Updates

Yes Pass/A2: U Overwhelms

Will pass now but not guaranteed – PC keyNeedham, 7/1 -- Vicki, Economics and Trade Policy Columnist @ The Hill, http://thehill.com/policy/finance/trade/246655-trade-chief-congress-could-get-pacific-trade-deal-by-years-end

Trade chief: Congress could get Pacific deal by year's end U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman said Wednesday he is confident Congress will approve a massive trans-Pacific trade agreement, possibly by year’s end. Froman said the “likelihood is very high that Congress will pass ” the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), because it will be a strong agreement reflecting the “ enormous input by Congress. ” “This process, going through the [trade promotion authority] process, has been enormously useful from the perspective of making absolutely clear what Congress expects from us in terms of bringing back high-standard agreements,” Froman said at a Politico Playbook breakfast. With trade promotion authority (TPA), or fast-track, in the books, Froman said the first order of business is to complete the TPP negotiations and bring that agreement to Congress for approval. Negotiators are still working out a final batch of tricky issues, Froman said, but he predicted Congress could pass the Asia-Pacific pact by the end of the year. Negotiators of the developing 12-nation agreement are aiming to complete a deal this summer. A key meeting between the countries’ leaders could happen by the end of the month. Froman said he is taking lessons from the fast-track fight to pave the way for passage. “I think the main lesson I learned over the past couple of years of working on this is just how proactive we need to be in addressing concerns. There’s a lot of myths, a lot of misinformation out there about trade and there are legitimate concerns underneath some of those myths and misinformation,” he said. “We need to recognize those concerns and at the same time make sure we get the facts out there about how we’re addressing those concerns, and that’s what we’ll be doing over the course of the next several months with regard to the TPP.” Froman said the United States and the 11 other nations are in the final stages of negotiating the TPP down to a reasonable number of outstanding issues but “by definition those issues tend to be the most difficult.” The outstanding issues are centered on opening markets in Japan and Canada as well as working through concerns over intellectual property protections and state-owned enterprises. He also hopes to complete the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership deal before Obama leaves office in January 2017 and expects to make very good progress on three ongoing negotiations in Geneva — the World Trade Organization’s Information Technology Agreement, the Environmental Goods Agreement and the 24-party Trade in International Services Agreement. Even though she bucked the White House, Froman praised House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for setting up in-depth meetings with her members and trade officials to discuss the deal. “I think that was enormously useful in terms of giving an opportunity both for the critics and our opponents to express their point of view, to be heard, to have input, to give us real feedback, which helped us shape our negotiating positions," he said. "But also for those who were undecided and wanted to learn more about TPP and what we were negotiating to get a better understanding as well,” he added. Despite overwhelming Democratic opposition to fast-track, Froman said he doesn’t believe he underestimated the strength of Democratic opposition . “Trade issues always been very tough," he said, citing debates

since the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement more than 20 years ago. "Trade legislation in the past has largely passed with Republican support and a critical mass of Democrats , and it was no different this time," he said. Froman also gave props to pro-trade Democrats who “rolled up their sleeves" and dug into the TPP negotiations in great detail and "asked us very challenging questions" in repeated trips to Capitol Hill. In the end, 28 House Democrats and 13 in the Senate backed fast-track. And they made it clear while that they supporting TPA they would be “holding our feet to the fire” to get their vote on the TPP, he said.

Passage likely now but not guaranteed – Fight over TPP vote has already begun –it’s a huge political battle and vote will be super close Needham, 6/28 – Vicki, Economics and Trade Policy Columnist @ The Hill, http://thehill.com/policy/finance/trade/246350-new-trade-battle-looms-on-the-horizon

New trade battle looms on the horizon President Obama’s prized fast-track authority is a done deal in Congress, but Washington is already steeling for the next major trade battle — this one over lawmakers’ approval of a sweeping Pacific Rim agreement. Completion of talks in support of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) could come as early as August, setting up a fall fight over ratification that is all but certain to spill into the 2016 presidential

race. Congress wrapped up the first phase of the trade fight this week , giving President Obama trade promotion

authority, which strengthens his power to negotiate international deals and limits Congress’s sway over their contents. Passage of the measure, a major win for Obama, has set off a race to complete the TPP , which would stretch from the Pacific Rim

to Latin America. U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman suggested this week that a deal could be ready this summer. Akira Amari, Japan’s economy minister and New Zealand Trade Minister Tim Groser also said in recent days that they are aiming for completion by the August congressional recess, Reuters reported. Even if the TPP is completed in next month or two it could take months to receive a final vote on Capitol Hill with several legislative clocks built into slowing the process. A new trigger in the fast-track legislation gives the Obama administration 30 days to publicly release the text of the TPP. The agreement must undergo 60 days of public scrutiny before the president can sign the deal at the 90-day mark. That process can’t be accelerated meaning the clock for congressional action may not start until November.

But before that process starts, negotiators need to finish work on the massive Asia-Pacific deal then send it to Congress where it is likely to face of flurry of opposition from labor unions and environmental groups, which are already ramping up their campaigns to stop it. Myron Brilliant, head of international affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said clearance of fast-track trade authority should provide impetus to the 11 other nations involved in the trade talks to put their best deals on the table. Brilliant cautioned that there are still “sticky and difficult” outstanding issues that shouldn’t be taken lightly, including market access agreements with Canada’s dairy protections and the opening of the auto and agriculture sectors within Japan. But he said there seems to be confidence among U.S. trade officials that the countries are close to resolving the remaining issues, which also include intellectual

property protections and guidelines for state-owned enterprises. “What the votes on trade this past few weeks show us is to get TPP through Congress we need a strong market-opening agreement that has robust support of industries across every sector,” Linda Dempsey, vice president of international affairs at the National Association of Manufacturers. While the far-reaching agreement would lower tariffs across many products for U.S. exporters, it also would set new rules on everything from labor and environmental standards to pharmaceuticals like new biologic drugs. Still, Bill Lane, Caterpillar’s director of global affairs, said that if a final deal is slow to develop this summer the next place to look is to a November Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in Manila — a summit the majority of TPP country leaders are expected to attend. He said that is probably the latest a deal would be completed and would easily push the

debate over the TPP into 2016. “While we’re optimistic that TPP will be done soon we’re always mindful that most trade

negotiators and lobbyists get paid by the hour,” Lane told The Hill. The longer negotiators take to wrap up a deal, the deeper the contentious trade debate gets pushed into the middle of the race for the White House . Brilliant called the idea that trade deals can’t get done during election years “ hogwash.” “There’s never is an

ideal moment for a trade bill,” Brilliant said. “But this is an area where the president and congressional leadership are aligned,” he said.

Passage likely but not guaranteed – Obama’s PC highFarmer, 6/27 – John, Columnist @ Star Ledger, http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/06/two_key_victories_in_a_week_to_rescue_obamas_legac.html

Two key victories in a week to rescue Obama's legacy Almost in the blink of an eye , President Obama's struggling quest for a legacy has been rescued from a death spiral by a pair of stunning victories. The first was in Congress. There, with overwhelming Republican support Obama won approval of "fast-track" negotiation authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal with 11 Pacific Rim nations. Score one for Obama. The second came in the U.S. Supreme Court. There, a 6-3 majority led by Chief Justice John Roberts upheld subsidies to low and

middle-income insurance policy holders. Republicans and conservatives opponents had argued the subsidies were invalidated by poor language in the Affordable Care Act. Don't give me that lousy legal stuff, Roberts said in effect; it's the intent behind that lousy legal language that counts. "Congress

passed the Affordable Care Act," Roberts wrote, "to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them." Score another one for the president, a big one. A week ago both issues seemed losers. Conservative legal scholars (an oxymoron?) and the trolls in the Wall Street Journal's editorial cellars were beside themselves with expectations that the Supremes would slaughter Obamacare. Break out the bile, boys, and drink

deeply. The outlook for the trade pact was equally grim. The president's own party was ripping him as a traitor to working class Americans. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts), its most popular figure, was tarring him as ... well, a tool of Wall Street. Among Democrats it doesn't get more depraved than that . And Obama is guilty

as charged on this count. But a win is a win on the legacy sweepstakes and Obama will take this one. The TPP isn't home-free yet . Congress gets to review it – but without the right to amend. Like a losing gladiator in old Rome, Congress gets an up or down vote on survival. No more. Odds are that having made it this far the TPP is on its way to approval. Score one more for Obama.

Passage likelyHughes, 7/1 – Krista, Journalist, trade correspondent for Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/01/us-trade-tpp-usa-idUSKCN0PB4PJ20150701U.S. trade representative sees Pacific trade pact before Congress by year-end U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman said he hopes to wrap

up a trade deal with 11 other Pacific Rim nations soon and send it to the U.S. Congress for approval before the end of the year. Lawmakers

last week granted the White House authority to close the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other trade deals and speed them through Congress, opening the door to a phase of intense negotiations to finalize the pact. The TPP would

cover 40 percent of the world economy and is central to President Barack Obama's effort to engage more closely with Asia and balance China's influence. Froman said the United States was talking to TPP partners to clear up sticking points and prepare for a ministerial meeting to finalize the deal. Talks with Japan were nearly done, although issues such as intellectual property protection, access to Canada's dairy market, Australian sugar exports to the United States and state-owned enterprises still had to be agreed. "We're going to be having some conversations over the coming days to make sure we are on track towards closing," Froman told an event organized by Politico. A source close

to the negotiations told Reuters the ministerial meeting is set for the last week of July. Froman said a date had not been set but he aimed

to close the deal "in the near term" and have the TPP before Congress before the end of the year for approval. "I think the likelihood is pretty high that Congress will pass it," he said.

PC Key/A2: U Overwhelms

PC key factor – passage not guaranteed despite TPABrinkley, 7/7 – John, columnist on international trade and investment @ forbes, Speechwriter at the U.S. State Department, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Investment Company Institute, and the Embassy of South Korea, Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnbrinkley/2015/07/07/tpp-still-has-a-long-way-to-go/

TPP Still Has A Long Way To Go Congress’s having given President Obama fast-track authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership doesn’t assure that the agreement will enjoy smooth sailing the rest of the way. There are still any number of rocks in the water that could sink it. Negotiations Negotiations over the TPP among and between the 12 parties to it are not as close to completion as Obama and U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman would like you to believe.

There are enough unresolved issues in the text to keep the negotiators at the table for a long time. To be fair, the 11 other TPP parties know they need to finish it and get it to the U.S. Congress for a vote by the end of the year. If it drags into the 2016 election year, all bets are off. That fact, along with Congress having given Obama fast-track authority, may soften their negotiating positions on some issues. Whatever Pharma Wants, Pharma Gets The governments of several TPP countries are incensed at the U.S. government’s insistence on protecting American drug patents against encroachment by generics. They say the Obama administration is putting the profits of the American pharmaceutical industry ahead of the protection of public health – a claim that’s hard to refute. Politico reported last week that a leaked copy of the TPP’s intellectual property chapter included a provision restricting foreign governments’ rights to approve generic drugs that copy American brands. According to Politico, the provision would allow American pharmaceutical companies to claim patent infringement at the drop of a hat. U.S. patent law allows for copies of all manner of patented consumer products – watches, musical instruments, computer software and many others – under certain circumstances, with one exception: prescription drugs. Now, the Obama administration is trying to force that regime on the 11 other TPP countries, said Ralph Neas, president of the Generic Pharmaceutical

Association. Congressional and Presidential Politics No president has had as much difficulty getting a fast- track bill passed by Congress than Obama had with the one he just signed. Trade has traditionally been a bipartisan issue, but that’s changing. A lot of congressional Democrats who support free trade foresee no political benefit to voting for another free trade agreement. What they foresee instead are election-year attack ads and primary challenges. If the TPP negotiations drag on so long that the agreement doesn’t get to Capitol Hill until 2016, even more Democrats will abandon Obama. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-

Calif., led a Democratic rear-guard action to reject the fast-track bill the first time it came up for a vote. So, she is not a taken-for-granted yes vote on the TPP. Hillary Clinton supported Pelosi and the other Democratic rebels. With Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., running against her for the Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton has to shore up her defenses on her left flank. She seems to be putting off having to state an unequivocal position on the TPP for as long as she can. But it’s hard to imagine that she will endorse it, even though she spoke in

favor of it when she was secretary of state and voted for other free trade agreements when she was a senator. That’s politics, folks. You

do what you have to do to win. There won’t be many pro-trade Democrats voting in the 2016 primaries.

Vote super close – Obamas political strength key to passage – only way to overcome public’s trade oppositionReich, 6/17 -- Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley, Baltimore Sun, 6/1715, http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bal-robert-b-reich-why-the-transpacific-partnership-is-nearly-dead-20150616-story.html

The near-death experience of the Trans Pacific Partnership shows most Americans no longer support free trade. How can it be that the largest pending trade deal in history -- a deal backed both by a Democratic president and Republican leaders in Congress -- is nearly dead? The Trans-Pacific Partnership may yet squeak through Congress , but its near-death experience offers an important lesson. It's not that labor unions have regained political power (union membership continues to dwindle, and large corporations have more

clout in Washington than ever), or that the president is especially weak (no president can pull off a major deal like this if the public isn't behind him). The biggest lesson is that most Americans no longer support free trade. It used to be an article of faith that trade was good for America. Economic theory told us so: Trade allows nations to specialize in what they do best, thereby fueling growth. And growth, we were told, is good for everyone. But such arguments are less persuasive in this era of staggering inequality. For decades, almost all the gains from growth have been going to a small sliver of Americans at the top -- while most peoples' wages have stagnated, adjusted for inflation. Economists point to overall benefits from expanded trade. All of us gain access to cheaper goods and services. The proposed trade agreement was meant to establish the rules to be followed by the nations involved. Without a pact, there will be no rules. With no rules in place, entities capable of

taking advantage of the situation will rule the day. But in recent years the biggest gains from trade have gone to investors and executives, while the burdens have fallen disproportionately on those in the middle and below who have lost good-paying jobs. So even though everyone gains from trade, the biggest winners are at the top. And as the top keeps moving higher compared with most of the rest of us, the vast majority feels relatively worse off. To illustrate the point, consider a simple game I conduct with my students. I have them split up into pairs and ask them to imagine I'm giving $1,000 to one member of each pair. I tell them the recipients can keep some of the money only on condition they reach a deal with their partner on how it's to be divided. They have to offer their partner a portion of the $1,000, and their partner must either accept or decline. If the partner declines, neither of them gets a penny. You might think many recipients of the imaginary $1,000 would offer their partner one dollar, which the partner would gladly accept. After all, a dollar is better than nothing. Everyone is better off. But that's not what happens. Most partners decline any offer under$250, even though that means neither of them gets anything. This game, and variations of it, have been played by social scientists thousands of times with different groups and pairings, and with remarkably similar results. A far bigger version of the game is being played on the national stage, as a relative handful of Americans receive ever-larger slices of the total national income while most Americans, working harder than ever, receive smaller ones. And just as in the simulations, those receiving the smaller slices are starting to say "no deal." Some might attribute this response to envy or spite. But when I ask my students why they refused to accept anything less than $250 and thereby risked getting nothing at all, they say it's worth the price of avoiding unfairness. Remember, I gave out the $1,000 arbitrarily. The initial recipients didn't have to work for it or be outstanding in any way.

