Obama Administration & the Trans-Pacific Partnership – Foreign Policy Youth Collaborative

On President Trump’s first workday in the office – Monday, January 23, 2017, he delivered on his campaign promise and signed a statement that formally abandoned the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TTP), a landmark achievement from the Obama administration. The TPP was set to be the world’s largest free trade deal comprising 12 countries bordering the Pacific Ocean with a collective population of 800 million, and together, responsible for 40% of world trade. The nations included Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and the United States. It was the product of 19 official negotiations and had the endorsements from the 12 nation’s trading chiefs. The deal was viewed as an impressive achievement for its ability to overcome significant political hurdles and countries agreeing to difficult reforms of their economies. The deal was also praised for its inclusion of environmental protection policies, worker’s rights, and regulatory coherence. The partnership, however, was a divisive topic in the United States.

During his time in office, former President Barack Obama prioritized trade deals, and the TPP was a key component of his efforts to push U.S. foreign policy to the Pacific rim. The goal of the partnership was to bring Pacific nations together through lower tariffs as well as to act as a buttress against China’s increasing influence in the region. Its supporters argued it would be beneficial for all the nations involved, would “unlock opportunities,” and “address vital 21st-century issues with the global economy.” Critics opposing this view saw the deal as encouraging continued export of manufacturing to low-wage nations and refuted that limited competition would encourage heightening prices for high-value products such as pharmaceuticals. A “neutral assessment” was done in 2016 by the U.S. International Trade Commission (a non-partisan federal agency) and it was calculated that the agreement would cause a net increase of 128,000 full-time jobs and would boost the United States’ GDP by 42.7 billion over the course of 15 years.

Unlike so many political issues, the Trans-Pacific Partnership did not fall smoothly on party lines with supporters and opponents on both sides. Strongly opposed, Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders stated that the partnership was a “corporate-backed agreement” that would have cost the United States “millions of decent-paying jobs, pushed down wages for American workers and led to the decline of our middle class.” Sanders also emphasized that he wanted American companies to create “decent-paying jobs” in the United States instead of low-wage countries such as Vietnam, Malaysia, or China. Additionally, in her position as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton had promoted the deal as it was drafted; however, in October 2015, she came forward in opposition. On the other side, Republican Senator John McCain stated that the president’s decision to withdraw from the TTP was a “serious mistake” with “lasting consequences for America’s economy” as well as for the strategic position in the Asia-Pacific region. The fact it draws supporters and opponents from both parties confirms that it is a highly complicated and nuanced issue.

The United States’ participation was an important component for the deal and their pulling out was a heavy blow for the other nations that signed up. Japan’s Prime Minister at the time, Shino Abe said that the TPP, without the United States and its 250 million consumers, would be “meaningless.” Despite this, the 11 remaining members continued to manufacture a new version of the pact, known as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). Leaving the original pact left the United States’ role in the Asia-Pacific uncertain.

I believe that this topic is complicated, but global trade is inevitable. Commerce will continue and it is better to be proactive so that when the ability to place environmental and worker protections arises it is important to take the opportunity. This pact would have been important and contributed to the United States’ economic and geopolitical interests. With the addition of the increase in GDP and job opportunities, the Trans-Pacific Partnership would have increased US leadership in Asia and improved upon the alliances of the region. Former President Barack Obama was taking important steps in working towards the advancement of the country.

Sources:

Written by Alice Padula.