December 14, 2020 by eklose
In June 2015, U.S. Senator Rand Paul, Republican from Kentucky, rejected the law to expedite the ratification of the TPP by Congress on the basis of the secrecy of the trade agreement.  The original TPP was assumed by some that it would likely bring China`s neighbours closer to the United States and reduce its dependence on Chinese trade.            If ratified, the TPP would have strengthened American influence over future rules of the world economy. U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter said the adoption of the TPP was as valuable to the United States as the creation of another aircraft carrier.  President Obama argued that if we do not adopt this agreement – if America does not write these rules – then countries like China will.”  According to the Congressional Research Service, “many Asian politicians could interpret – well or not – a failure of the TPP in the United States as a symbol of diminishing American interest in the region and the inability to assert leadership… If the tPP fails to reach the conclusion, China could effectively allow China to develop regional rules on trade and diplomacy through its own trade and investment initiatives, which could create regional rules and standards that are less beneficial to U.S. interests.  Michael J. Green and Matthew P. Goodman assert that “history will be merciless if the TPP fails… If Congress rejects the TPP, the attempt to negotiate a similar agreement in Asia would revive U.S.
demands – and in the meantime, alternative rules such as the RCEP, which exclude the United States, are likely to be underway. The momentum behind the U.S.-led international order would fly against them. Future generations of historians will learn about American leaders at this time.  Dan Ikenson, director of the Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies in Cato, argued in July 2016 that “Congress` failure to ratify the Trans-Pacific Partnership this year would undermine U.S. regional and global interests more than anything China can do.”  Stephen M. Walt, a professor of international relations at Harvard University, wrote after the Trump administration abandoned the TPP, describing the TPP as “a key institution that would have more closely linked a number of Asian countries to the United States.”  The White House cited statements of support from the World Wildlife Fund, the Nature Conservancy, the Humane Society, the Wildlife Conservation Society, Defenders of Wildlife, the International Fund for Animals, Global Animal Protection and other environmental groups for the TPP.   The Peterson Institute for International Economics argues that the TPP is “the most environmentally friendly trade agreement ever negotiated.”  With respect to ISDS, IPIE analysts note that there is little evidence of environmental policy restrictions arising from ISDS disputes.  The TPP began as an extension of the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (P4) agreement, signed in 2005 by Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore.