Attention to US dominance in the Pacific
has recently been a key topic, as some see China and India as rising powers.
But lately, there has been little talk on what the US should do in order to
secure its position in this region. The Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP),
negotiated by global powers such as the United States and Japan, was established
to write new rules for Trans-Pacific trade and promises many benefits to all
the members involved. Despite approval from President Obama, Congress has yet to
ratify it. From a globalization aspect, the TPP can further global
sustainability of natural resources and promote American economic models abroad.
The TPP also recognizes sectoral and factoral trade theory in favor of the US. I
argue that the TPP will not only boost our nation’s economy, but promote US values and ultimately establish the United States as a leader in the Pacific.
The TPP is a landmark deal in
international trade agreements, since it marks the first time that
environmental provisions are issued under the threat of economic penalties. International
negotiations on environmental policy have been often ignored since economic
repercussions are often minimal. The TPP recognizes that feasible globalized
efforts are necessary to combat famine and climate change. Under the threat of
economic trade penalties, the TPP will be able to enforce a prohibition on harmful
fisheries subsidies. MARPOL, an international agreement to prevent marine
pollution, will also be reinforced under TPP statutes. Under the TPP, notable
emphasis is placed on protecting marine ecosystems, because there has been a
disturbing trend in overfishing in the Pacific Ocean. As one of the world’s
leaders, the United States should join the partner nations in the TPP so as to
support the sustainable harvest of the ocean’s resources.
Aside
from the environmental benefits that globalization through the TPP can create,
there will also be possibility for the spread of democracy and capitalism. I
will use Myanmar as an example of how economic globalization has issued with it
the spread of democratic and capitalist ideals. In Myanmar, an oppressive military
government has reigned, causing economic stagnation at a time when surrounding
Asian states are beginning to prosper. The spread of information technology has
made available insights into the economic situations of their neighbors,
therefore leading to calls for democracy and capitalism in Myanmar. The TPP
will indirectly urge other nonmember states to seek better ways to develop
their economies and invite outside investors.
In terms of benefits to the US
economy, the Trans Pacific eliminates over 18,000 foreign tariffs on US
exports. This allows US farmers to export agricultural goods to members of the
agreement, including Vietnam, Canada, and Malaysia. Here, sectoral trade theory
will work along with US service firms, since these firms will be able to deploy
in fields where they have a comparative advantage. Education, engineering, and
software are all types of service firms that can prosper under the new
agreement. In terms of factoral trade theory, the increase in capital in member
states will also cause US businesses to prosper. The agreement will support
better paying jobs, since export-related jobs pay up to 18 percent more, on
average, than non-export related jobs. Meanwhile, the current tariffs on US
exporters reduce US manufacturing worker’s earnings by up to 12 percent
(USTR.GOV).
Ultimately, the TPP is a win-win
solution for the United States and the global economy. Global trade development
has been directly linked to increased standards of living for US and foreign residents.
Through environmental enforcement and increased employment opportunities, the
TPP goes above and beyond in assuring that the United States and its allies
have economically sustainable futures.
Matt,
ReplyDeleteMost of the critics of the TPP are those who purport to care most about the environmental and labor protections (i.e. the left). So why do you think that these people who care about the environment are so against the TPP? What does this say to you about international agreements more generally?
As one of the most prominent environmental interest groups, the Sierra Club disagrees with the TPP because the agreements provisions do not mention climate change. Other transnational activist groups like Greenpeace and Defenders of Wildlife have called out the TPP for its weak language. They seek for a more affirmative and strong stance against negative environmental impacts. More generally, these responses have affirmed to me that international agreements may use weaker language in some regards because of diversified interests among its participants. Because of these diversified interests, radical stances are often difficult to consolidate within an international agreement.
DeleteWhy do you think the United States has strayed away from ratifying this treaty? I think you're looking a lot at the positives but what are the negatives? Because every treaty has a negative. Is it just because the U.S. policymakers don't really see the benefits they can gain or because there really aren't a lot of benefits? Just wondering, because you talk a lot about the possible positives but not the negatives.
ReplyDeleteAt this point, I am not entirely sure if all of America’s Congressmen are viewing the TPP in terms of its benefits to the US economy. US Rep. Tom Reed has recently flip-flopped on his position of the TPP, citing that he strongly opposes the deal on the basis of protecting American jobs. Critics have called him out because not too long ago, Reed was very much for the TPP. Congressional Democratic oppononent John Plumb considers “If Reed was seriously interested in protecting workers and manufacturers in the Southern Tier, then he would not have voted to fast-track a trade bill that resembles past deals that have gutted our economy.” Moreover, Plumb’s campaign manager said “If Reed was seriously interested in protecting workers and manufacturers in the Southern Tier, then he would not have voted to fast-track a trade bill that resembles past deals that have gutted our economy.” I believe that much of the US publicly displayed negativity concerning the TPP comes from concern over its lengthy text (5,000 pages). Since US public opinion translates into votes for reelection, Congressmen are not always willing to hold their own, personal stance on issues. I believe that this effect is displayed in how some Congressmen are against the TPP right now.
DeleteI was wondering the same thing as Kathryn. With so many benefits to the U.S. it seems odd that Congress does not want to ratify the TPP. Do you think that they might be trying to add any amendments to the TPP that will make it even more favorable to the U.S. or are they possibly just avoiding entering into a contract with other countries?
ReplyDelete