Economics

El segundo acto del TPP

May 24, 2017 Minxin Pei

CLAREMONT –Cuando el presidente estadounidense Donald Trump retiró a Estados Unidos del Acuerdo Estratégico Transpacífico de Asociación Económica (TPP) el pasado mes de enero, muchos observadores vieron esa decisión como una bendición para China. Si esto es cierto, puede que la misma no dure.

La sabiduría popular se basa en simple lógica económica y geopolítica. China se ha convertido en el socio comercial más importante de cualquier otro país asiático, ganando inexorablemente apalancamiento estratégico como resultado de ello. A medida que los vecinos de China se tornan cada vez más dependientes del mercado chino, la lógica sugiere que la influencia de Estados Unidos en la región disminuirá gradualmente.

La administración del ex presidente de Estados Unidos, Barack Obama, comprendió las consecuencias geopolíticas de gran alcance del dominio económico de China en Asia Oriental. Obama y sus asesores tenían esperanzas de que al crear el TPP, un nuevo bloque comercial centrado en Estados Unidos, se fuese a oponer a la influencia de China y fuese a preserve la primacía militar y económica de Estados Unidos en la región más dinámica del mundo.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Subscribe now to gain greater access to Project Syndicate – including every commentary and our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – starting at less than $5 per month.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 4 Comments on this article

shanmugham anand May 29, 2017

Trump said NATO is obsolate.He backtracked.
He said China manipulates its currency. Again he backtracked.
Because he has Mattis, Tillerson & McMaster.
He badly requires such advisers on economics & trade. Give him some room for compromise, he will come back to TPP with more vigour.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen May 28, 2017

Minxin Pei claims the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) will not be shelved, even though Trump abandoned it when he took office in January, claiming he needed to protect American jobs. The author says the remaining 11 countries - Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Mexico, Peru, Chile, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei - could still carry on with the deal without the US.
The TPP was Obama's hallmark achievement. He had made a "pivot" to Asia as part of a US foreign policy, that pursued American interests - "military and economic primacy in the world’s most dynamic region." The goal was to bind Pacific nations closer through lower tariffs while also serving as a buttress against China’s growing clout in Asia.
The author says, due to decades of dependence on the US, Trump's withdrawal from the TPP would only mean ceding the region to China. He sees three scenarios that define the fate of this deal. Autocratic regimes - Thailand, Malaysia, Cambodia and Laos - that have no ideological or territorial disputes with Beijing....will undoubtedly jump on the Chinese bandwagon," looking for a replacement for "what the US provides." Australia, South Korea, and Singapore are said to have "adopted a hedging strategy, whereby they maintain close security relations with the US while taking advantage of China’s enormous market."
However, India and Japan - "two regional powers that cannot imagine living in a China-dominated Asia" - have taken matters into their own hands. As they no longer can rely on the US for "protection and oversight of free trade," they resort to a "self-help strategy." by taking "proactive measures to counter Chinese power on their own, not least by banding together." This would draw in countries like Vietnam and Indonesia, "which have also resisted falling into China’s orbit."
What speaks in favour of an Indian-Japanese alliance is the friendship between Narendra Modi and Shinzo Abe, who knew each other from an earlier stint. A week ago Japan declared it would "continue to push ahead with the TPP... without US participation." The bid to revive the TPP, which would have covered 40% of the global economy, was led by trade ministers from Japan, Australia and New Zealand.
Without the US, "the remaining 11 Pacific-rim countries will have much less economic heft.... But in 2016, these countries’ combined GDP still exceeded $10 trillion, which is only slightly less than China’s GDP of $11 trillion." If the deal is backed by the 11 countries, the author believes South Korea and Indonesia "will be tempted to join." It will be fanstastic to form "a new regional trading bloc," that "could partly fill the void left by America’s withdrawal."
The problem is that smaller countries are attracted by opportunities and advantages offered by bigger countries. The US and China are the world's two largest economies. Although the door will still be kept open for the US to rejoin the club, its trade representative said it would not return to the TPP. Trump has made a decision, and he thinks bilateral are better for the US than multilateral negotiations. Australia hopes that China and Indonesia would join. It wouldn't be a bad idea to take China on board, because this would enrage Trump. But Japan wouldn't like it. But it's unlikely that Beijing be interested, because it - like Trump - prefers bilateral to multilateral deals.
It's also unlikely that India would join the TPP. There is no clear consensus in India on whether expanded market access will help the Indian economy grow, and whether the gains will be worth the potential costs to some still-protected Indian industries. To qualify for membership India would have to prepare itself for more significant market opening as well as enhanced standards than it has committed to in the past.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Tok Koon Chia May 26, 2017

Frankly speaking, I am bemused by this article. It seems to suggest that a "Sino-centric Asia" is an inherently bad thing and yet I do not see any persuasive evidence that it is the case, other than that China has a heretical government with heterodox values. Instead of making a "substantial sacrifice" to counterbalance China for symbolic gains, surely it would be better for everybody to sit down and earn money together?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Rohit Raj May 24, 2017

Are there citations available to prove the countries getting onboard?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/bfraMlRes

El segundo acto del TPP

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Handpicked to read next

Maintaining Growth in a Fast-Aging Asia

Log in/Register

El segundo acto del TPP

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Handpicked to read next

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification