Comments on US Strategy for Promoting Trans-Pacific Partnership

Du Lan

Comments on US Strategy for Promoting Trans-Pacific Partnership

Du Lan

The Obama administration is taking the initiative to promote the conclusion of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). It serves the strategy for expanding US exports for the purpose of enhancing US competitiveness in Asia-Pacific and safeguarding US dominance in this region. The negotiations on the TPP enlargement have made some progress as the parties concerned have expectations of each other. Given considerable divergences among the parties, coupled with the domestic restraining factors in the United States, it would be difficult to push ahead with the TPP enlargement in near future.

I. US Initiatives to Promote the TPP

The Trans-Pacific Partnership—a free trade organization under the framework of Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)—was launched by Chile, New Zealand, Singapore and Brunei (known as P4). In June 2005, the four countries signed the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement, which entered into force in 2006, and prescribed to open to accession. The four countries sought to motivate free trade among APEC members that involved in this mechanism, expand economic and trade relations among each party, and accelerate the overall economicdevelopment of each member. The TPP pioneered the trade liberalization process under the APEC framework. However, the Bush Junior administration looked down upon the TPP as a free trade bloc made up of several small APEC members that would have dim prospects, and was indifferent with the TPP. However, seeing the prospect of the aggrandizing TPP for its openness and the huge strategic values to the United States, President Obama shifted his predecessor’s cold attitude towards the TPP by promoting its enlargement process with a view to playing the leading and pivotal role in the process.

During his visit to Japan in November 2009, President Obama announced for the first time that the United States would engage with the Trans-Pacific Partnership countries to shape a regional agreement. “The United States will be engaging with the Trans-Pacific Partnership countries with the goal of shaping a regional agreement that will have broad-based membership and the high standards worthy of a 21st century trade agreement.” Since then, the US government have actively prepared for a new TPP agreement, for generating domestic and overseas support and response.

The P4 and many other Asian countries intending to join the TPP have all expressed their support for the inclusion of the United States. The Ministry of Trade and Industry of Singapore stated, “The expansion of the TPP to include the United States and other APEC members will place renewed focus on regional economic integration, and it will also give a strong boost to the trade liberalization agenda.” New Zealand also favors the US engagement in the TPP and views the TPP as a way to add some momentum to trade liberalization among APEC member countries. After the United States announced the engagement in the TPP negotiations, Peru, Australia, Vietnam, Canada, Mexico, South Korea, Japan, Indonesia, Colombia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand have also announced their intention to join the TPP successively. The potential negotiating partners are on the increase.

To join the TPP smoothly and promote further development of the TPP, the Obama administration also strived to seek support from all social circles. When the second round of the TPP negotiations was held in San Francisco, Office of the United States Trade Representatives (USTR) invited congressmen and 28 organizations taking interest in or raising doubts about the TPP to be on-site throughout the negotiations. USTR is also conducting an unprecedented domestic outreach strategy for the TPP in 50 states, and has received good results.

The US government has participated in several rounds of the TPP negotiations. In March 2010, officials from the United States, the P4, Peru, Australia and Vietnam (as observer) attended the first round of negotiations for the expansion in Melbourne, Australia; the second round took place in San Francisco in the US in late June, and the third round of the TPP negotiations was held in Brunei in mid-October with the participation of a new member—Malaysia.

The talks focused on a range of important and sensitive issues such as market access, tariff transfer model, the relationship between the TPP and existing FTAs among the negotiating partners, model agreement, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) protection and regulatory coherence, and have made some progress. All parties agreed to hold firm on rules of existing FTAs, while abiding by higher standards of the new TPP Agreement simultaneously. The United States intended to take the chance of the 2010 APEC Summit held in Japan to advance the TPP negotiation process, and conclude and sign a new TPP agreement including at least 9 members by the time of the APEC Summit to be held in the United States at the end of 2011. It is possible that the TPP negotiations can be concluded before the 2011 APEC Summit according to current progress.

