Adopted by the new US President the decision to withdraw from TRANS-Pacific partnership (TPP) actively comment on economists from around the world. We are talking about the collapse of the idea that the United States, as stated by Obama, will dictate trade rules around the world. In the end, the US economy will benefit, but will benefit and Russia.
Fulfilling his campaign promises, Donald trump has signed a decree on the withdrawal of the United States of the TPP, thereby distantsirovaniya from its Asian allies. “What we have done today – is a big deal for American workers,” he said after signing the document. Previously, trump has called the TPP a disaster for the United States. Instead, he promised to “negotiate a fair bilateral trade deals that will bring jobs and industry back to American shores.”
“The EEU will be easier to implement your strategy for creating free trade zones with various countries in the Asia-Pacific region”
The TRANS-Pacific partnership promised to become the largest free trade area in the world. It was planned that it will involve 12 countries, 1 billion population and 40% of world GDP. According to estimates, the volume of trade between countries in the TPP could grow by 11%, and GDP of the partnership members – at 1.1%. The number of participants in the TPP – Australia, Brunei, Vietnam, Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Chile and Japan.
China predicting the place of the US in the TPP
Members of the TTP, of course, knew that trump will make the decision. Some countries have previously stopped the ratification of this agreement. However, not all are willing to give up the idea to create the world’s largest trade Union. And replace the USA has already been found is China, whose economy in many respects has already surpassed the us.
Australia and New Zealand stated that it does not lose hope to save the TRANS-Pacific partnership due to the accession of China and other Asian countries, reports Reuters. They have already held talks about it with each other and with Singapore. “There is no doubt that the loss of the United States for the TPP is a big loss. However, we are not going away. The possibility to join the TPP is China,” said the Prime Minister of Australia Malcolm Turnbull.
However, such a development is unlikely. Initially, TTP was advertised just as a new economic force to counterbalance a growing China. In particular, talked a lot about this in Japan and now she is unlikely to agree to membership of Beijing. In Japan, officially confirmed that do not support other members of the TTP in maintaining the partnership after the release of America. Prime Minister Abe has made it clear that the TPP without the United States does not make sense, because then the balance of interests will be broken. And without the United States and Japan, this partnership is definitely not the future.
Rather now members of the TPP will have to bilaterally negotiate with the USA about trade rules – and this is what acts as the trump.
As for China, he did nothing to save TTP, sharpened by the interests of the United States and Japan, and it is more logical to develop alternative trade unions. Obama created the TTP in order to dictate trade rules for Asia before Beijing would set the final economic leadership in the region. In response, China began to create Asia-Pacific free trade area (tsst) and to defend the establishment of regional Comprehensive economic partnership (VREP, RCEP). And Beijing is not going to recede from the planned plans.
The official representative of the Chinese foreign Ministry, Hua Chunying did not directly answer the question of whether China is interested in joining the TPP. “We believe that in the current situation, regardless of what happens, everyone should continue to follow the path of the open economy for the continuous development and seek cooperation and win-win,” – said at a daily briefing Chunying. According to her, it is necessary to intensify efforts to create atsst, plus China hopes soon to complete the negotiations for RCEP.
“We are confident that the agreement the TPP without the United States will lose any sense. Moreover, it would have lost meaning if the US did not come from the TTP, but he refused to sign a Japan,” – says the newspaper VIEW Deputy Director of the analytical Department of “Alpari” Natalia Milchakova. It is now clear that neither the US nor Japan did not sign the document.
“China will not take the place of the US in the collapse of TTP, because TTP was initially created under multinational companies with roots in the United States and the financial capital of American origin. The agreement prescribes the conditions favorable to these groups,” explains Peter Pushkarev from TeleTrade.
Moreover, Asian countries can not agree to make China the leader of the TTP. Developing country members of the Union needed American market. In exchange, they were willing to let into your market of a major American Corporation. China as a market is no less interesting for countries in the Asia Pacific region. But Beijing, despite claims to the openness of the economy, strictly protect the local market. On the other hand, cheap Chinese products are already present on the markets of almost all countries of the Asia-Pacific region, even Japan.
“But, of course, since the TTP is not, then it will allow China to strengthen its leading position in Asia. But not from a position of strength as it tried to make USA with the help of TTP, but by mutually beneficial penetration of economies, that is, the traditional Chinese way,” adds Pushkarev.
The window of opportunity for the EEU and Russia
The US withdrawal from the TRANS-Pacific partnership (TPP) can take advantage of China, the European Union and Russia.
