Viet Nam Human Rights
»
home
»
political-social
»
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): A U.S. initiative to counter China
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): A U.S. initiative to counter China
6/5/15
The enlargement
and the reform of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has been one of the most
important policies promoted by the Obama administration in the Asia Pacific
region. A historic debate over trade is now heating up in Washington. President Barack Obama hopes to
persuade Congress to grant him fast-track trade authority to help complete
negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a massive multilateral
deal involving the U.S. and
11 other Pacific Rim countries. The talks
include nations on both sides of the Pacific, ranging from Japan to Australia
to Peru.
Together with the U.S.,
the group represents a third of world trade and 40% of global GDP.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
is a proposed regional regulatory and investment treaty. As of 2014, twelve
countries throughout the Asia-Pacific region have participated in negotiations
on the TPP: Australia,
Brunei,
Canada,
Chile,
Japan,
Malaysia,
Mexico,
New Zealand,
Peru, Singapore,
the United States,
and Vietnam.
The Obama administration is taking the initiative to promote the conclusion of
the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). It serves the strategy for expanding US
exports for the purpose of enhancing US
competitiveness in Asia-Pacific and safeguarding US
dominance in this region. TPP would also give the U.S.
a firmer commercial foothold in the world’s most economically dynamic region,
and it could aid U.S.
efforts to negotiate future diplomatic agreements in Asia–even with China, which
pointedly isn’t a part of the deal.
Momentum in Washington
behind an ambitious Pacific free-trade pact gives new energy to a U.S.-Japan
campaign to counter China’s
influence in Asia. Less than a month after Beijing embarrassed the two allies by persuading more than
50 countries, including some of Washington’s
closest allies in Europe, to join its new
regional infrastructure bank—over American objections and Japanese resistance.
The U.S., the world’s largest economy,
has chosen not to apply for founding membership in the Beijing-based Asian
Infrastructure Investment Bank, a status that would give it a voice in setting
its rules and institutional framework. And China, the world’s second-largest
economy, wasn’t invited to join the proposed U.S.-led TPP.
“China wants to write the rules for
the world’s fastest-growing region,” Mr. Obama said in his State of the Union
address this year. “Why would we let that happen? We should write those rules.”
Last fall at the
annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, which was hosted by China, the U.S., Japan and other countries blocked Beijing’s bid to
start negotiating terms for the possible new free-trade zone, arguing that it
could delay the TPP and other deals.
More interesting
was the argument that Mr. Obama did deploy in favor of the trade deals:
Anticipating the usual case against free trade, he recast the proposed pacts as
measures to support U.S. jobs at the expense of China. “Today,
our businesses export more than ever, and exporters tend to pay their workers
higher wages,” he proclaimed. “But as we speak, China wants to write the rules for
the world’s fastest-growing region. That would put our workers and our
businesses at a disadvantage.”
China, a big socialist nation on rapid rise, has become the
main target of suspicion and containment of America.
Although the Obama administration attaches importance to the bilateral
relations with China,
it has still taken on the mantle of containing China
from its predecessor, and has gone even beyond. Pushing forward the TPP
obviously reflects its strategic consideration against China.
China’s rise has challenged the U.S. and its economy by promoting a
system of state capitalism that gives political officials a powerful role in
directing market activity. By using state-owned companies, state-run banks and
loyal firms to achieve political goals, China
has tilted the commercial playing field away from foreign companies and the U.S.
TPP can help counter the growth of
Chinese-style state capitalism in Asia in much
the same way that potential European Union membership once encouraged reform in
former communist nations. Countries like Poland
and Estonia
learned to abide by E.U. rules that advantage private-sector competition and
liberalized labor, trade and investment standards.
The deal would
provide a landmark win for free markets, the rule of law and Western labor and
environmental standards while inviting Beijing’s
neighbors to hedge their bets on China
by also strengthening investment ties with the U.S. and other TPP members. It
would signal that America
intends to remain in Asia as a stabilizer even as China becomes an ever more
influential player.
The role of the TPP should also be
understood for its strategic purpose. The TPP should be interpreted as a
response to the Chinese challenge for a number of reasons.