When a game seems arbitrary, people are often willing to sacrifice gains for themselves in order to prevent others from walking away with far more -- a result that strikes them as inherently wrong. The American economy looks increasingly arbitrary, as CEOs of big firms now rake in 300 times more than the wages of average workers, while two-thirds of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. Some of my students who refused anything less than $250 also say they feared that allowing the initial recipient to keep a disproportionately large share would give him the power to rig the game even more in the future. Here again, America's real-life distributional game is analogous, as a few at the top gain increasing political power to alter the rules of the game to their advantage. If the American economy continues to create a few big winners and many who feel like losers by

comparison, support for free trade won't be the only casualty. Losers are likely to find many other ways to say "no deal."

It’s a tough battle despite TPA passage – Obama PC keyRampton, 6/29 – Roberta, Correspondent @ Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/29/us-usa-trade-obama-idUSKCN0P92GP20150629

Obama signs trade bills into law, says tough battle still ahead U.S. President Barack Obama on Monday signed into law legislation that gives him "fast-track" power to push ahead on a Pacific Rim trade deal that has been the subject of intense debate in Congress and across the nation. Flanked by some of the lawmakers who supported the bill through a six-week congressional battle , Obama acknowledged that his fight to secure the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership was far from over. "We still have some tough negotiations that are going to be taking place," Obama said at a signing ceremony. He noted that lawmakers and the public will be able to scrutinize the trade deal before it is finalized. "The debate will not end with this bill signing," he said.

The package also included aid for workers who lose their jobs as a result of trade, and an Africa trade preferences bill. Obama wants the trade deal to be a central part of his administration's foreign policy pivot to Asia and to help serve as a counterweight

to the economic might of China. He also hopes to complete an ambitious trade deal with the European Union. Republicans, who

traditionally support free trade deals, backed Obama and helped get the legislation through Congress. But they faced obstacles from skeptical Democrats, who worry the trade deal will hurt American jobs, and were pressured by unions to vote against the bills. "I think it's fair to say that getting these bills through Congress has not been easy . They've been declared dead more than once," Obama said, thanking Republican leaders by name as well as Democratic supporters " who took tough votes " to get the bills passed. "I would not be signing these bills if I was not absolutely convinced that these pieces of legislation are ultimately good for American workers," he said. Obama urged lawmakers to "summon the same spirit" to work with him to renew funding for highways, bridges and other

infrastructure projects. The Highway Trust Fund is on track to run out of money in July. As Obama signed the legislation, using a set

of 20 commemorative pens set out for the ceremony, he remarked: "This is so much fun, we should do it again!" "No, thank you," came a sotto voce reply from one of the lawmakers, eliciting laughter

Passage not guaranteed despite TPA – it’s a huge fight and super close - Obama must overcome political opposition and avoid extended congressional delaysRampton, 6/29 – Roberta, Correspondent @ Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/29/us-usa-trade-obama-idUSKCN0P92GP20150629

Opponents could still thwart looming trade deal Now that Congress has approved Trade Promotion Authority legislation giving President Obama the power to negotiate trade agreements that can't be amended by Congress, a new pact between the

United States and 11 Pacific Rim nations is expected to be completed in the coming months. But path for the Trans-Pacific Partnership to become law could be just as bumpy as passing the trade promotion bill, thanks to a looming election year and opponents in Congress who aren't ready to abandon the fight against new trade deals that they believe will damage the American economy. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who led her caucus in an effort to sink the trade promotion deal, sent a signal in June that she's not done fighting and will not endorse a Pacific Rim trade pact that doesn't include certain provisions concerning worker rights and environmental protections. "I

think that the more public support we have for our position, and the leverage we will have, we will be taking it to the public," Pelosi said when asked about the looming deal. The Trans-Pacific Partnership has been in the works for half a dozen years. It's a wide-ranging agreement that would slash prohibitive tariffs and set down a broad array of rules and regulations governing trade, including environmental standards and intellectual property enforcement. Its completion was dependent on the TPA deal, since U.S. trading partners tend not to agree to conclude deals until it's clear that Congress only has an up-or-down vote on these agreements. Many of the details of the deal are still unknown or are being kept secret in a Capitol room where lawmakers can read it, but can't remove copies or take notes on what is in the deal. Trade experts predict a final deal could be months away, by Sept. 30 at the earliest and perhaps not until the end of the year. At that point, the deal mandates months of review by Congress and the International Trade Commission, which is required to issue a report on the deal's potential economic impact. Only after the extensive review period will lawmakers be able to hold an up or down vote on the agreement. By some estimates, if the Trans-Pacific Partnership isn't finalized until the end of the year, the months-long review could delay its arrival in Congress until just before the 2016 elections. "Congress isn't going to vote for it then," Dan Ikenson, director of Cato's Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, told the Washington Examiner, citing election-year politics. So Congress would likely wait until the so-called lame duck session that convenes in November, after the election. And if the trade deal misses that window, Ikenson warned, "Then it goes to the next president." That's no problem if one of the leading Republican candidates wins the White House. But Hillary Clinton, the leading Democratic presidential candidate, has sided with Pelosi in her skepticism of new trade deals. Clinton's trade perspective tracks her overall move to the Left, in part because of more liberal candidates like Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who calls the TPP, "a disastrous trade agreement designed to protect the interests of the largest multinational corporations at the expense of workers, consumers, the environment and

the foundations of American democracy." "I suspect she'll be campaigning against the trade agenda," Ikenson said of Clinton. So passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, six years in the making, may hinge on what happens in the next few months. "There's very little time to spare if Obama wants this done on his watch," Ikenson said.

