TPP: There’s Even More

While they were taking the first steps to approve and kick off the U.S.-backed Trans-Pacific Partnership in Atlanta last week, China went ahead and formed another large, multinational agreement, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, joining 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and six other countries. With a population of 3.3 billion, the 16 partners, whose center of gravity is in Asia, would add up to potential production and consumption greater than that of the TPP.

Many of us believe that the TPP, born of a small commercial agreement Brunei signed with Chile and Singapore in 2005, is the strategic key which the United States is using to respond to the growing economic and political influence of China. The background is a rivalry for world hegemony. With the openings that the TPP provides to markets of the North American Free Trade Agreement and South America, the United States wants to collect political sympathy and allegiance from the countries of the Pacific.

The political effectiveness of this strategy may be diluted in the face of new forces in the great chess game between the powers of the 21st century. The TPP is not the only option for countries that are not drawn to the United States’ attempt at global dominance. The RCEP economic partnership, mentioned above and which China is promoting with Asian countries, advances an alternative formula.

The virtual antagonism could result in an expansion that each group is seeking, and that multiplies the instances of countries belonging to both agreements. At present, seven countries belong to both groups: Brunei, Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia, Vietnam, Singapore and Malaysia. New Zealand sees both the TPP and the RCEP as parallel tracks to reach a free-trade area of the Asia Pacific.

To avoid a confrontation of aspirations, recent statements emerging from Beijing and members of ASEAN — that includes India — show an understanding that the group which China is promoting is compatible with the TPP. In effect, the U.S. and China have both become members of the TPP and RCEP.

It is interesting to note how the current economic and trade interests appear in direct contrast to the fierce hatred of yesteryear, now relegated to historical reminiscences and not expected to reappear and carry the great powers to the catastrophe of a new world war.

Nobody can define what the future holds for those who live in the Pacific Ocean basin. But there are positive signs. The lavish reception which Britain’s Queen Elizabeth offered Xi Jinping buries China’s deep resentment for its ancient and infamous invader. Inaugurating new times, Beijing has extended forgiveness to its old oppressors against the rhythm of a promising era of mutually beneficial cooperation.

The new hegemonies are commercial and financial. It is possible that many of the disputes that remain entrenched can be resolved by negotiated compensation. However, the quest for power that haunted generations of the past will not end. The ambition of the leaders and their attempts at foreign domination will persist, but this time through making use of other weapons: those of technology.

Given this picture, it is worthwhile to elaborate on the goals that individually and collectively animate Mexico, Chile and Peru — TPP partners; with Colombia, Panama and Costa Rica — as members of the Pacific Alliance. Other Latin American brother countries will join. Brazil may break into the Pacific basin thanks to a channel through the Amazon.

The habitual growth of multinational groups will continue. Tariff and administrative advantages they carry could reach the point where they stop making sense, but in this or any other circumstance, Latin America must shape its own profile and interests.

Standardizing all conditions and rules of international trade under a single pattern of behavior will not eliminate the commitment of any country to defining its vision and basic structure for the world. The comment that Barack Obama offered at the end of the TPP negotiations on Oct. 5 is revealing. “With this China will not be dictating the rules of trade,” he said.*

*Editor’s note: This quote, although accurately translated, could not be independently verified.