Search

Begin New Search Topic Trans-Pacific Partnership Political Geography United States of America

1. Reimagining the TPP: Revisions that Could Facilitate U.S. Reentry

Author:
Wendy Cutler and Clete Willems
Publication Date:
12-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Asia Society
Abstract:
Since the United States withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in 2017, countries in the Asia-Pacific have actively concluded trade deals without the U.S. This includes China, which is a member of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and has recently applied to join the TPP, now known as the CPTPP. These developments have increased the urgency for the United States to step up its economic engagement in the world’s fastest-growing region. The Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF) is a useful step in this direction, but countries in the region are clamoring for more. A return to CPTPP would provide an immediate boost to U.S. economic competitiveness and geopolitical influence. However, many concerns about the original TPP are legitimate and U.S. trade policy views have shifted since the agreement was concluded. A new report by the Asia Society Policy Institute titled Reimagining the TPP: Revisions that Could Facilitate U.S. Reentry aims to start a meaningful conversation about potential U.S re-entry into the CPTPP based on extensive consultations and important input from a broad range of trade experts, domestic stakeholders, and CPTPP members. It offers recommendations for improvements and updates to the agreement in 12 areas needed to meet U.S. economic interests and facilitate U.S. re-entry.
Topic:
Economy, Trans-Pacific Partnership, and Trade Policy
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

2. Beyond trade war in Washington: The United States and our less global future

Author:
Lauri Tahtinen
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA)
Abstract:
“What worries me most, however, is the fact that the rules-based international order is being challenged. Quite surprisingly, not by the usual suspects, but by its main architect and guarantor: the US.” Tus spoke Donald Tusk, the President of the European Council in advance of the G7 Summit of 2018.1 In doing so, he was echoing the sentiments of many others. Sabre-rattling at friends and foes alike defned the Trump administration’s approach to trade policy, not unlike in many other policy felds. It also demonstrated Donald Trump’s preference for bilateral agreements, the most prominent of which was the so-called Phase One deal with China. Trade policy was a defnite pri- ority for the Trump administration, but it took some self-contradictory forms. Often Trump wanted to wreak havoc for its own sake, which both held back part of his “negative agenda”, such as confronting Chi- na, and the “positive” one of bilateral mini deals, as in the late 2020 trade-smoothing with Brazil. By contrast, trade has not been a priority for either the Biden administration or the 117th Congress thus far.2 Tere is little sign that President Biden would ei- ther immediately roll back Trump-era tarifs and re- classifcations – much less sanctions – or initiate his own positive trade agenda. Tis lack of initiative stands in contrast to rapid executive action on climate, Cov- id-19, US manufacturing and other policy priorities. Congress, too, has been conspicuously silent on trade. With organized labour a resurgent force within Dem- ocratic Party politics, any talk of new trade deals over assistance for the deindustrialized homeland will face some headwind. Te silence around trade suggests that while Biden will attempt to smooth over the worst rows over com- merce, the easiest course for his administration is, by and large, to underwrite a policy shift on trade. Te rest of the world must come to terms with this change, but also formulate cogent responses to it. Te stakes are high because a functioning and fex- ible trading system is essential for tackling the great- est challenges of our time, including the fght against climate change and the production of vaccines against COVID-19. Instead of turning against internation- al cooperation, these and many other priorities need to be integrated into the global trading system. First and foremost, the world needs a proudly pragmatic approach, in place of a “summit for democracy” or any such high-minded initiative which runs the risk of preventing partnerships and ringing hollow. An al- liance of democracies may be the outcome of cooper- ation but should not be positioned as its prerequisite. At the end of World War I, the United States fa- thered the Covenant of the League of Nations but rejected it at birth; Washington withheld its rec- ognition of the child, never joining the League. The United States received a second chance at the end of the World War, founding the United Nations and the Bretton Woods institutions, and a third one at the end of the Cold War when the World Trade Organization came to supersede the General Agreement on Tarifs and Trade (GATT). Now, America is edging closer to rejection, again. Te main argument of this Briefng Paper is that not only has US governmental policy on trade shifted, but also that the environment in which it is developed has altered radically – not least due to US policy itself. Tis means that, one, rules-based trading will need new champions and, two, others must coax the United States to come along when they can fnd shared rea- sons for doing so. The paper looks at both the worlds that the US chose to mould and the ones that it rejected: the US- MCA and the TPP. It also asks how Europeans might orient themselves in the direction of the United States, examines what trade without deals may mean and, f- nally, situates current policy in the longer trajectory of the US role on trade.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, Trade Wars, Trans-Pacific Partnership, and USMCA
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