These rounds of the TPP negotiations have virtually been dominated by the United States, demonstrating that the Obama administration, for laying the foundation for a new US-centric regional order in Asia-Pacific region, has decided to develop the TPP under the framework of APEC and preside over trans-Pacific economic architectures.

II. US Strategic Intensions to Promote the TPP

The Obama administration’s endeavor to advance the TPP process is a new step of enhancing the US strategic deployment and input in Asia-Pacific region, and a new tendency of shifting the focus of its foreign strategy to the Asia Pacific region. It aims to sustain US national interests more effectively under the background of the profound changes inside and outside the United States, especially the situation in the Asia-Pacific region.

1. Further expanding the Asia-Pacific market to crop up its export expansion strategy.

The US economy has deteriorated markedly since the beginning of the 21st century, bringing an end to the rapid growth for a decade long. The US economy has grown at low rate, or even declined in some years. It is the outcome of the burst of the New Economy Bubble, and the drawbacks of the domestic demand-based model of economic development the US has executed for a long time which depends on imports and domestic consumption excessively. The foreign trade value of the US only accounts for 18.7% of its GDP, the lowest in developed countries. Due to the shrinking real economy and over-consumption, the foreign trade of the United States is facing serious imbalance with imports far outstripping exports and trade deficit remains stubbornly high. High trade deficit means consumption on credit and deficit spending, and this was the principal cause of high fiscal deficit and high debt of the United States. The “three high problems” were further exacerbated in the financial crisis. In 2009, the fiscal deficit reached US$1.42 trillion, accounting for 10% of GDP, and the balance of national debt was US$ 11.9 trillion, accounting for 70% of GDP, and foreign trade deficit amounted to US$ 500 billion, so the three indexes are record high. The long-standing abuse such as “three high problems” highlighted by the financial crisis seriously dragged down American economic recovery, and even caused negative growth in 2009. Through the US economic downturn over the years, the Obama administration recognized that the development model mainly relying on expanding domestic demand was not sustainable; to reproduce the economic boom in the 1990s and realize the continued and sound economic growth, the United States must activate two wheels of domestic demand and exports at the same time, rather than the wheel of domestic demand only. The economic depression and high unemployment rate resulted from the financial crisis further prompted the administration to speed up the transformation of economic model from being consumerdriven to both consumer and export driven. The US Trade Representative Ron Kirk argues that an important lesson for America is to take a new growth model—one based on export and investment rather than largely depending on consumption. In his State of the Union Address of 2010, Obama explicitly raised the export expansion strategy which aimed to double American exports and create two million jobs in five years, and put forward the National Export Initiative. A key tool for the export expansion strategy is advancing free trade negotiations to eliminate trade barriers of other countries and expand US export markets.

Expanding exports and increasing employment are the top priorities on the economic agenda of the Obama administration. The main target of the export expansion strategy is Asia-Pacific region especially East Asian countries. It is determined by the fast growing economy of East Asia and the crucial position of East Asia in world economy structure. Over the years, East Asia is the main highlight in world economy, with its average economic growth rate two to three times more than the world average. East Asia has now emerged as one of the world’s three major economic centers. In 2009, the total GDP of East Asian countries was over US$12 trillion. According to the estimation of the South Korea Hyundai Research Institute, the size of East Asian economy will be US$ 12.98 trillion in 2010, but will reach US$17.34 trillion in 2014—surpassing the United States as the world’s biggest economy. Meanwhile, foreign trade in East Asia is well-developed. In 2009, the foreign trade volume of East Asian economy accounted for 40% of the world. The East Asia region now has the world’s largest foreign exchange reserve, accounting for more than 60% of the world. In addition, East Asia is the world’s largest potential consumer market, as the population of “10+3” including 10 ASEAN countries plus China, Japan and South Korea is over 2.1 trillion, more than 7 times the population of the US and over four times the EU’s. So if the United States could occupy the East Asian market, its economy will absolutely take strong momentum of development.