First, reversing the US
disadvantage vis-à-vis China
in terms of economic and trade relations with East
Asia. China
has now ranked the world’s second largest economy and the largest economy in
Asia, and the world’s second largest trading country and the largest exporter,
and seems to almost catch up with the US
in terms of the scale of economy and foreign trade, which has already made the United
States jealous. So it becomes
more urgent for the United States
to build East Asia countries-based trans-Pacific free trade partnership to
reverse America’s
declining tendency.
Second, pursuing substantial regional cooperation with East
Asian countries to counter and suppress the expansion of Chinese influence. In
order to change America’s passive and lagging situation in the East Asian
regional cooperation, the Obama administration is trying to push forward the
TPP construction, with a view to promoting cooperation with the East Asian
countries on the Asia Pacific regional cooperation, containing the expansion of
China’s influence in this region, and reviving the US dominance in East Asia
and the whole Asia-Pacific region.
Third, driving a wedge between China
and East Asian countries by taking advantage of some East Asian countries’
doubts about China. With China’s
peaceful development concept and good-neighborly policy deeply rooted in
neighboring countries, China’s relations with East Asian countries have
developed smoothly in general, and mutual relationship is in the best period in
history. But needless to say, some East Asian countries, especially the nations
involved in territorial disputes with China,
influenced by the “China Threat” theory spread by some minded Westerners, still
have doubts and suspicions on China
and hope to balance China’s influence
with American power. The United States intends
to take advantage of that to drive a wedge between them. The US plan to bring most East Asian
countries including Japan
and other countries having islands and territorial waters disputes with China into the TPP exposes the US intention to make use of them to
counter China,
while expanding its own power and influence in East
Asia at the same time.
Both economically and geopolitically,
the Trans-Pacific Partnership would perpetuate the United
States’ stabilizing role in Asia;
it is one of the Obama administration’s brightest ideas. All that’s left now is
for both the president and Republican leaders in Congress to keep their
promises and make it happen. And for President Obama, TPP would anchor the
legacy of a leader who has often seemed adrift in global politics./.
Popular Posts
-
Religion is a part of the spiritual life in society, this phenomenon of the superstructure has been strongly changed with economic - social... -
Vietnam has just done well for the second cycle of Universal Periodical Review (UPR) in Geneva, Switzerland. So, what’s the UPR? an... -
Thai people in Shutdown Bangkok protests Not until this crisis, we have realized the ne... -
Representatives from foreign countries congratulate Viet Nam on its election to the Human Rights Council for the first time on November ... -
A street flowers vendor in Hanoi Another new spring has come to Vietnam, bring... -
If nothing changes, there will be a preferential credit program with hundreds of thousands billion of capital for agriculture and r... -
Recently, several anti-governmental individuals have established series of illegal groups and organizations in the name of civil soci... -
Radio Free Asia (RFA) is a private, nonprofit international broadcasting agency of the United States government that broadcasts and...
All comments [ 12 ]
America’s partners around the East and South China Seas need to match China’s maritime presence.
China’s rise has challenged the U.S. and its economy, U.S. worries to lose influence in the Asia-Pacific region.
TPP vs AIIB!
In order to keep up with China’s growing influence and military capabilities, U.S. policymakers will inevitably press America’s partners for greater contributions to the region’s security.
China wants to write the rules for the world’s fastest-growing region. Why would we let that happen?
Let the US be a counterbalance to the "peaceful rise" China - a threat to neighboring countries.
The U.S. government should continue its support of ASEAN’s unity and its role in promoting a binding Code of Conduct for resolving disputes in the South China Sea.
Neither China or U.S. doesn't bring any good for us.
The United States should quietly rally Japan, Australia, and India, the other three big powers in the network, to assist and subsidize a matching maritime presence in the two seas.
China is not opponent to U.S. in all aspects, but I don't think U.S. and China want to enter into a conflict.
joining TPP will bring Vietnam many benefits, especially Vietnam will have a good chance to remove it's dependence on China
right, so China relatively worries about Vietnam's membership of TPP
Your comments