言:“如果我们不能制定全球贸易规则,中国会为我们制定”。这就一语道出了美国力推TPP,不惜向其他成员国让渡重大经济利益背后“遏制中国”的政治意图。

TPP谈判久拖不决,美国是否应反思其指导理念。美国不邀中国加入TPP,实际是将中国拒之门外,甚至将TPP政治化,将其作为遏华工具,更是逆潮流而动,这只能使中美和TPP三方受损。美国应改弦更张,转变抗拒中国的错误立场,变三输为三赢,这才是它的明智选择。(作者是中国国际问题研究基金会研究员,前中国驻美国使馆参赞,环球网特约评论员)
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Turkey: Pay Up or Step Aside: Tariffs in America’s ‘Protection Money’ Diplomacy

Canada: Minnesota School Shooting Is Just More Proof That America Is Crazed

Mexico: The Network of Intellectuals and Artists in Defense of Venezuela and President Nicholás Maduro

Australia: Australia Boosts Corporate Law Enforcement as America Goes Soft

Topics

Peru: Blockade ‘For Now’

Japan: US President and the Federal Reserve Board: Harmonious Dialogue To Support the Dollar

Austria: The EU Must Recognize That a Tariff Deal with Trump Is Hardly Worth Anything

Mexico: The Network of Intellectuals and Artists in Defense of Venezuela and President Nicholás Maduro

Hong Kong: Cordial Cross-Strait Relations Will Spare Taiwan Trump’s Demands, Says Paul Kuoboug Chang

Germany: The Tariffs Have Side Effects — For the US Too*

Ireland: We Must Stand Up to Trump on Climate. The Alternative Is Too Bleak To Contemplate

Canada: Carney Takes Us Backward with Americans on Trade

Related Articles

Thailand: Appeasing China Won’t Help Counter Trump

India: Will New US Envoy Help to Repair Ties under Threat?

France: Global South: Trump Is Playing into China’s Hands

Zimbabwe: What the West Doesn’t Understand about China’s Growing Military Might

Sri Lanka: Trump Is Very Hard on India and Brazil, but For Very Different Reasons

Previous article
Next article

1 COMMENT

  1. The U.S. welcomes China’s rise. But China is scaring everyone with their aggressive actions in support of their vast territorial claims and their refusal to negotiate with the other countries involved.