Tres días después
de asumir la presidencia de los EEUU, Donald Trump decretó la salida de su país
del Tratado de Cooperación Trans-Pacifico (más conocido como TPP, acónimo de
Trans-Pacific Partnership); esa había sido otra de las estrategias de la
administración Obama para “contener” a China y marcar una nueva estrategia para
la región del Asia-Pacífico. Claro, quedaron pagando un montón de “socios” del
Imperio, que se llenaban la boca con las “oportunidades” de aquel tratado, muerto
antes de nacer. No hay ploblema, chicos! La ambulancia china salió al rescate en
estos días. Leemos la siguiente nota de Valentin Katanosov para el sitio web
Strategic Culture Foundation:
Título: The
Trans-Pacific Partnership: the US Is Out and China’s In
Texto: In the
last two years, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) project has been a
hot-button issue in global politics. The Obama administration pushed for
negotiations to finalize the TPP agreement between the US, Canada, Mexico,
Peru, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore, Vietnam, Australia, and New
Zealand. These countries are responsible for 40% of the global economy and a
third of global trade. In February 2016, the TPP pact was officially signed in
New Zealand.
But then the
process of creating the partnership began to stall. Obama never managed to get
Congress to quickly ratify the TPP. Donald Trump was part of the obstacle – as
a presidential candidate a year ago, he was already loudly insisting that the
TPP did not serve American interests and that he would withdraw from that
partnership if elected. And on January 23, three days after Trump’s
inauguration, the new US president signed an executive order to pull out of the
TPP.
Japan has the
most to lose from a US exit from TPP, as its cars and electronics might lose
their competitive edge in the enormous US market. Only six countries (Mexico,
Japan, Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand, and Singapore) have stated that they
are ready to move forward with TPP, regardless of whether the US is involved. I
think that in time the partnership’s circle of solid supporters will shrink
even further.
But after
Washington lost interest in the TPP, the remaining signatories came up with the
idea of inviting China to join. Australia in particular hopes to make up for
its losses from the US pullout by stepping up its economic relationship with
China. But now it’s possible that everything will turn out differently, meaning
that China can invite the remaining members of the TPP to join its own «club»,
without the US. Beijing’s initiative has kicked off the furious process of
creating a new international trade organization, namely: the Regional
Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).
The core members
of RCEP are the ten members of ASEAN (Brunei, Vietnam, Indonesia, Cambodia,
Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore, Thailand, and the Philippines), plus six
countries with which ASEAN has already signed free-trade agreements (Australia,
India, China, New Zealand, South Korea, and Japan). RCEP includes four economically
developed states and 12 developing countries. RCEP could potentially be
comparable to TPP: the members of the first partnership are responsible for
approximately 30% of global GDP and approximately 50% of the earth’s
population. Thirty percent of the countries in the world are currently involved
in the RCEP negotiations over global exports. The leading exporters are China,
Japan, and South Korea. The members of the new organization are also blessed
with significant investment potential. In 2014, 28.5% of the world’s total
foreign investment outlays went to the economies of the RCEP nations, and the
outflow of investments was equal to 23.6%
In 2014, trade
within the group of countries we call RCEP totaled $4.4 trillion. By
comparison, trade between the countries of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) – specifically the US, Canada, and Mexico – did not hit the
$1 trillion mark until the beginning of this decade.
China is the
undisputed leader within the group of RCEP countries, responsible for 28% of
intra-group trade in 2014, followed by Japan (15%) and South Korea (11%). These
three countries account for more than half of all trade within RCEP.
It is interesting
to see the importance of a common market within that regional partnership for
individual RCEP member countries. First let’s look at China. In 2014, 26% of
China’s exports went to RCEP countries and 34% of China’s imports came from
those same nations. This means that the RCEP market is extremely significant
for China. And although it’s true that, for China, America is just as
significant a trading partner as all of the RCEP countries put together, given
Trump’s protectionist threats, China’s outlook for trade with the US could
change dramatically. Therefore, Beijing is rushing to promote the RCEP project,
which could at least partially offset China’s losses when it comes to the US.
The country
leading the RCEP negotiations and boasting the second greatest trade potential
is Japan. The RCEP market is even more significant for Tokyo than for Beijing.
In 2014, 45% of Japan’s exports went to RCEP countries and 48% of its imports
came from those same nations. Although Japan is the only country to have
ratified the TPP agreement, it might prove to be second only to China as a driving
force behind the partnership.
This means that
the RCEP market would be even more significant for the other potential members
of the partnership. Here is a list of countries that send over 50% of their
exports to the RCEP market: Brunei (94); Myanmar (93); Laos (83); Australia
(76); Malaysia (64); Indonesia (62); Singapore (59); New Zealand (58); the
Philippines (57); and Thailand (56).