For expanding the Asia-Pacific market, the United States has to establish free trade relations with Asia Pacific countries to eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers and thus open the door for American goods. However, the United States lagged far behind in this regard. First, there are now 175 preferential trade agreements in force that include Asia-Pacific countries, and more are on the way with 20 agreements awaiting implementation and 50 others under negotiation. But the United States is excluded by most of these preferential trade agreements. Second, the construction of free trade area in Asia-Pacific region which excluded the US has achieved great success. Since the beginning of 2010, ASEAN has established Free Trade Area with China, Japan, South Korea and India, and the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement has come into effect too. Furthermore, the China-Korea and China-Japan bilateral FTA negotiations have been put on the agenda, and China and South Korea “are expected to begin a formal FTA negotiation in 2011”. On the other hand, most bilateral free trade negotiations between the US and Asia-Pacific countries proceed slowly. Negotiations with Malaysia and Thailand have been shelved for a long time. Despite the signing of the agreement with South Korea, Panama and Columbia, the Obama administration has not been granted Trade Promotion Authority from Congress, and the three agreements are confronted with great difficulties in being approved by Congress. Therefore, the US is facing growing danger of being excluded from the economic cooperation in Asia. President of Peterson Institute for International Economics C. Fred Bergsten estimated that if the East Asia Free Trade Area was established without the participation of the United States, the United States would suffer a loss of at least US$25 billion every year, or 200,000 high-paying jobs. Third, in terms of building up free trade relations with Asia Pacific countries, the United States is not only lagging far behind countries in the region, but also dropping behind the European Union. Before the US-Korea Free Trade Agreement was concluded, the EU had signed the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement in July 2009, and more than 90% of tariff on industrial products would be eliminated in three years after the agreement entered into force. Senior Researcher of South Korea Samsung Economic Research Institute Kim Dekha predicted that American exporters would greatly lose competitiveness in future considering that the signing and implementation of the EU-Korea FTA is earlier than US-Korea FTA. In addition, FTA between the EU and Japan is also in urgent consultations, whereas the America has not put it on the agenda.

The lag of the construction of free trade relations between the US and the Asia-Pacific region is extremely disadvantageous to the United States, as this region is significant to the implementation of the US export expansion strategy. According to a study of University of Michigan, a working Asia-Pacific free trade deal would increase real wages in the US by 1%. Therefore, pushing forward the TPP negotiation by the Obama administration is to strengthen the construction of free trade relations with the member states of APEC, and finally achieve the aim of maximizing the interests of American foreign economy.

2. Returning to East Asia to safeguard its dominant position in the Asia Pacific region.

As the main part of the Asia Pacific region, East Asia holds a vital position in the global political and economic structure. It is the most dynamic and fastest-growing region in the world in terms of economy, the most concentrated area of emerging economies, and is expected to become the world’s largest economic center and the largest investment and commodity market in the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, the region covers China, Japan, Russia, India and other large countries, and converges a lot of hot spots such as the North Korean nuclear issue, the South China Sea dispute, the Taiwan issue and the Indian-Pakistan dispute over Kashmir. The international relations and the trend of situation in East Asia trigger the change in the overall international relations and world situation. With all these in mind, the US has placed East Asia in an important position in its global strategy layout over the years. During the George W. Bush period, the US government saw the fight against international terrorism as the central task and top priority of American foreign strategy, concentrating its efforts on Afghanistan and Iraq wars and laying the diplomatic emphasis on the Middle East which they viewed as the source of terrorism. East Asia had thus been ignored. As the world’s second largest integration entity after the Europe Union, the leading integrated organization in Asia, ASEAN has a significant influence over the Asia Pacific region. All the major powers in East Asia as well as many major powers outside the region have signed the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, and have set up high-level dialogue mechanisms with ASEAN. But the United States refused to sign the treaty for a time, nor did they establish any high-level dialogue mechanism with ASEAN. Consequently, America’s influence on the East Asian regional affairs declined markedly.

