Pacific Rim Trade Agreement

Canada had not been able to negotiate a bilateral trade agreement with Japan before the TPP negotiations were concluded. Japan and the European Union (EU) have also concluded an Economic Partnership Agreement that will enter into force on 1 February. The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates that “the TPP would have positive effects, if only as a percentage of the overall size of the U.S. economy.” [13] There will be an additional 128,000 full-time jobs. [165] By 2032, real annual U.S. income would increase by 0.23%, real GDP would increase by $42.7 billion, or 0.15%, employment would increase by 0.07%, U.S. exports would increase by 1%, and imports by 1.1%. [13] The report adds: “In general, the TPP would establish trade-related disciplines, strengthen and harmonize rules, enhance security, and reduce trade costs for companies operating and investing in the TPP region.” [13] Vietnam is often considered the largest beneficiary of TPP. [166] [167] [23] The United States The International Trade Commission identifies the following U.S. industries as net beneficiaries of TPP: passenger cars; clothing, milk production; retailers and wholesalers; and business services; and as net losers: auto parts; textiles; soybean production; transport and tourism; and chemicals and drugs. [13] [168] Some thought that the original TPP would likely bring China`s neighbors closer to the United States and reduce their dependence on Chinese trade.

[166] [167] [23] [24] [25] [184] [185] [26] [186] [187] If the TPP were ratified, it would have strengthened U.S. influence on future rules of the global economy. U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter said the adoption of the TPP was as valuable to the U.S. as the creation of another aircraft carrier. [23] President Obama said, “If we don`t pass this agreement — if America doesn`t write these rules — countries like China will.” [188] According to the Congressional Research Service, “many Asian politicians might interpret – right or not – a failure of the TPP in the United States as a symbol of diminishing U.S. interest in the region and the inability to maintain leadership. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies in Cato, argued in July 2016 that “Congress` failure to ratify the Trans-Pacific Partnership this year would do more to undermine U.S. regional and global interests than anything China can do.” [181] Stephen M. Walt, a professor of international relations at Harvard University, described the TPP as “a key institution that would have more closely linked a number of Asian countries to the United States” after the Trump administration abandoned the TPP. [186] ECIPE stated in 2014 that the TPP would be “the first `competing` economic integration large enough to have a significant negative impact on Europe. .

. .