The Brattleboro Reformer (Vt.), June 26:
The fate of the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership, a sweeping trade agreement between the U.S. and some of its major trading partners, is now clearer.
Last Tuesday, a procedural vote denied President Obama the authority to negotiate the agreement on a “fast track” basis, which means whatever deal emerges with our foreign counterparts, it’s only subject to a yes or no vote in Congress, and can’t be modified further. Without such authority, most other nations ”“ wisely ”“ aren’t going to negotiate fully or offer their best deal, for fear they will be upended later when a Congressional representative decides to score some cheap political points for parochial benefit.
The fact that this important trade package has been dragged out this far is discouraging for those who search for signs that a more confident America, ready and willing to engage on an intelligent basis with an emerging world that is going to be different from the post-Cold War one of the past quarter-century, is emerging. That would be in contrast to the at times clumsy fashion that has guided some of our actions in the Middle East, although in fairness, that region presents so many complexities and contradictions that almost any form of engagement has a down side.
Much of the consternation from the political left stems from concern that this deal, if enacted, will doom more blue collar manufacturing workers to the unemployment line and outsource jobs overseas. The evidence of that however, is less than convincing. True enough, when trade began its latest round of global expansion in the 1970s and 80s, many U.S. factories were shuttered, jobs lost, and production moved off-shore. That would have been likely anyway, given the rapid changes already underway. And despite the screeching about NAFTA, the trade agreement between the U.S., Canada and Mexico, when viewed from the big picture, this deal has hardly been a disaster for the U.S. economy. The growth of the Mexican economy, we would have thought, would have been welcomed ”“ it will reduce the troubling flow of illegal immigration from there.
Obviously, we think TPP will benefit the U.S. in the long run, opening up more jobs ”“ different ones, to be sure ”“ and helping reduce costs for consumers. But the real benefits for the U.S. lies in the trade pact’s statement that we as a nation are determined to remain players in Asia, particularly in the Pacific rim from China to India and throughout the south Pacific. Right now, we are entering a crossroads point in terms of our involvement, engagement and influence there.
Ever since the end of World War II, we have enjoyed a large measure of influence in the region, indeed a pre-eminent one. We earned that through the security umbrella we offered nations and the trade agreements we forged with them. But times are changing, and now it is China, with an expanding economy, an expanding military presence and a more assertive approach to its dealings with its neighbors, that could well challenge that seven decade old consensus.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership will send a signal to our partners in the Far East. Up or down, we’ll still be players in the region, but we may not be the predominant ones. Many might say, so what? When you can’t get your way, after you’re used to getting it, that’s frustrating, and the time will come when the U.S. won’t have its way when it wants or needs to. And that would be unfortunate, because here, though not pristine, the U.S. record for being a benign overseer of regional order hasn’t been a bad one.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
