Trance Global Nation 2

[Stella Kreuter]

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), or Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA), was a proposed trade agreement between 12 Pacific Rim economies: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and the United States. In the United States, the proposal was signed on 4 February 2016 but not ratified as a result of significant domestic political opposition.[5] After taking office, the newly elected President Donald Trump formally withdrew the United States from TPP in January 2017,[6] therefore ensuring the TPP could not be ratified as required and did not enter into force. The remaining countries negotiated a new trade agreement called Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, which incorporated most of the provisions of the TPP and which entered into force on 30 December 2018.

The TPP began as an expansion of the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPSEP or P4) signed by Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore in 2005. Beginning in 2008, additional countries joined the discussion for a broader agreement: Australia, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, the United States, and Vietnam, bringing the negotiating countries to twelve. In January 2017, the United States withdrew from the agreement.[7] The other 11 TPP countries agreed in May 2017 to revive it[8][9] and reached agreement in January 2018. In March 2018, the 11 countries signed the revised version of the agreement, called Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.[10] After ratification by six of them (Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand and Singapore), the agreement came into force for those countries on 30 December 2018.

The original TPP contained measures to lower both non-tariff and tariff barriers to trade,[11] and establish an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism.[12] The U.S. International Trade Commission,[13] the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the World Bank and the Office of the Chief Economist at Global Affairs Canada stated that the final agreement, if ratified, would have led to net positive economic outcomes for all signatories.[Note 1] Many observers at the time said the trade deal would also have served a geopolitical purpose, namely to reduce the signatories' dependence on Chinese trade and bring the signatories closer to the United States.[22][23][24][25]

Twelve countries participated in negotiations for the TPP: the four parties to the 2005 Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement and eight additional countries. All twelve signed the TPP on 4 February 2016.[26] The agreement would have entered into force after ratification by all signatories, if this had occurred within two years. If the agreement had not been ratified by all before 4 February 2018, it would have entered into force after ratification by at least 6 states which together have a GDP of more than 85% of the GDP of all signatories. The withdrawal of the United States from the agreement in January 2017 effectively ended any prospect of the agreement entering into force. In response the remaining parties successfully negotiated a new version of the agreement that lacked the 85% GDP threshold, the CPTPP, which entered into force in December 2018.

On 23 January 2017, US President Donald Trump signed a presidential memorandum to withdraw the United States' signature from the agreement, making its ratification as it was in February 2016 virtually impossible.[28]

APEC members would have been able to accede to the TPP, as would any other jurisdiction to which existing TPP members would have agreed. After an application for membership is received, a commission of parties to the treaty would negotiate conditions for accession.

South Korea did not participate in the 2006 agreement, but showed interest in entering the TPP,[37] and was invited to the TPP negotiating rounds in December 2010 by the U.S. after the successful conclusion of its Free trade agreement between the United States of America and the Republic of Korea.[38] South Korea already had bilateral trade agreements with some TPP members, but areas such as vehicle manufacturing and agriculture still needed to be agreed upon, making further multilateral TPP negotiations somewhat complicated.[39]

Other countries that were interested in TPP membership include Taiwan,[40] the Philippines,[41] Colombia,[42] and Hong Kong[43][44][45] as of 2010; Thailand[46] as of 2012; and Indonesia,[47] Bangladesh,[48] and India[49] as of 2013. According to law professor Edmund Sim in 2013, many of these countries would need to change their protectionist trade policies in order to join the TPP.[50]

The largest economy in the Pacific Rim not involved in the negotiations was China. According to the Brookings Institution in 2013, the most fundamental challenge for the TPP project regarding China was that "it may not constitute a powerful enough enticement to propel China to sign on to these new standards on trade and investment. China reacted by accelerating its own trade initiatives in Asia."[51] In 2013, it was thought China might still be interested in joining the TPP eventually.[52] An academic analysis has shown that while the TPP would be more successful if China participated in it, the benefits to China are intangible.[53]

Brunei, Chile, Singapore and New Zealand are parties to the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPSEP), which was signed in 2005, and entered into force in 2006. The original TPSEP agreement contains an accession clause and affirms the members' "commitment to encourage the accession to this Agreement by other economies".[61][62] It is a comprehensive agreement, affecting trade in goods, rules of origin, trade remedies, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, technical barriers to trade, trade in services, intellectual property, government procurement and competition policy. Among other things, it called for a 90-percent reduction of all tariffs between member countries by 1 January 2006, and reduction of all trade tariffs to zero by the year 2015.[63]

Although original and negotiating parties are members of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), TPSEP is not an APEC initiative. However, the TPP is considered[by whom?] to be a pathfinder for the proposed Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP), an APEC initiative.

In January 2008, the U.S. entered talks with the Pacific 4 (P4) members regarding trade liberalisation in financial services.[64] This led to 19 formal negotiation rounds and a subsequent series of additional meetings, such as Chief Negotiators Meetings and Ministers Meetings, and resulted in the agreement announced on 5 October 2015.

New Zealand ratified the TPP on 11 May 2017.[68] New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern (in office from October 2017) planned to renegotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement in Vietnam in November 2017 in time to allow the New Zealand government to ban foreign speculators from buying existing New Zealand homes. She said: "Our view is that it will be possible to balance our desire to make sure that we provide housing that's affordable, by easing demand and banning foreign speculators from buying existing homes, while meeting our trade goals."[69]

During a speech on the 2016 presidential campaign, Republican Party nominee Donald Trump vowed to withdraw the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership if elected. He argued that the agreement would "undermine" the U.S. economy and its independence.[70][71] On 21 November 2016, in a video message, Trump introduced an economic strategy of "putting America first", stating that he would negotiate "fair, bilateral trade deals that bring jobs and industry back onto American shores." As part of this plan, Trump confirmed his intent for the United States to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership on his first day in office.[72][73][74] McConnell affirmed that the TPP would not be considered during the lame-duck session of Congress preceding the inauguration of Trump.[75]

In a 2018 study conducted on general foreign trade, researchers have found that a sizable majority of U.S. adults view foreign trade as conducive to U.S. growth rather than a foreign threat.[79] In an international context, however, Americans generally are among the least likely to support the Trans-Pacific Partnership. A clear partisan divide exists among the U.S. public in supporting the trade deal, with those who identify as members of the Democratic Party or are politically independent being more likely to have a positive opinion of it than those who are members of the Republican Party. Moreover, younger people are more likely to support it than their elders.[80]

President Donald Trump has expressed opposition to the TPP as a tenet of his 2016 election platform, which contributed to his popularity.[81] Critics complained that while Trump has worked to contain the economic and geostrategic influence of China, withdrawing from the TPP reduced the effectiveness of a treaty that was designed to do exactly that.[82]

In any case, free trade has been a politically contentious issue in the U.S. Many Presidential candidates vigorously oppose it while those who initially stood behind it became a lot less vocal in their support.[83] Following the 2020 Presidential election, there is little enthusiasm for the TPP among elected officials in the federal government.[84]

In January 2018, the remaining eleven countries agreed on a revised TPP, now renamed the "Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership" (CPTPP). CPTPP is substantially the same as TPP, but omits 20 provisions that had been added to TPP at US insistence and that are now no longer binding.[86] These provisions primarily relate to investment, government procurement and intellectual property.[87]

On 16 July 2023, Kemi Badenoch, the UK business secretary, signed the accession protocol for the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). The CPTPP is a trade bloc consisting of 11 member states. The UK government claims that this agreement will provide British businesses with access to a market of 500 million people, resulting in significant benefits. However, critics argue that the economic impact of the deal over a 10-year period will be limited.[88]

c80f0f1006