PC Key post TPA– Sugar lobbyThorne, 7/8 – Trent, Special Council @ McCullough Robertson Lawyers, Lexology, http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=77bcc7a1-2b69-42e0-beb6-0855098bbd98

TRADE AGREEMENTS START TO PAY DIVIDENDS – TPP LOOKS PROMISING The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has passed its first major hurdle, however, it may not be its biggest. T he US House of Representatives recently voted for a six-year

renewal of trade promotion, effectively giving the president fast-track trading authority. The Bill was ultimately passed by

the Senate following a number of bruising skirmishes , with the Democrats seemingly against the proposed multi-country free trade deal. The proposal, which would cover up to 40% of global trade and also involves Canada, New Zealand, Malaysia, Vietnam, Singapore, Brunei, Mexico, Chile and Peru has the potential to deliver enormous benefits to Australian agribusiness but

would be dead without US support. WHAT IS THE HOLD UP? One of the stumbling blocks (and there have been many, the deal has

been in the making for close to a decade), has been America’s sugar lobby. The United States has had a sugar protection scheme since 1794, giving sugar producers who are growing the product in 17 states across the

country enormous political power. They have been using that power to try to carve sugar out of the deal, a move that is aimed at Brazil but would also be a blow to Australia’s sugar industry. Hopefully some other big guns in the USA, such as the US Chamber of Commerce,

representing major sugar manufacturers and confectioners including Mars, will get through to US President Barack Obama, who is keen to make the deal his legacy. The Chamber of Commerce and other employer and manufacturing groups say the raised cost of sugar is costing Americans jobs, claiming 30,000 have been lost in Chicago alone as confectioners move their operations to Canada where they can use imported sugar. Americans are massive consumers of sugar, but most don’t realise they are paying a high price for protections and trade

restrictions on their locally grown product. The confectionary manufacturers are hoping increasing awareness among consumers

(another powerful lobby group) will give President Obama the ammunition he needs to convince a reluctant and sometimes hostile Congress. The deal simply won’t work unless all tradable commodities are on the table. It is hard to understand how this one commodity, or any other, could be carved out of the agreement. Doing so would leave the door

open for every country to pick and choose the commodities to protect and effectively keep us parked where we currently are now. The length of time being taken to finalise the TPP is a concern, with likely Democrat Presidential candidate Hilary Clinton indicating she may not support the deal.

New controversy over Malaysian human trafficking makes the fight even tougher – intensifies opposition and key vote switching on TPP is feasibleNeedham, 7/14 -- Vicki, Economics and Trade Policy Columnist @ The Hill, http://thehill.com/policy/international/asia-pacific/247763-new-trade-fight-brews-for-obama-dems

New trade fight brews for Obama, Dems A new trade fight is brewing between the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress. Sen. Bob Menendez (N.J.) and other Democrats opposed to President Obama’s trade agenda are worried the State Department will upgrade Malaysia’s ranking in a human trafficking report

to be released this week to ensure the country can be included in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal. The “legitimacy and moral authority on the issue of human trafficking is being undermined in an effort to smooth the path for the TPP,” declared Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), one of the

liberal Democrats who fiercely battled the White House push for fast-track, or trade promotion, authority. Under language in the fast-track law Obama signed last month, any country that is a Tier-3 trafficking country, such as Malaysia, cannot be a part of a trade deal subject to fast-track rules. Those rules make it easier to move a trade deal through Congress by preventing lawmakers from amending or filibustering

it. The White House worked furiously this year to win fast-track’s approval, chiefly to move the TPP

forward. Malaysia is an important economy to include in the TPP, and backers of the deal badly want it to make the cut. But Menendez and other critics are calling on Congress and the State Department’s inspector general to investigate any move that

promotes Malaysia from the lowest level in the U.S. government’s annual Trafficking in Persons Report. He said promoting Malaysia would be “a cynical maneuver to get around the clear intent of Congress .” “They put extra time on the clock for Malaysia to put some promises on paper — we don’t know for sure what they plan to count as progress — instead of taking the time for Malaysia to demonstrate some real action,” Menendez told reporters. Any undermining of the report is an “incredibly dangerous proposition as it relates to our ability to promote our efforts globally against human trafficking,” he added. The State Department says the TPP debate won’t affect Malaysia’s grade in the trafficking report. “What I can tell you is that the analysis that the report represents is based on a very pragmatic set of assessments in each case, and it’s something we take very, very seriously,” State Department

spokesman John Kirby said. While Menendez opposed fast-track, he’s received some support on the trafficking issue from Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, who spearheaded fast-track’s approval in the Senate. A Wyden aide said the senator is concerned that the State Department may not be following past practices for evaluating Malaysia. If Malaysia does receive a better grade, Menendez said he would use all options, including calling on Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) to look into the decision. Lawmakers have agreed to compromise language included in a customs bill that would make it easier for