And this is a
list of countries that are greatly dependent on the RCEP market for their
imports (%): Laos (95); Myanmar (94); Cambodia (84); Brunei (81); Vietnam (74);
Indonesia (68); Malaysia (61); Thailand (58); the Philippines (58); New Zealand
(57); and Australia (55).
The launch of the
RCEP negotiations commenced on Nov. 20, 2012 at the ASEAN summit in Cambodia.
As long as there was progress on the TPP project, the global media paid almost
no attention to the RCEP project, believing that it was ill-considered and
could not compete with the TPP. RCEP’s ratings have soared in the last month.
Just a few days
before the US presidential election, the ministers of the RCEP member nations
made an announcement at their meeting in Manila stressing the urgency of
reaching a new agreement, due to the rise of protectionist sentiments around
the world. There is a looming prospect that China will use Trump’s refusal to
support TPP as a pretext to seize the initiative and create the biggest trade
and economic association in the world.
Some of the
countries that are currently taking part in the RCEP negotiations - or planning
to do so - believe that they will be able to have their cake and eat it too, by
being active in both partnerships. At the recent APEC summit, the Peruvian
Minister of Foreign Commerce and Tourism, Eduardo Ferreyros Küppers even said,
«China is our friend, the United States is our friend, and everyone else is our
friend.»
Experts note that
the RCEP project differs in some fundamental ways from the TPP project. For
example, the first has an open membership policy (in contrast to the TPP, which
has closed its doors to China and Russia). Second, the first partnership does
not make undue requirements of its members. Specifically, unlike the TPP, there
are no rigid rules or provisions that regulate environmental issues, the social
setting of the workplace, government purchases, investment disputes, etc. RCEP
is primarily a commercial partnership. Its conceptual foundation does not make
provision for requirements that would significantly exceed the scope of any
obligations under the WTO. The main idea behind the new partnership is to
liberalize trade regimes, taking into account the particulars of each nation
and the differences in the levels of development of the participating
economies.
Due to these
distinctions, RCEP may eventually expand from a regional to a global
partnership.
Of course, there
are serious obstacles on the path to signing the RCEP agreement. First of all,
it is impossible to ignore the glaring differences in the economic development
of the countries that are currently involved in the negotiations. On one hand,
there are countries that are highly developed economically, including
Australia, Brunei, New Zealand, South Korea, Singapore, and Japan. On the other
hand are countries that are less economically developed. These differences make
it difficult to reach a consensus over tariffs, access to the services market,
customs procedures, and much more. In addition, some of the more developed
countries (particularly Australia and New Zealand) tried at one time to include
in the RCEP format issues pertaining to patent law, judicial rulings on
investment disputes, and environmental and social standards (all of which are
important elements of the TPP), but then, however agreed not to overload the
negotiations at this stage and elected not to include these issues in the
agreement.
Political in
addition to economical obstacles may emerge. In particular, territorial
disputes between the two biggest economic powers in RCEP – China and Japan –
may result in Tokyo being jettisoned from the new partnership.
Although this new
partnership is an open one, it is hard to imagine the United States signing up.
As for the Russian Federation, it has not yet issued any statements in this
regard.
China has
unexpectedly emerged as the leader of the process of economic globalization.
Speaking in Davos on January 17, Chinese President Xi Jinping made it clear to
the participants in the International Economic Forum that Beijing is ready to
seize the reins of globalization from Washington. On January 26, Chinese
Premier Li Keqiang once again reaffirmed China’s commitment to the principles
of multilateral trade liberalism.
China’s leaders
well remember the words of Barack Obama, who stated last May 14 that the TPP’s
basic premise «allows America – and not countries like China» to shape the
rules of international trade. Now China has the opportunity to make a
retaliatory move, by claiming that it has become the arbiter of international
trade.
Beijing plans to
complete the RCEP negotiations by the end of the year so that a multilateral
agreement can be signed in early 2018.
Resulta notable cómo el uso ambiguo de la fórmula "defensa de los intereses nacionales" da lugar a toda clase de confusiones.
ResponderEliminarPor ej., Obama apoyó el TPP contra China pero en "defensa de los intereses nacionales (estadounidenses)"; mientras que Trump se retira del TPP también en "defensa de los intereses nacionales estadounidenses".
Igualmente, el ex presidente Obama apoyó la geopolítica agresiva contra Rusia en Ucrania, Europa Oriental en general y Siria, también en "defensa de los intereses nacionales estadounidenses"; mientras que Trump quiere hacerse amigo de Rusia por la misma causa.
Y, así, sucesivamente.
Por eso es tan importante construir sistemas teóricos donde se definan unívocamente los términos, en este caso "intereses nacionales", "defensa", "intereses oligárquicos", Imperio, Estado Nacional, etc.
Excelente la información internacional que estás trayendo al Blog, Astroboy.
Saludos.