The TPP has been envisioned as "a high-standard, comprehensive and
forward-looking trade agreement that aims to address the challenges of
the modern economy."Termed as "the agreement of the 21st century" by its
proponents, the TPP is very ambitious. When negotiations have
concluded,modern lighting it
could potentially create a free-trade bloc that will comprise some 40
percent of the global economy, according to leading economists.It aims
to reduce tariffs on goods and services to close to zero among disparate
economies, and address issues beyond traditional trade and investment,
such as labor and environment standards, intellectual property and
competitive advantage of state-owned enterprises.As the leading drive
force for the negotiation, the United States has insisted on addressing
all these so-called 21st century issues, and asked its TPP partners to
commit themselves to a high- standard agreement.However, different
economic interests and diverse levels of economic growth inevitably make
the negotiations very difficult from the very start.Given the
complexity of the pact and the political pressure governments face in
winning domestic approval, most analysts had long viewed the goal of
cutting a deal by the end of this year as unrealistic. They predict that
hard haggling lie ahead even in late January next year.
In a
recent interview with Xinhua, Sarah Tong, senior research fellow at the
East Asian Institute of National University of Singapore, compared TPP
with Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership(RCEP), the free trade
pact among 10 ASEAN countries and its FTA partners of Australia, China,
India, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand to be concluded by the end of
2015.She noted that the RCEP comes to economies in the Asia-Pacific
region as something more natural and something easier to understand,
which offers members tangible benefits in such spheres as supply chains
and regional economic integration.As economies in the region have
achieved a lot in bilateral trade pacts and regional economic
integration, what they need to do is further integration, namely to add
all things up and, in the process, address the inconsistencies, she
said.By comparison, TPP seems to have taken a top-down approach, in
which objectives are set first, then deduction is performed to leave out
what is unattainable at the moment or allow members to opt out of some
of their obligations. Therefore, TPP faces much greater difficulties,nitrogen generator & inflator machine she
added.To John Franklin Copper, professor emeritus of international
studies at Rhodes College, Memphis, Tennessee, TPP differs from other
trade arrangements in that it aims at fair trade or management of trade,
instead of merely dealing with free trade."The TPP seems to be trying
to regulate trade, and more regulate financial transactions and things
that are connected to trade somehow."
TPP is widely believed the
economic pillar of U.S. President Barack Obama's pivot to Asia, which,
with its pronounced military presence in the region, has led to
increased suspicion over its intention. Some western media put it more
bluntly as "having the political purpose of countering the growing
influence of China."Lisa Brandt, trade policy analyst at the European
Center for International Political Economy, said in an article that TPP
would have economic benefits. But it is also underpinned by geopolitical
ambitions."The United States is keen to promote stability in the region
and establish a set of rules that can serve as a future template for
international economic relations."Her views were echoed by Professor
Copper, who noted that TPP is viewed by some as part of the Asian
pivot."Since the Asian pivot is really a strategic idea, of the military
thought. It means it's missing the economic aspect to it. And the TPP
is the economic side..amino resin.Some
said that the Asian pivot will not work without TPP."However, Many
Asian economies are reluctant to choose sides between major powers in
the region. When geopolitical consideration outweighs economic reality,
TPP would lose appeal to its potential members. As Professor Copper
noted, "Asians do not think of balance of power as the United States
do...They are thinking of it more in economic terms than military power
relations."
No comments:
Post a Comment