Congress to fast-track the TPP with countries in a lower rung if they can show they are working to combat human trafficking. But Menendez said if he’s not satisfied, he’ll press lawmakers who are conferees on the customs bill to keep the tougher language. John Sifton, the Asia advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, said the bottom line with Malaysia is that any promotion would be “extraordinarily unwarranted” and that political interference within the Obama administration can be presumed if it does happen. “Nobody at the State Department could look at me with a straight face and lay out the steps Malaysia has taken to warrant an upgrade to Tier 2 on the watch list,” he said. “Malaysia has done very, very little to combat this scourge. That’s why they were placed on Tier 3. They’ve done very little since being placed on Tier 3 to warrant an upgrade,” he said. The White House has taken high-level steps to ensure Malaysia remains in the negotiations, adding the country to the TPP in 2010 after years of failed bilateral negotiations. U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman traveled to Malaysia in

May, and Obama played golf in Hawaii last December with Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak. Obama last visited Malaysia in April 2014. Other Democrats opposed to the TPP have joined Menendez’s criticism. Rep. Sandy Levin (Mich.), the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, said that consideration of Malaysia’s record on human trafficking should “reflect the realities on the ground and not a glossing over of those realities to assist Malaysia’s participation in TPP.” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said his labor coalition is “outraged” by the decision. “If Malaysia is rewarded with greater market access under the Trans-Pacific Partnership without having to first undertake fundamental reforms, there will be little incentive for Malaysia to end this brutality,” he said in a statement. Melysa Sperber, director of the Alliance to End Slavery and Trafficking, said any decision to upgrade Malaysia’s standing “is purely political and incredibly detrimental to combating human trafficking in that country.” The TPP is being negotiated between the U.S. and 11 other countries: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.

Yes PC Now

Passage likely now – its Obama’s top priority – PC high now and works on trade votesMacDonald, 6/28 -- Ian MacDonald is editor of Policy, the bi-monthly magazine of Canadian politics and public policy. He is the author of five books. He served as chief speechwriter to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney from 1985-88, and later as head of the public affairs division of the Canadian Embassy in Washington from 1992-94, http://ipolitics.ca/2015/06/28/congress-hands-harper-a-political-hornets-nest-with-tpp/

TPA, also known as “fast track”, compels both the U.S. House and Senate to vote any trade deal yea or nay, without amendments. This avoids petty domestic politics and the last-second additions of political pork

being added to trade agreements. TPA means it’s back to full steam ahead for TPP negotiations, talks that put Canadian supply management on the table. The dairy and poultry farm lobbies are fast mobilizing to oppose the deal (or at least extract vast amounts of compensation) and it has all the hallmarks of becoming a major election issue in rural Quebec and Ontario ridings. For Canada and the other 10

countries at the table with the Americans, the absence of President Obama having fast track was, effectively, a deal breaker. Avoiding a legislative pile-on in the U.S. Congress is considered so crucial to trade agreements that TPA is much more than a procedural hurdle. There would have been no Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in 1987 had Ronald Reagan not secured TPA (the deal was reached on the night his fast track authority expired). Had the first George Bush not had fast track, there would have been no North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico in 1992. That was just with one, and then two, countries at the table with the U.S. You can

imagine how complicated the talks are with 12 countries in the TPP negotiations. Fast track looked to be a dead letter only two weeks ago, when Democratic representatives attached an adjustment bill for dislocated workers to it in hope of killing fast track in the

Senate. But with the support of the White House , the Senate Republican leadership severed the two bills and passed them both. The House Democrats, who couldn’t be seen opposing adjustment aid for workers losing their jobs because of free trade,

promptly fell into line . Obama ’s trade representative now has a mandate from Congress to negotiate a deal. The White House and the Republicans are in a hurry . Both want a deal over the summer so it can be ratified by year’s end, avoiding it becoming an issue in the 2016 presidential primary season. But for Stephen Harper, their

timing is very inconvenient, heading into his election writ around Labour Day. Trade is one of two major second-term international legacy pieces for Obama, the other being climate change. Obama is on a roll. The day after fast track passed the Senate, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Obamacare, the signature legislation of his first term in office, then on Friday, the court made same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states — another major victory for the administration. Still in the works are agreements with Iran on its nuclear program and Cuba on

restoring diplomatic relations. He also claimed the high ground of moral leadership on the racial shootings in South Carolina. His eulogy for the Rev. Clementa C. Pinkney and other victims Friday was the most powerful and impassioned speech of his presidency. His themes were both pastoral and presidential, concluding with him singing the opening

refrain of “Amazing Grace”. As rhetoric, it was soaring and eloquent. As a leadership moment, it was perfect. Suddenly Obama is looking a lot less like a lame duck and a lot more like Reagan in his last two years in office, when he did big things like the FTA and the arms reductions talks that led to the end of the Cold War.