Based on the world Bank calculations, Russia effect of the TPP would be zero, for China the effect would be negative, but not too (minus 0.3%). However, in the long term the TPP could cause more significant impact. If the TRANS-Pacific and TRANS-Atlantic (US and EU) partnership was implemented in the long term, the EEU would have been in the trade and investment isolation, the Director of the centre for integration studies of the Eurasian development Bank (EDB) Yevgeniy Vinokurov. Whereas the Eurasian economic Union and Russia, which account for only 2% of world GDP, the priority goal today is to expand trade Union, first and foremost through the creation of free trade zones with the countries of the Asia-Pacific region.
As the United States controls the entire planet”the Obama Administration has so carefully nurtured the project to create in the Asia-Pacific region a strong economic foothold against China and Russia and restrict the access of products and raw materials from these countries to the markets of the countries – participants of the agreement,” said Milchakova.
Now the US withdrawal from the TTP creates a window of opportunity for Russia and the Eurasian Union, says Vinokurov. The EEU will be easier to implement your strategy for creating free trade zones with various countries in the Asia-Pacific region. Yet earned only the FTA between the EEU and Vietnam and Singapore. But New Zealand, for example, in 2014, refused to create a FTA, because he was interested to establish trade cooperation with the United States under the TTP. Now, New Zealand may be more amenable.
“It is possible that it will now be easier to move also with South Korea, Indonesia, Thailand, Chile. Let’s trade with such countries as Chile, insignificant, but it is a useful springboard, but turnover tends to grow in an environment”, says Vinokurov, RIA “Novosti”.
Good for the EU
The European Union’s decision trump will also get the chance to develop a closer relationship with Asia-Pacific countries. Germany has already announced that it intends to take advantage of this.
“If trump will start a trade war with Asia and South America, it will open up opportunities for us… trump needs to recognize that the American economy uncompetitive in contrast to the German,” said German Vice-Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel publication Handelsblatt.
Donald John trump was sworn in as President of the United States of America, becoming the 45th President. 70-year-old politician and billionaire was sworn in by the chief justice of the USA John Robertsdale, now with more confidence, you can say that the decision to leave TTP may follow the refusal of the United States and on agreement TTIP (free trade zone) with Europe, through which Washington imposed a disadvantage to Brussels.
For example, the agreement not only eliminated customs barriers that were low, and heavily simplified, non-tariff barriers (standards and regulations). In Europe they are tougher than the US that created the potential for a chemical and agricultural business in Europe. For example, in Europe the principle on which the goods or the manufacturing process are permitted only if there is scientific evidence of their safety for man or nature. In the USA the situation is different. Here you can sell products without restrictions until it is scientifically proven that it is dangerous. For example, in the United States actively used the so-called fracking (hydraulic fracturing) for shale oil and gas. In European countries it is banned. The same situation with GMO foods (permitted in USA, Europe banned). Washington wanted at the expense of the agreement to ease European restrictions on the use of harmful industrial and agricultural substances and their content in consumer products.
Typical example: manufacturers of cosmetics and perfumes based in France, denied the right to use the 1200 substances, while their competitors on the other side of the Atlantic restricted the list to just 12 points.
That is, until European farmers would go to new forms of work, the European market was flooded with American products.
“The TPP agreement was not beneficial to anyone except the already lost the election the elites in the US and in addition to some politicians in other countries. The agreement was the result (action) of the financial lobby and defended primarily the interests of large transnational capital (U.S.) to the detriment of local domestic industries and services markets. The TRANS-Pacific partnership was, from beginning to end dishonest deal. Was conceived a huge cluster of Asian countries, Oceania and some countries in South America with the leading role of the United States, where the dominant role played by transnational large corporations, mostly with American capital,” says Peter Pushkarev.
From the point of view of the interests of American Industrialists and American citizens, taxpayers, and the budget of the United States this agreement was also unprofitable. Developing countries signatories of the TPP, would get duty-free access to the huge American market. “It would lead to the closure of a number of companies in the USA, bankruptcy of farmers, the possible flight of industries from the US to other countries to enable business competitive advantage. The same can be said about Japan, Australia and Canada,” says Natalia Milchakova.
“Leaving the agreement, trump returns the situation to place, from head to foot. Production and capital will not return to the United States overnight, but the process will begin. The same large companies who prefer to maintain the localization of production abroad, especially in Asia, will be able to do it still, but they’ll have to pay duty or taxes that equalize them in rights with other companies. This is true even if the result is to deflate the stock bubble in the US, but the stock bubble and the interests of the economy – not always the same. At the same time strengthened the stock markets of the Asian countries, especially China, but eventually also Japan and other States – already former participants of the CCI,” – said Pushkarev.
Actually, everyone is waiting for an inglorious end of the agreement TTIP with Europe and the revision of the existing NAFTA agreement on free trade between the countries of North America. “It seems incredible, but it is possible that over time, the US can raise the issue of revision of the WTO rules. If this happens, the old model of globalization will undergo radical changes that will apply including many other global economic institutions – IMF, world Bank, etc.” – does not preclude Milchakova.