Since the financial crisis in 1998, especially the beginning of the new century, along with the boom of the East Asian regional economic and security architectures, a range of concentric-circle cooperation mechanisms centered on ASEAN have been established, including “10+1” (ASEAN countries plus China, Japan and South Korea respectively), “10+3” (ASEAN plus China, Japan and South Korea), the East Asia Summit namely “10+6”(ASEAN plus China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand) and other mechanisms. Of particular importance is the“10+3” mechanism, which has deepened and expanded continuously, and has set a long-term goal of building an “East Asian community”, so that it has became the main driving force and foundation for East Asian integration. All these mechanisms are mainly about economic cooperation, but also cover security, diplomacy, environmental protection, culture and other fields. Yet the United States, the self-proclaimed Asia-Pacific country, had little say over all these mechanisms and turned into an outsider. At the same time, Japan and South Korea that have always been close allies of the United States, as well as some Southeast Asian countries that were once America’s close allies, have distanced themselves from the United States. Instead, they put diplomatic focus on East Asia where they are located. Japan even showed the intention of “shifting away from the US and into Asia” and proposed the initiative of “East Asian Community”which excludes the United States, making the United States feel greatly lost and uneasy. As an important driving force and a major part of the multi-polarization process of the Asia-Pacific region and the world’s strategic structure, the development of East Asian regional cooperation reflects the decline of the US power and influence in the region, blows the US supremacy in the Asia Pacific region, and has a significant implication for breaking America’s uni-polar strategy seeking to take over the world.

Former US Secretary of State James Baker warned of the potential danger of “drawing a line down the middle of the Pacific”and tearing the US and East Asia apart. This is too alarmist. But with the rise of East Asia, it is the truth that America’s leading role in the Asia Pacific region has been impaired. And the trend was accelerated because the Bush administration took the anti-terrorism as overriding priority and paid insufficient attention and input to East Asia. In view of this, the Obama administration adjusted his predecessor’s East Asia policy and made high-profile announcement that the United States will“return to East Asia”. During his visit to four Asian countries, President Obama emphasized that the United States was an Asia Pacific nation in a speech on the US’ Asia policy delivered in Japan on November 14, 2009, saying “the fortunes of America and the Asia Pacific have become more closely linked than ever before.”, describing himself as “America’s first Pacific President”, and indicating that the United States looks forward to engaging in East Asian regional cooperation “more formally”. In July 2009 when US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attended the ASEAN Regional Forum, she declared that “we are back”, and officially signed the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia. Later, the United States launched the US-ASEAN Summit with the 10 ASEAN countries, and committed to join the East Asia Summit from 2011. The United States has thus made significant progress in the East Asian regional cooperation. Forging a new TPP agreement is a more substantive strategic initiative for establishing the US dominance in Asia Pacific by the Obama administration. It is aimed to promote American geo-economic interests in East Asia and the Asia Pacific region as a whole, incorporate the region into the economic circle of the United States, and tamp economic foundation for ensuring and strengthening the US dominance in the region though building a free trade bloc led by the US under the framework of APEC.

3. The strategic need to contain China.

In the post-Cold War era, to safeguard its position as the sole superpower and attain ultimate strategic goal of dominating the world, the United States sees preventing the emergence of another superpower like the former Soviet Union as its core pursuit in its global strategy. China, a big socialist nation on rapid rise, has become the main target of suspicion and containment of America. Although the Obama administration attaches importance to the bilateral relations with China, it has still taken on the mantle of containing China from its predecessor, and has gone even beyond. Pushing forward the TPP obviously reflects its strategic consideration against China.

