Search

Begin New Search Topic Trans-Pacific Partnership Publication Year within 5 Years

1. Enhancing Australia’s Taiwan ties

Author:
Benjamin Herscovitch and Mark Harrison
Publication Date:
12-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Lowy Institute for International Policy
Abstract:
Australia should articulate and pursue a disciplined Taiwan strategy that uses the flexibility of its one-China policy to increase engagement with Taipei in service of Australian economic and security interests. Canberra should support Taipei’s bid for entry into the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership and start negotiations for a bilateral free trade agreement. It should also establish regular ministerial exchanges with Taiwan. The Taiwan strategy advocated in this paper is likely to be a net negative for Australia’s relations with China. But it strikes a reasonable balance between Australia’s interests and the stabilisation of the Australia–China relationship.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Trans-Pacific Partnership, Regional Politics, and Strategic Engagement
Political Geography:
China, Taiwan, Asia, Australia, and Australia/Pacific

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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