3. The missing anchor: Why the EU should join the CPTPP

Author:
Peter Draper and Naoise McDonagh
Publication Date:
10-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Lowy Institute for International Policy
Abstract:
The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) is a twenty-first century trade accord that aims to secure a level playing field and rules-based trade environment in the Indo-Pacific. Yet in the absence of the United States, it risks underachieving on this goal. The European Union (EU) is the only global actor with the trade preferences and requisite economic heft to provide a similar anchoring function for market-orientated trade as was envisioned for the United States in the CPTPP. An EU accession bid to the CPTPP would require overcoming major hurdles and reservations, not least in Brussels. The gains in surmounting them, however, would be considerable. Any EU accession process should avoid jeopardising the possibility of a return of the United States to the multilateral trade agreement. An equivalence regime for regulations where CPTPP members are not in alignment with EU standards could in principle open the possibility of the EU and the United States eventually co-habiting within the CPTPP, however remote or delayed the prospect. Australia should use its status as a founding CPTPP member to advocate for EU accession to the trade agreement. Engaging Europe on the future of the multilateral trade architecture in Asia presents a key area of potential convergence between Brussels and Canberra, following a setback in strategic ties caused by the Australian cancellation of a French-led submarine contract.
Topic:
European Union, Partnerships, Trans-Pacific Partnership, and Trade
Political Geography:
Europe, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

4. Reengaging the Asia-Pacific on Trade: A TPP Roadmap for the Next U.S. Administration

Author:
Wendy Cutler
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Asia Society
Abstract:
In the aftermath of a presidential election, it’s not unusual for an incoming administration to revisit policy choices made by the previous administration or, in the case of reelection, during the first term. One decision that strongly merits another look after November is the U.S. withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a regional trade agreement that the United States signed with 11 other countries in 2016. FULL REPORT Download In recent years, the case for U.S. participation in the TPP has only become more compelling as the political and economic importance of the Asia-Pacific region has grown and concerns about Beijing’s economic model have mounted. But is there a path for the United States to return to the TPP or to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), which the 11 remaining countries finalized without the United States? This report by ASPI Vice President Wendy Cutler, Reengaging the Asia-Pacific on Trade: A TPP Roadmap for the Next U.S. Administration, examines the options that the next administration would have for reengaging the CPTPP countries on trade in light of domestic considerations and developments, as well as input from the CPTPP countries. The report concludes with a road map that offers concrete recommendations for how the next administration, Democrat or Republican, could proceed, including advocating a narrower trade negotiation as a first step to rebuilding trust and to lay the groundwork for pursuing a full-fledged CPTPP re-entry.
Topic:
Trans-Pacific Partnership and Trade
Political Geography:
China, Asia-Pacific, and United States of America

5. East Asia decouples from the United States: Trade war, COVID-19, and East Asia's new trade blocs

Author:
Peter A. Petri and Michael G. Plummer
Publication Date:
06-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE)
Abstract:
he deepening US-China trade war and nationalist reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic are reshaping global economic relationships. Alongside these developments, two new megaregional trade agreements, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), will refocus East Asia’s economic ties in the region itself. The new accords are moving forward without the United States and India, once seen as critical partners in the CPTPP and RCEP, respectively. Using a computable general equilibrium model, we show that the agreements will raise global national incomes in 2030 by an annual $147 billion and $186 billion, respectively. They will yield especially large benefits for China, Japan, and South Korea and losses for the United States and India. These effects are simulated both in a business-as-before-Trump environment and in the context of a sustained US-China trade war. The effects were simulated before the COVID-19 shock but seem increasingly likely in the wake of the pandemic. Compared with business as before, the trade war generates large global losses rising to $301 billion annually by 2030. The new agreements offset the effects of the trade war globally, but not for the United States and China. The trade war makes RCEP especially valuable because it strengthens East Asian interdependence, raising trade among members by $428 billion and reducing trade among nonmembers by $48 billion. These shifts bring regional ties closer to institutional arrangements proposed in the 1990s and incentivize greater cooperation among China, Japan, and South Korea.
Topic:
Treaties and Agreements, Trade Wars, Trans-Pacific Partnership, Free Trade, COVID-19, and Protectionism
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

6. U.S. Foreign Exchange Policy—Currency Provisions and Trade Deals

Author:
Mark Sobel
Publication Date:
04-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Abstract:
The Barack Obama administration’s efforts to secure Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), in conjunction with advancing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), brought into focus a congressional push to associate currency provisions with U.S. trade agreements. Since that time, discussions on the association of currency provisions with trade deals have gained momentum and become a feature of U.S. foreign exchange policy, especially under the Donald Trump administration. What is the historical context for including currency provisions alongside or as part of trade deals in U.S. exchange rate policy? What has actually been done? Is including currency provisions alongside or in trade deals a good idea? How should this be best managed?
Topic:
Foreign Policy, International Cooperation, International Trade and Finance, Exchange Rate Policy, and Trans-Pacific Partnership
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

