/ world today news/ Currently, the prospects for the Trans-Pacific Partnership are not good at all. US presidential candidates from both parties have spoken out against the deal. Donald Trump put it at the top of the list of bad trade deals he would stop or reverse as president.
In turn, while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supported the agreement, but as a result of strong pressure from the Democrats, she also switched to an opposing position. To remain loyal to President Barack Obama, the Democratic Party did not categorically oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership in its campaign platform. However, it clearly stated disapproval of the proposed investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms, namely the creation of private tribunals provided for in the agreement..
And if the political prospects of this treaty are bleak, what about its economic merits. The usual argument for increasing the gains from free trade by removing trade barriers does not apply to the Trans-Pacific Partnership because those barriers between the countries participating in it no longer exist. The US already has trade agreements with 6 of 11 of these countries, and the amount of customs duties between them is almost zero. With the other 5 countries, foreign trade barriers are also almost non-existent, so no significant economic effect can be expected from the entry into force of this treaty.
In its analysis of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the independent United States International Trade Commission projected that in 2032, when the treaty’s goals are expected to have already been realized, revenues from the treaty would amount to 0.23 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, or slightly more than normal monthly growth. This, in itself, is not a cause for great joy. We should note here that the model used by the International Trade Commission in preparing the report assumes full employment. That is, it rules out the possibility that the Trans-Pacific Partnership would lead to higher unemployment rates as a result of an increase in the volume of imports, which would put many American workers out of their jobs. The Commission also failed to note the negative effect of extending copyright and patent protection. In both cases, it is a question of a change in the form of regulations, which would result in higher prices for drugs, software and other products. The losses from this increased protectionism will easily outweigh the projected gains from tariff elimination provided for in the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
In fact, the strengthening of patent and copyright rights is the essence of this agreement. It is a contract created by and for the pharmaceutical, software, financial and telecommunications industries, as well as other large industries. It’s like we asked companies in these sectors what they wanted from a trade deal, and then President Obama’s administration rushed in to fight to give it to them. That is why most people do not approve of this treaty and it has a gloomy political outlook. But there is a lot of money involved in pushing it, and the Obama administration probably wouldn’t let it die quietly.
On the one hand, Obama has repeatedly appealed to Democrats in Congress not to smear him, blocking the deal because it would have a serious impact on his popularity. The president also played the China card, arguing that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a step toward creating a trade bloc as a counterweight to Chinese power.. Moreover, Obama has argued that the possible rejection of the agreement would harm the US’s position vis-à-vis the countries of the region.
In the presence of such arguments, one could hardly help but think of the Vietnam War. The original argument for its initiation was to protect the right of the people of South Vietnam to determine their own destiny. At some point, however, it became clear to everyone that the South Vietnamese government was deeply corrupt and could not be trusted to stand by its own people. When arguments related to the preservation of democracy and free will ceased to be relevant, the Lyndon Johnson administration replaced them with others. They tried to make it appear that if the Vietnamese government were allowed to fall, it would collapse the position of the United States both in the region and around the world. This argument was used to justify a war that cost the lives of tens of thousands of American soldiers and millions of people in Vietnam and neighboring countries. And in the end, the South Vietnamese government was still allowed to fall.
Today, with the help of the Trans-Pacific Agreement, Obama is playing out his plot with the theme of US positions. If the president cannot sign the treaty based on its economic benefits, then it is best to let it die quietly. “US Postures” is an ill-defined goal, and striving to maintain it can have very bad consequences. Vietnam is living proof of this. Also, by pushing for a bad trade deal that serves the interests of big corporations, it’s hard to talk about “holding positions.” In order to achieve a new, positive trade agreement for all parties, it is necessary to start from scratch.
Source: The Truth Out
Translation: Antoineta Kiselincheva
#TransPacific #Partnership #Obamas #Vietnam #War