Yes Deal Now

TPP deal coming soon despite difficult barriers – no international spoilersNeedham, 6/28 – Vicki, Economics and Trade Policy Columnist @ The Hill, http://thehill.com/policy/finance/trade/246350-new-trade-battle-looms-on-the-horizonNew trade battle looms on the horizon President Obama’s prized fast-track authority is a done deal in Congress, but Washington is already

steeling for the next major trade battle — this one over lawmakers’ approval of a sweeping Pacific Rim agreement. Completion of talks

in support of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) could come as early as August, setting up a fall fight over ratification that is all but

certain to spill into the 2016 presidential race. Congress wrapped up the first phase of the trade fight this week , giving

President Obama trade promotion authority, which strengthens his power to negotiate international deals

and limits Congress’s sway over their contents. Passage of the measure, a major win for Obama, has set off a race to complete the TPP , which would stretch from the Pacific Rim to Latin America. U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman suggested this

week that a deal could be ready this summer. Akira Amari, Japan’s economy minister and New Zealand Trade Minister Tim Groser also said in recent days that they are aiming for completion by the August congressional recess, Reuters reported. Even if the TPP is completed in next month or two it could take months to receive a final vote on Capitol Hill with several legislative clocks built into slowing the process. A new trigger in the fast-track legislation gives the Obama administration 30 days to publicly release the text of the TPP. The agreement must undergo 60 days of public scrutiny before the president can sign the deal at the 90-day mark. That process can’t be accelerated meaning the clock for congressional action may not start until November. But before that process starts, negotiators need to finish work on the massive Asia-Pacific deal then send it to Congress where it is likely to face of flurry of opposition from labor unions and environmental groups, which are already ramping up their campaigns to stop it. Myron

Brilliant, head of international affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said clearance of fast-track trade authority should provide impetus to the 11 other nations involved in the trade talks to put their best deals on the table. Brilliant cautioned that there are still “sticky and difficult” outstanding issues that shouldn’t be taken lightly, including market access agreements with Canada’s dairy protections and the opening of the auto and agriculture sectors within Japan. But he said there seems to be confidence among U.S. trade officials that the countries are close to resolving the remaining issues, which also include intellectual property protections and guidelines for state-owned enterprises. “What the votes on trade this past few weeks show us is to get TPP through Congress we need a strong market-opening agreement that has robust support of industries across every sector,” Linda Dempsey, vice president of international affairs at the National Association of Manufacturers. While the far-reaching agreement would lower tariffs across many products for U.S. exporters, it also would set new rules on everything from labor and environmental standards to pharmaceuticals like new biologic drugs. Still, Bill Lane,

Caterpillar’s director of global affairs, said that if a final deal is slow to develop this summer the next place to look is to a November Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in Manila — a summit the majority of TPP country leaders are expected to attend. He said that is probably the latest a deal would be completed and would easily

push the debate over the TPP into 2016. “While we’re optimistic that TPP will be done soon we’re always mindful that most trade negotiators and lobbyists get paid by the hour,” Lane told The Hill.

Major progress now – deal likely in JulyPignataro, 7/15 – Anthony, Maui Times, http://mauitime.com/news/politics/will-trans-pacific-partnership-trade-talks-conclude-on-maui-this-month/

No matter, because later this month, one of the biggest international trade/foreign policy stories of the decade will be coming here. That’s right: in late July, trade ministers from a dozen nations will fly to Maui to likely conclude five years of negotiations aimed at creating a free trade zone that would include the U.S., Canada, Peru, Australia, China, Japan and even Vietnam. Talks have been ongoing since 2010. Like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) signed

during Bill Clinton’s presidency, the TPP would remove trade restrictions between a host of Pacific nations.

According to the New York Times, it’s “the most trade deal in a generation” and could be a “legacy-defining achievement” for President Barack Obama. On July 6, the Times reported that a deal was at hand , and that talks could very well conclude right here at the Westin Maui: United States officials feel confident enough a deal is at hand that they have scheduled a meeting among the chief negotiators at the Westin Maui Resort & Spa in Hawaii during the last four days in July and have notified Congress that they expect this to be the last one . Still, it will be some time before a deal is ratified. Under terms set by Congress in trade negotiating legislation last month, a July 31 agreement could not be signed until Oct. 31 or more likely the beginning of November. Congress cannot begin considering it until December. Of course, an official statement posted on website of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative concerning the Maui talks is a lot more bureaucratic, but also didn’t mention which hotel would host the talks: The United States will host a meeting of Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Trade Ministers in Maui, Hawaii from

July 28-31, preceded by a meeting of TPP Chief Negotiators from July 24-27. Since they last met in May, Trade Ministers from the twelve TPP countries have been working continuously. As a result, we have made considerable progress in closing gaps on remaining issues, and we continue to work intensively to address specific issues bilaterally. The upcoming ministerial provides an important opportunity to build on this progress as we work to conclude the negotiation. Sumithra Balraj, the Director of Public Relations for the Westin Maui, didn’t want to comment on the upcoming talks. She also said she didn’t know why the trade ministers chose the Westin to conclude their talks. To be fair, her reluctance to talk publicly about the upcoming talks is understandable. It isn’t every day that a dozen trade ministers (and their respective staffs and security details) descend on Ka’anapali. Indeed, Pacific Business News reported on July 8 that TPP negotiators last met on Hawaii Island (at the Waikoloa Marriott) back in March. “They were greeted by protesters who lined

