Saturday, December 16th | 28 Kislev 5778


Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

December 7, 2016 7:17 am

Killing Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership Will Harm US Interests

avatar by Jason Isaacson and Shira Loewenberg

Email a copy of "Killing Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership Will Harm US Interests" to a friend
US President Barack Obama. Photo: Pete Souza.

US President Barack Obama. Photo: Pete Souza.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), negotiated under President Obama but scorned by both major candidates to succeed him, was pronounced dead after Election Day. Though ratification of the landmark 12-nation pact had been an uphill struggle, its demise is regrettable. Economically and politically, the costs to the United States will be significant, with adverse effects on American national security, economic prosperity and global leadership.

Criticism of the trade agreement had long been misplaced. With the TPP yielding net economic gain for the US, some American workers would initially have been hurt by its implementation, requiring retraining and assistance. But even without the TPP, US workers and policy will still need to address those issues.

Globalization is a fact. The global trend toward the integration and interdependence of national and regional economies is happening. The movement of goods, services, technologies and capital across borders is intensifying, and economies are increasingly linked.

The TPP was designed to ensure U.S leadership in a strategically vital region of the world. It would have established a rule-based economic order tying participating countries together more closely, with long-term benefits for each. Abandoning the TPP will not stop the impact of globalization.

Related coverage

December 15, 2017 1:14 pm

The Story of Joseph, Hanukkah — and Finding the Light

Although ancient Egypt and ancient Greece coexisted for well over a millennium, they were different in almost every respect. Egyptian...

Moreover, there was ample precedent for the TPP. The US has negotiated and signed a number of free-trade agreements in the past to stimulate international economic integration and development, and to promote economic and regional stability.

For US leadership in Asia, the TPP would have been a breakthrough. The US and 11 countries across the Pacific Rim collectively account for 40 percent of the world’s economy. The agreement would have strengthened ties between America and its regional allies, opening markets with nearly 1 billion consumers, accounting for nearly two-thirds of global GDP and 65 percent of global trade. The TPP would have facilitated commerce across the Pacific Rim, setting standards for sanitation, environmental protection and labor.

It was intended to open the region to trade in sectors in which the US runs trade surpluses, such as services and agriculture, and included protection of American intellectual property. It would have stimulated economic growth as well as provided a balance to China’s economic rise.

Importantly, the TPP would have retained America’s leadership in the region. Trade is a key component of US foreign policy. The death of the TPP will intensify already existing doubts about American reliability, doubts that American Jewish Committee, our own global organization, had heard from numerous opinion leaders and government officials from the region and around the world.

The US presence in the Asia Pacific region has been central to the area’s security and stability, facilitating Asia’s economic rise and contributing to global peace. Many countries that joined in the TPP were friends and allies of the US, and had made great concessions and risked political capital on its implementation.

American credibility and commitment to the region is now in question. Abandoning the TPP weakens America’s geopolitical position as a key player in the Asia Pacific region and globally. China will likely step into the void and take the lead in establishing the rules of the road. It was already poised to do so with the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). RCEP includes the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) plus six other major regional players: China, Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand and India. In this new equation Americans will be the losers and the adverse effects will be massive and long-term.

The TPP served our country’s strategic aims, strengthening democratic values and safeguarding our influence and preserving our standards, and our market access in the world’s most dynamic region. Abandoning this partnership will be a blow to American interests, both domestically and internationally.

Jason Isaacson is the American Jewish Committee (AJC) Associate Executive Director for Policy and Shira Loewenberg is Director of AJC’s Asia Pacific Institute. This article was originally published by The Hill.

The opinions presented by Algemeiner bloggers are solely theirs and do not represent those of The Algemeiner, its publishers or editors. If you would like to share your views with a blog post on The Algemeiner, please be in touch through our Contact page.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • Darrin Silverman

    So we should turn over our sovereignty to the World Trade Center so we will look good to other countries. The ISDS chapter is reason enough to rip up TPP. Allowing a foreign corporation to sue a government because a law or regulation might effect their profit is absolutely crazy they don’t even have to lose money they can sue for loss of future profits. How much has TransCanada lost on actual money spent on the pipeline less than 20 million dollars. They are suing for 15 billion and they get to try their case in front of a panel of corporate lawyers who don’t care about environmental regulations and things like clean air and clean water. If you want to blame anybody in for the hate of the TPP blame Phillip Morris they are the ones with their ridiculous lawsuits against plain packaging that brought isds to light. Nobody cares about the tarrifs. It is the non trade barriers that would let American companies rape the rest of the world. Monsanto and their lawyers would be suing everybody in sight including the United States by their foreign subsidiaries for any attempt to label a product non GMO or a ban on any of their genetically modified seeds. Other countries would be forced to take or meat products pumped full of antibiotics and growth hormones. The United States has some of the worst food safety standards in the modernized world and we would force other countries to drop to a level. Why do you think we have no trade agreement with Europe they currently ban genetically modified products and their food safety standards are much higher than the United States. The chemicals that the fast food industry uses for the United States to preserve freshness is not allowed in Europe.