First, reversing the US disadvantage vis-à-vis China in terms of economic and trade relations with East Asia.China has now ranked the world’s second largest economy and the largest economy in Asia, and the world’s second largest trading country and the largest exporter, and seems to almost catch up with the US in terms of the scale of economy and foreign trade, which has already made the United States jealous. What is more, China has developed the export-oriented economy since reform and opening-up, and foreign trade has become one of the main pillars of Chinese economy. The growth of Chinese economic strength contrasts with the decline of America in terms of foreign trade, and the comparison of free trade strength between the two countries is especially evident in East Asia. At present, foreign trade volume between China and East Asian countries is more than US$700 billion, far exceeding that of the United States. China has replaced the US as Australia, Japan, South Korea and ASEAN’s largest trading partner. Moreover, China-ASEAN Free Trade Area came into effect in January 2010, and China’s bilateral FTA negotiations with South Korea and Japan either has been put on the agenda or is under consideration, which opened up broader prospects for China’s economic and trade relations with East Asian countries. However, the construction of free trade area between the United States and East Asian countries basically has not yet started. If this situation remained intact, the United States will be in even more adverse position in competition with China in the field of economy and foreign trade in East Asia. So it becomes more urgent for the United States to build East Asia countries-based trans-Pacific free trade partnership to reverse America’s declining tendency.

Second, pursuing substantial regional cooperation with East Asian countries to counter and suppress the expansion of Chinese influence.Before 2010, the United States had drifted away from the East Asian regional cooperation mechanisms to a large extent. And the facts that it has established US-ASEAN Summit mechanism and will be attending the East Asia Summit since 2011 will not extricate itself from being “an outsider” of the substantial East Asian regional cooperation, as the above summit mechanisms serve for dialogue and forum and are not substantial regional cooperation organizations in nature. Conversely, in addition to the China-ASEAN FTA, China has participated in and actively advanced the building of all East Asian regional cooperation mechanisms (for example, the “10+1”,“10+3”, “10+6” (East Asia Summit) and the ASEAN Regional Forum), and played important roles in them. Following the hegemonic ideology and the Cold War mentality, the United States considers that China’s move to advance the Greater East Asian integration with the “10+3” as principal platform is to use its power status and geographic advantages to establish a new order in Asia led by China, and squeeze the US out of Asia eventually. In order to change America’s passive and lagging situation in the East Asian regional cooperation, the Obama administration is trying to push forward the TPP construction, with a view to promoting cooperation with the East Asian countries on the Asia Pacific regional cooperation, containing the expansion of China’s influence in this region, and reviving the US dominance in East Asia and the whole Asia-Pacific region.

Third, driving a wedge between China and East Asian countries by taking advantage of some East Asian countries’doubts about China.With China’s peaceful development concept and good-neighborly policy deeply rooted in neighboring countries, China’s relations with East Asian countries have developed smoothly in general, and mutual relationship is in the best period in history. But needless to say, some East Asian countries, especially the nations involved in territorial disputes with China, influenced by the “China Threat” theory spread by some minded Westerners, still have doubts and suspicions on China and hope to balance China’s influence with American power. The United States intends to take advantage of that to drive a wedge between them. The US plan to bring most East Asian countries including Japan and other countries having islands and territorial waters disputes with China into the TPP exposes the US intention to make use of them to counter China, while expanding its own power and influence in East Asia at the same time.

III. Prospect for the TPP Enlargement

Achievements have been made in the negotiations on the expansion of the TPP with the efforts of the United States. By October 2010, five countries including the United States participated in the negotiations in addition to the four founding countries. After several rounds of negotiations, the nine countries have made some progress in signing a new TPP agreement. There are eight of other Asia Pacific members like Japan expressing willingness to join in the TPP negotiations. Looking ahead, it is possible to form a trans-Pacific economic cooperation mechanism under the framework of APEC with the United States as the core.