7. LOST JOB—WILL TRAVEL: TRADE-RELATED JOB LOSSES AND MILITARY RECRUITMENT

Author:
Cullen S. Hendrix
Publication Date:
01-2019
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Political Violence @ A Glance
Abstract:
A new study shows how trade-related job losses translate into increases in military enlistment. While the study is convincing in its own right, it raises important questions and highlights one potential pitfall of political-economic analysis: focusing on partial equilibrium results in a full-equilibrium world. The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA (or “NAFTA 1.1: Same Great Taste in a New Package!”), the trilateral trade, investment, and regulatory agreement that will replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is still working its way through congressional approval in all three member nations. The political wrangling, which consumed most of 2018, was arduous and heated. Eventually, what emerged was a new trade deal that mostly kept NAFTA’s architecture in place and added to it many of the US-Canada-Mexico provisions included in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), to which all three countries were parties before President Trump withdrew the United States in January 2017.
Topic:
NAFTA, Trans-Pacific Partnership, Trade, USMCA, Recruitment, and Military
Political Geography:
Canada, North America, Mexico, and United States of America

8. Re-Energizing Economic Integration between South Asia and East Asia

Author:
Pradumna B. Rana
Publication Date:
08-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
This chapter focuses on economic integration (linkages) between South Asia and East Asia.2 The topic is important for three reasons. First, South Asia-East Asia (SA-EA) trade is a component of South-South trade and could be a useful buffer should North-South trade soften, or populism lead the North to view trade as a “zero-sum” game, as is presently the case in the United States and several countries in Europe. The withdrawal of the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in January 2017 and President Trump’s reiteration of his “America First” trade policy at the 2017 APEC meetings in favor of bilateralism and “fair trade” has generated interest in alternate trade policy options in the EA region.
Topic:
Economy, Regional Integration, Trans-Pacific Partnership, and Trade
Political Geography:
South Asia, East Asia, Asia, South Korea, North Korea, and United States of America

9. Japan in the Driver’s Seat? Reshaping the Regional Trade Order without the United States

Author:
T. J. Pempel
Publication Date:
08-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
On January 28, 2018 representatives from eleven countries, following the strong leadership of Japan, agreed to a modified version of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). This new pact —renamed the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTTP), or TPP-11—was formally signed in Chile on March 8. The treaty will take effect once ratified by at least six member countries. Japan is planning to push the treaty through the Diet within 2018 and anticipating that it will come into force sometime in 2019. The agreement represented a major recovery by the eleven countries following initial expectations that TPP was dead after the election of Donald Trump. Trump, as an early follow through on his xenophobic and unilateral campaign promises, signed an executive order pulling the United States out of the TPP within one hundred hours of his inauguration. With that stroke of his pen, Trump wiped out 10 years of work on the so-called “Pacific” route to regional trade integration, anchored on the U.S. market. It also defied multiple analyses demonstrating the strong economic benefits that TPP would provide for the United States. Turmoil immediately prevailed among the remaining eleven signatories. Japanese prime minister Abe, for example, only weeks after Trump’s election announced, “TPP is meaningless without the U.S.” Singaporean prime minister Lee Hsien Loong argued, “if the TPP does not go ahead, it would be a great loss for the rest of the member economies.” The National Interest was typical in its skepticism about both the survival of TPP and the long-term implications for the Asia-Pacific. In an article entitled “TPP is Dead; Now What?” it observed: “The United States’ withdrawal not only throws away the potential for a trade agreement but may cause countries that expended significant political capital for the TPP to retreat from free trade for the foreseeable future.” That China will be the primary beneficiary of Trump’s withdrawal was a widespread conclusion.5 In fact, as the signing of the CPTPP indicated, all eleven countries were prepared to recommit themselves to the deal and to continue to advance the goals of a liberal trading order in the region.
Topic:
Treaties and Agreements, Economy, Trans-Pacific Partnership, and Donald Trump
Political Geography:
Japan, China, Asia, North America, Korea, and United States of America

10. The Strategic Case for South Korea to Join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership

Author:
Kyle Ferrier
Publication Date:
04-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
International Journal of Korean Studies
Institution:
International Council on Korean Studies
Abstract:
South Korea is at a critical crossroads. The future of the liberal international order, a major source of strength for Seoul, is unclear. President Donald Trump has repudiated the longstanding American role of upholding the liberal order. While Beijing has been quick to capitalize on this policy shift, the norms China seeks to promote either fall short of or run counter to the advancement of an open and rules-based international system. Although South Korea may be caught between these two great powers, it is by no means powerless to influence how international economic norms are advanced. To best meet its economic and even strategic interests, the Moon administration should begin negotiations to have South Korea join the remaining countries in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, known as the CPTPP.
Topic:
International Relations, Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Trans-Pacific Partnership, Free Trade, Regionalism, and Donald Trump
Political Geography:
China, Asia, South Korea, North America, and United States of America