The Fate of the Trans-Pacific Partnership after the Withdrawal of the United States - Research Proposal Example

Methodology: Is the Trans-Pacific Partnership dead after the withdrawal of the United States from the negotiations and the agreement under Donald Trump? Critically analyze why or why not. Name: College: Course name/number: Professor’s name: Assignment number: Date: Is the Trans-Pacific Partnership dead after the withdrawal of the United States from the negotiations and the agreement under Donald Trump? Critically analyze why or why not. Working title An examination of the fate of the Trans-Pacific Partnership after the withdrawal of the United States. Significance Researchers have produced much evidence related to the effects of unilateral, bilateral and multilateral approaches to trade, and have argued for and against these trading approaches. While the world economies are progressively moving away from protectionist trading practices and embracing free trade paradigm, others find liberal trade policies to the toxic to their domestic economies. While the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which is a trade agreement between 12 counties bordering the Pacific Ocean, is a multilateral approach of global economic significance because it congregates together countries that account for 40 % of the gross domestic product (GDP) of the global economy and 25 % of the global trade, the withdrawal of the United States has generated concerns of its survivability.1 The proposed study will investigate whether the Trans-Pacific Partnership is dead or not in the backdrop of the withdrawal of the United States under President Trump’s administration and make an argument for the position adopted. Therefore, the study will inform on the status of multilateral trade agreements in the contemporary world under the current economic and political atmospheres and the role played by the United States in fostering the survival of such agreements in even international trade. Literature review Many researchers have investigated the effects of trade agreements on international trade and national economies are evidenced by the proliferation publications that constitute primary and secondary sources. While the effects of the Trans-Pacific Partnership are yet to be felt because the agreement is yet to be ratified by the 12 member states, researchers have already engaged in the painting of various scenarios regarding its survival, particularly in light of the withdrawal of the United States from the negotiations and ratification after President Trump took office in 20th of January. Proponents of the Trans-Pacific Partnership argue that the agreement is not doomed and can be rebranded as a 12-one Trans-Pacific Partnership while others have declared it dead because it would be meaningless without the membership of the United States. Yet even other observers opine that the exit of the United States would create a leeway for China to be incorporated and perhaps offer leadership and stewardship that would help preserve the original intensions of the agreement. Research activities and political commentaries regarding the viability of the TPP started emerging long before president Trump began his presidential campaigns and when the agreement was first mooted. For instance, Lewis (2011) observed that the TPP remained largely unknown in 2009, despite the avid negotiations engaged in by the office of the United States Trade Representatives (USTR) with significant expenditure of resources.2 He observed that the TPP fitted neither the bilateral trade agreement model nor the multilateral customs union model that was characteristic of the trade-related treaties that the United States was party, thus making it a novel approach to trading agreements. On one hand, the TPP had the potential to introduce a new exemplar to trade agreements and even grow into a Free Trade Area for the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP).3 4 Meanwhile on the other hand, the TPP would be a hard sell to many countries in the Asiatic region if the United States employed its characteristic standard template of negotiating for Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). The Trans-Pacific Partnership was modeled on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a template that was later used to design the United States-Korea free trade agreement of 2012, the central America free trade agreement of 2005, the Permanent Normal Trade (PNTR) agreement with China of 2000 and even the World Trade Organization of 1995. Indeed, the TPP was built from the P4 trade agreement of 2006 that brought together Singapore, New Zealand, Chile and Brunei (BBC, 2017; Faux, 2016).5 6 However, the fact that NAFTA and even WHO have not delivered all that was promised therein may be a bane and misgiving for the survival of the TPP.7 However, despite the failures of NAFTA, President Obama had opined that the TPP would be different because it would raise trading standards, an argument that would be employed to provide a lifeline for the survival of TPP (Faux, 2016).8 The sentiments that were expressed by President Trump during his presidential campaigns, and the subsequent withdrawal of the united states from the TPP, has complicated the debate further because they have highlighted the political influence of the agreement. Some researchers and political observers opine that the TPP would help consolidate the leadership position in international trade practices and thus help negate and control the increasing influence of China, which has emerged to be a major trader, a platform that it can use to manipulate the political environment.9 10 However, other researchers and political pundits observed that even with the exit of the United States, TPP would survive because it would remain supported by the remaining member countries. In