The reasons for the progress lie in the great efforts made by the United States for its fundamental strategic interests, the support and coordination from many other Asia Pacific countries especially East Asian countries. These countries have their own considerations:

First, promoting exports to gather more momentum for their economic development with the US help.East Asian countries, whose economic growth is mainly driven by export, are largely “export-oriented”, and the United States is the world’s largest commodity market and investment destination. In the first eight months of 2010, the US foreign trade volume amounted to US$2.7 trillion, of which import volume was US$1.5 trillion. The foreign trade volume of the whole year was expected to exceed US$ 4 trillion and import volume was expected to reach US$2.3 trillion. However, due to America’s tariff and non-tariff barriers, the trade volume between the East Asian countries and the US and the volume of these countries’ exports to the US are disproportionate to the huge market of the United States, and even lag behind the trade volume between the East Asian countries with China and the value of these countries’ exports to China. Therefore, these countries hope to break the trade barriers of the US by joining the TPP and expand their exports to the US considerably.

Second, expecting the United States to increase its input to the region and play a role of stabilizer in the regional configuration.In the past, the US impact in East Asia was mainly in security field instead of economic field. East Asian countries, unwilling to see the regional economy controlled by a few regional powers such as China and Japan, want the United States to exert more economic influence to maintain the balance and stability of the regional economic structure. They are willing to develop close economic and trade relations with both regional powers and the United States, rather than closing one side and estranging the other, to achieve the maximization of their own economic interests. They fear that if a range of East Asian free trade agreements and mechanisms give rise to the split of the two sides of the Pacific, they have to choose between Asia and the United States, which is not in their own interests and the last thing they want to see.

Third, intending to balance China’s influence in the region.Facing the strong rise of China, following the traditional logic that“big powers are bound to seek hegemony”, East Asian countries worry that China’s dominance in the region will threat them and thus anticipate more input from the US for balancing China’s increasingly growing power and influence. Bonnie Glaser, a China expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, analyzed that, out of economic and trade reasons, “most of the countries in the region really welcome China’s rise, but they are increasingly worried that China has been gained a larger space that need to be balanced; the best candidate to play the role is the United States.” A discussion paper of the ASEAN Foreign Ministers Meeting in July 2010 mentioned: “We are especially welcome the US will give more input in the regional framework construction, East Asian region and the Pacific region”, reflecting Southeast Asian countries’ anticipation of US involvement in East Asia to restore the balance of power in the region.

Although the Asia-Pacific countries have common interests with the United States and they need each other in promoting the construction of the TPP, they have also profound contradiction and collision of interests because of huge differences in strength and status between the two sides. So it is very difficult to reach consensus and sign the final TPP agreement. The main aspect of the contradiction is the United States. As the US is bent on pursuing hegemony, it is both the main promoter and restraint of the TPP. The US goal is difficult to achieve smoothly.

1) The selfish attitude of the United States increases the difficulty of the TPP agreement negotiations. There are more than a dozen countries with different national interests that have participated or are ready to participate in the TPP negotiations, so that it is not easy to reach consensus on the agreement. Backed by its supremacy, the United States puts its will and interests over other countries, resulting in dissent of the countries concerned, and bringing mounting obstructions to the conclusion of the agreement. USTR’s Chief Negotiator for the TPP Barbara Weisel said that the US aim was to reach a set of rules applying to all the Asia-Pacific countries, and any country ready to join must abide by the rules. His words bluntly exposed the US true intention of promoting the TPP—to establish a free trade bloc dominated by the US and in line with the US trade standards in the Asia Pacific region. In other words, after the US participating in the TPP, the organization will not only be led by the United States, but also have to adopt the US trade guidelines. Just for this aim, the United States proposed that the expanded TPP should not follow the original TPP agreement, but need to conclude a new agreement through negotiating. In fact, the original one is a high standard, comprehensive free trade agreement, but it does not meet the US standards, or does not reflect the US demand and interests, so there has to be a new agreement which meets the US standards to replace the old one. The United States also advocates that the TPP agreement should coexist with the existing bilateral FTAs, that is, after signing the TPP agreement, former bilateral FTAs among the TPP members are still valid. The reason for this assertion is that some related countries, when signing FTAs with the United States, were pressurized to agree to the market access provisions offered by the US in order to protect some of its industries. But other countries do not agree to overturn the P4 agreement and to have the TPP agreement coexist with existing bilateral FTAs, as they believe that such arrangements will produce a range of different market access agreements and tariff rules within the TPP, and resultedly bring about disorder as member states could not act uniformly and effectively. They are more dissatisfied with the United States protecting some of its own industries by limiting or even forbidding other countries to export related products to the US, while requiring other countries to open their markets to the United States unconditionally. For instance, House Rules Committee Chairman Louise Slaughter once said, other countries must open their markets to the United States. Moreover, it is also difficult for many developing countries in Asia Pacific to live up to the US demand that the TPP provisions should meet the US requirement on labor and environmental protection. All these show that the United States is self-centered and persists in pursuing its own interests within the TPP negotiations. This is detrimental not only to the vital economic interests of other countries, but also to their economic sovereignty and national independence, so it will inevitably make them rebound and resist. Even if some smaller economies may yield to the United States out of helplessness, the bigger economies are unlikely to be bullied by the United States.

