Home > Uncategorized > Is the Trans-Pacific Partnership President Obama’s Vietnam?

Is the Trans-Pacific Partnership President Obama’s Vietnam?

from Dean Baker

The prospects for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) are not looking very good right now. Both parties’ presidential candidates have come out against the deal. Donald Trump has placed it at the top of his list of bad trade deals that he wants to stop or reverse. Hillary Clinton had been a supporter as secretary of state, but has since joined the opposition in response to overwhelming pressure from the Democratic base.

As a concession to President Obama, the Democratic platform does not explicitly oppose the TPP. However it does include unambiguous language opposing investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms — the extra-judicial tribunals that are an integral part of the TPP.

If the political prospects look bleak there also is not much that can be said for the economic merits of the pact. The classic story of gaining from free trade by removing trade barriers doesn’t really apply to the TPP primarily because we have already removed most of the barriers between the countries in the pact.

The United States has trade deals in place with six of the 11 countries in the TPP, so tariffs with these countries are already at or very near zero. Even with the other five countries, in most cases the formal trade barriers are already low, so pushing them to zero will not have much economic impact.  

In its analysis of the TPP, the non-partisan United States International Trade Commission (ITC) projected that the gains from the deal in 2032, when its effects will be mostly realized, will be 0.23 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). This is a bit more than a typical month’s growth. In other words, the ITC report implies that as a result of the TPP we can expect to be as wealthy on January 1, 2032 as we would be on February 10, 2032 without the TPP. That’s not the sort of thing that would ordinarily be a cause for big celebration.

And the ITC model is explicitly a full employment model. It rules out the possibility that the TPP could lead to a higher unemployment rate as a result of increased imports displacing US workers. The ITC analysis also failed to include the negative growth effects of stronger and longer copyright and patent protection.

Both of these are forms of protection which translate into higher prices for drugs, software and other protected products. The losses from this increased protectionism can easily exceed the projected gains from the tariff reductions in the TPP.

The stronger patent and copyright protection are really at the core of the TPP. This is a deal that was crafted by and for the pharmaceutical industry, the software industry, the finance industry, the telecommunications industry and other major industry groups. We essentially asked the major firms in these sectors to tell us what they wanted in a trade deal and then the Obama administration tried to get it for them.

That doesn’t make the TPP look like a good trade pact to most people, which is why it faces such bleak political prospects. But there is a lot of money riding on the TPP, so the Obama administration is not about to let it die a quiet death.

On the one hand President Obama has made numerous appeals to Democrats in Congress not to embarrass him by blocking his deal. As a president who is enormously popular among Democrats, this appeal carries some weight.

The president is also pulling out the China card, arguing that the TPP is necessary to create a trading block as a counterweight to Chinese power. Furthermore, Obama is arguing that not approving the TPP will damage our credibility with countries in the region.

It is difficult to hear this argument and not think back to the Vietnam War. The original argument for the war was to protect the right of the people of South Vietnam to determine their own destiny. At some point it became apparent to everyone that the South Vietnamese government was hopelessly corrupt and had almost no support from the population.

When it was no longer possible to argue based on democracy and self-determination, the Johnson administration argued based on credibility. They tried to make the case that if we allowed the South Vietnamese government to collapse, it would be devastating to our credibility in the region and the world. This argument was used to justify a war that cost the lives of tens of thousands of US soldiers and millions of people in Vietnam and neighboring countries. In the end of course, we left and the South Vietnamese government collapsed.

The Obama administration is now making its own credibility case about the TPP. If President Obama can’t sell the TPP based on its economic merits, then it would be best to let it quietly die. “Credibility” is an ill-defined goal, and the quest for it can have very bad outcomes, as we saw in Vietnam. It’s hard to see how we gain credibility by pushing a bad trade deal that was designed to serve the interests of our largest corporations. If we want a new trade deal with these and other countries, it would be better to go back to the drawing board and start from scratch.

See article on original site

  1. Charles McMillan
    July 26, 2016 at 4:21 pm

    To compare an international trade deal to the folly of Vietnam, with 58,000 American casualties, numerous more killed on the Vietnamese side, and other forms of degregation, including Agent Orange, shows an incredible misunderstanding of political economy. Trade deals by their very nature are political deals, in this case, among 12 countries. Trade deals are never perfect, and can be adjusted, improved, and updated, as the record of the GATT rounds illustrate, or even FTA between Canada and the US, lasted becoming NAFTA. Whatever the merits or demerits of trade deals, they are a political attempt to reinforce an open economy, and allow both an adjustment mechanism and an adjudication process for trade disputes.

    But to make any claim that a trade deal is akin to milititary action, or in the case of Vietnam, a military adventure, is both unhelpful and naive in the extreme.

    Charles McMillan

    PS – Americans who disagree might want to use summer reading for a close look at David Halberstram’s study, The Best and The Brightest.

  2. Manuel Angeles
    July 27, 2016 at 3:04 am

    Baker is spot-on with the Vietnam simile. The TPP is tailor-made by/for big capital (both financial & “real”), but will bring few gains to others. And trade is by no means a neutral win-win game. Even if it were, the TPP is mostly about intellectual property rights, not trade.

  3. July 27, 2016 at 6:10 am

    Trade deals are indeed political deals. But they also often support military and other forms of geopolitical control efforts. Check the history of all the colonial powers of the 18th and 19th centuries and of course the US and Russia in the 19th and 20th centuries. It’s naive to assume that a trade deal is about reinforcing an open economy when quite often trade deals are explicitly designed to close economic arrangements by deliberately favoring some traders over others. Vietnam was also one of these mixed deals. Fighting Communism while at the same time gaining access to vast new resources. What a deal!

  4. A.J. Sutter
    August 1, 2016 at 4:20 pm

    The problem is that it could be Hilary Clinton’s Vietnam — with Obama in the LBJ role and her playing Humphrey. Obama’s insistence to try to get the treaty approved before leaving office, despite the opposition to it by Democrats as well as Republicans, could be toxic. All Trump has to do is use that picture of Obama hugging her after his convention speech, and the woman with the big “H” buttons turns into HHH. Humphrey’s attempts toward the end of the race to separate his Vietnam position from Johnson’s was too little, too late.

    Overall, the echoes with 1968 are scary: On the Democratic side we had a convention with vociferous left-wing dissent, a “happy warrior ” candidate striving to convey an upbeat impression, a long-time public servant, including in the Senate, with H’s all over the campaign materials. Worse, a pal of Roy Cohn becomes the Republican nominee, paints a scare-mongering picture of America at the convention, proclaims he is “the One” and that he has a “secret plan” to end the US’s major international conflict. (I grant that this year’s guy might have a head-start on using stolen information from the DNC; Nixon didn’t get around to that until ’72.)

    I’m no fan of TPP on the merits — all the less so since I live in an agricultural region of Japan–, but Obama will really be messing up a lot more than trade if he hands this issue to Trump by promoting TPP before the general election.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s