addition, the TPP would be modified to accommodate China, and therefore still offer the promised benefits, considering that President Trump has declared that he would not enter into any trade agreements in which the interests of the United States would be compromised, and has promised to pursue the bilateral trade agreement model instead (Rimmer, 2016).11 Interestingly, Novotná (2017) thinks that the TPP would survive but would not be enacted just yet until the United States changes its position.12 This perception is premised on the history of American presidents who have been known to change their minds about such agreements midstream in their administrations or even with new administrations that enter after an election cycle.13 Indeed, Fidler (2017) provides sufficient examples how heated rhetoric by American presidents against certain trade policies have transformed into support within the same administration.14 He cited examples such as President Reagan’s Support for FTAs with Canada and Israel after expressing nationalistic economic sentiments earlier, President Clinton’s push to establish the World Trade Organization (WTO) after expressing skepticism regarding NAFTA, which was to provide the template of the WTO, and President Obama’s support for the TPP after expressing criticism regarding NAFTA. In addition, the rhetoric against China and its engagement in currency manipulation that has been fronted by the Trump administration may not be sufficient to obliterate TPP, neither is it indicative that the united states may not change its mind about TPP in future. 15 Methodology A qualitative study seeking to answer the question whether the Trans-Pacific Partnership is dead or not after the withdrawal of the United States from the negotiations and the agreement under Donald Trump will be undertaken. In addition, the study will justify the position of the fate of the TPP that would be adopted after answering the previous question. To this end, for the research design, the study will be undertaken in three sections. The first section will seek to determine why the Trans-Pacific Partnership is dead after the withdrawal of the United States while the second section will investigate why the TPP is not dead after the withdrawal of the United States from the negotiations and the agreement under Donald Trump. The third section will analyze the reasons for and against the survival of the TPP in a bit to arrive at a verdict of whether the TPP would be dead or not. The position adopted would be justified sufficiently by critical analysis as well. The specific objectives of the study are: a) To determine the arguments for the survival of the TPP after the exit of the united states b) To determine the arguments of the death of the TPP after the exit of the united states c) To compare and contrast the arguments for and against the death of the TPP after the exit of the united states and arrive at a verdict d) To make an argument for the verdict arrived at in c) To achieve these objectives, a review of literature approach shall be adopted in which relevant literature shall be obtained from online sources. Search engines such as Microsoft Academic Search and Google Scholar to query various online databases. To facilitate the internet search, keywords such as Trans-Pacific Partnership, Trans-Pacific Partnership and Trump, and Trans-Pacific Partnership and exit of the United States. The search is expected to yield peer reviewed journals, organizational publications and expert opinions, from which information for and against the revival of TPP can be derived. References BBC (2017). TPP: What is it and why does it matter? BBC. Retrieved April 13, 2017 from http://www.bbc.com/news/business32498715. Bernal, G. (2017). Challenges and possible scenarios of international trade policies under Trump’s presidency. In Latin American Regional Forum vol. 10, no. 1 (p. 10-14). Capling, A., & Ravenhill, J. (2011). Multilateralising regionalism: what role for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement? The Pacific Review, 24(5), 553-575. Faux, J. (2016). US Trade Policy–Time to Start All Over. Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved April 13, 2017 from http://www.jefffaux.com/?p=642. Fidler, D. P. (2017). President Trump, Trade Policy, and American Grand Strategy: From Common Advantage to Collective Carnage. Asian Journal of WTO and International Health Law & Policy, 12(1), 1-31. Ikenson, D. J., Lester, S., Lincicome, S., Pearson, D. R., & Watson, K. W. (2016). Should Free Traders Support the Trans-Pacific Partnership? An Assessment of America's Largest Preferential Trade Agreement. CATO Institute. Retrieved April 13, 2017 from https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/working-paper-39_3.pdf. Lewis, M. K. (2011). The Trans-Pacific Partnership: New Paradigm or Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing? Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, 34(27), 27-52. Novotná, T. (2017). Will Donald Trump shoot down TTIP or rebrand it as the ‘Trump Trade and Investment Partnership’? USApp–American Politics and Policy Blog. Rimmer, M. (2016). The Trumping of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Medium. Retrieved April 13, 2017 from https://medium.com/@DrRimmer/the-trumping-of-the-trans-pacific-partnershipc6161faec458#.7y3n8umb7. Shaiken, H. (2016). In whose interest? Inclusive trade vs. corporate protectionism. The Berkeley Review of Latin American Studies. Retrieved April 13, 2017 from http://clas.berkeley.edu/research/tpp-nafta-whose-interest-inclusive-trade-vs-corporate-protectionism. Wilson, J. D. (2017). Australia’s post-Trump trade agenda: Making sense of limited options. United States Studies Centre. Retrieved April 13, 2017 from https://www.ussc.edu.au/analysis/australias-post-trump-trade-agenda-making-sense-of-limited-options. Read More