2) The United States adheres to the Cold War mentality and draws a line with ideology, which will certainly undermine its own achievement. The immediate goal of advancing the building of the TPP is to considerably enhance US export, increase employment and save the economy from the current doldrums. In order to fully achieve this goal, the United States should have extended the potential TPP membership to the entire APEC member states. Instead of doing so, the US determines the qualification by social system and values. China and Russia looked upon as American strategic rivals are the focus of its exclusion. However, China and Russia are big powers and important economies in East Asia. Once the two countries are excluded from the trans-Pacific free trade group, functions of the TPP and the US objective to open up Asia-Pacific market to the greatest extent will be weakened markedly.

Meanwhile, the US attempt to build the expanded TPP as a tool to contain China will also fail. While some countries in East Asia are concerned at China’s rise, and would like to use the US leverage to balance China’s influence, most of them do not accept US containment policy towards China, and refuse to become the chess pieces on the US strategic chessboard of containing China, because China is their main trade partner and their largest export target, so the more China develops, the more China receives their exports and investments, and the more beneficial for their economic development. Expecting China’s rapid and peaceful development is the mainstream of the East Asian countries’ policies on China. Furthermore, peace and stability in the region is an important element for them to achieve development goals, and China is one of the key factors of maintaining regional peace and stability. Therefore, it is in their overall interests to continuously develop good-neighborly friendship with China. Even if they are brought into the TPP by the United States, the comprehensive strategic partnership having been established with China will forge ahead and cannot be held back.

3) It is difficult to pass the Congress barriers. Congressmen are elected by states, representing the interests of different states and influenced by various interest groups of the states where they are from. They are concerned that the FTAs signed between the US and other countries would enable the products of other countries flow into America without restrictions and bring severe shocks to their related local industries, so the attitude of the Congress varies with the government and is conservative. So far the US Congress has approved few free trade agreements, and currently three signed agreements have not been approved. The Trade Promotion Authority has expired in 2007 and new authority has not yet granted to the Obama administration. New trade agreements could be approved only after the Congress approves the signed agreements. Therefore, even though the TPP agreement could be signed by the government, it is still a big problem whether and when it could get through the Congress. Particularly, the conservative Republican Party won the mid-term election in early November 2010 and controlled the House of Representatives, bringing more restrictions to the Obama administration and greater uncertainty to the prospect of his favorite TPP.

Currently, a dozen of countries including the US are participating in negotiations on the TPP enlargement or expressing their interest in joining the TPP. The proliferation of the TPP is still in the phase of negotiation. Obama stressed that they would conclude the negotiations and sign the TPP agreement in the end of 2011 prior to the APEC summit in Hawaii hosted by the US. In view of the profound differences exist between the US and other countries in addition to the major change in the US political environment after the mid-term election that are unfavorable for Obama to promote the TPP negotiation, Obama’s above remarks could be just his wishful thinking. It remains uncertain that when and to what extent the deal on the TPP expansion will be reached.

Du Lan is Researcher at the China Institute of International Studies.