Queen Kaahumanu Highway near the resort’s entrance,” according to PBN. That’s because the TPP–a free trade deal–is very controversial . Like NAFTA, opposition to TPP from organized labor has been considerable. The AFL/CIO has been especially outspoken against it: Negotiations for the TPP remain closed to the public and the text of the agreement remains classified. While the administration touts the TPP as a job-creating, wage-raising enterprise, it has not made public any employment or sectoral impacts study. The administration hasn’t provided information as to how the TPP will promote manufacturing more effectively than current U.S. trade policy and the global corporate agenda continues to make demands for deregulation, privatization, tax breaks and other financial advantages for Big Business while shrinking the social safety net in the name of “labor flexibility.” Tulsi Gabbard, D–2nd District, Maui’s own congressional representative, has also come out against the TPP, calling the deal’s authority a “monstrosity.”

Aff – Additional Impact Answers

Asia

TPP Not Key Asia

TPP not key to asia pivot or US influence – multiple reasonsGill, 14 -- Bates Gill, chief executive of the US Studies Centre at the University of Sydney, and Tom Switzer, a research associate at the US Studies Centre, The Interpreter, 3/27, http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2014/03/27/Americas-Asia-Pacific-pivot-Reports-of-its-death-greatly-exaggerated.aspx

Fullilove says 'the economic element of the rebalance is in trouble.' He assumes the 'pivot' is doomed without the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. But the 'pivot' does not equate simply to the TPP. US trade and investment with the region is deepening : US foreign direct investment in Asia has increased by more than 170% since 2001, and Asian investment in the US has jumped by more than 130% in the same

period. Meanwhile, Washington has signed several bilateral regional trade deals in the past decade and is in negotiation for a bilateral investment treaty with Beijing. Besides, even if the President fails to get Trade Promotion Authority from congressional Democrats in a mid-term election year, there is always next year: a new congress, with more pro-trade Republicans, is more than likely to pass fast-track authority, which would still give Obama leverage to sign and ratify the TPP. Historians since Thucydides have observed that the rise of a new power is often accompanied by regional uncertainty and sometimes conflict. China's rise will remain a central question for the region and for US foreign policy. But it is not inevitable that a China with 'plenty of puff', as Fullilove suggests, will become a hegemonic force that will impose its will across the region. In the event of a severe economic downturn, something China has not

experienced in its 30-year bull run, it is at least as likely, if not more so, that Beijing's leaders would remain largely consumed with dealing with economic challenges at home rather than slaying dragons abroad. This, moreover, at a time when China is surrounded by more than a dozen neighbours, few of which are truly friendly toward Beijing. It is also widely believed China will grow old before it grows rich. But even if Beijing can sort out its long-term demographic problems, other big challenges , namely political and environmental, loom. Meanwhile, notwithstanding its own problems at home, the US will continue as the predominant power, not just in education and innovation but also energy self-sufficiency. Demographic trends, including moderately high immigration and fertility levels, also work to America's advantage . All of this is good reason to believe that, far from pivoting away, the US is intensifying its engagement in the region.

Other factors make it resilient and inevitable - Gill, 14 -- Bates Gill, chief executive of the US Studies Centre at the University of Sydney, and Tom Switzer, a research associate at the US Studies Centre, The Interpreter, 3/27, http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2014/03/27/Americas-Asia-Pacific-pivot-Reports-of-its-death-greatly-exaggerated.aspx

America's Asia Pacific pivot: Reports of its death greatly exaggerated In his press club address earlier this month, Michael Fullilove warned that President Obama is pivoting away from the much-touted US 'pivot' towards the Asia Pacific. Both politically and militarily, we were told, the 'pivot' has 'gone off the boil.' America's heart, he lamented, is not in it. But while it is true that the Middle East

remains an important part of US foreign policy deliberations, it is also true that America is likely to remain the

predominant power in the Asia Pacific across key indicators of national power . Indeed, the Washington consensus is that the national interest still demands America's deep engagement in the region, which is supported by its steadfast commitment to a forward military presence. Perhaps nothing better demonstrates the long-term US commitment to Asia than its enhanced security relationships with Indo-Pacific allies. We all know about Australia's enhanced security relations with what Menzies called

'our great and powerful friend', but we are hardly alone in looking to America . A few months ago, Washington sent six new P-8As (pictured; 'the most advanced long-range anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare aircraft in the world,' according to the Pentagon) to Japan on their first overseas deployment. In another first, numerous American Global Hawk surveillance drones will be operated out of Japan and elsewhere in the region. Add to this the landmark US-Japan defence agreements last October and it is clear that America remains strongly committed to the region. But that commitment is more than an enhanced diplomatic and military profile . Take , for example, the US-led recovery effort in the Philippines after Typhoon Haiyan in

November. Not only did the Obama Administration send an aircraft carrier and hundreds of Marines to distribute food and water to remote areas, it also pledged $22 million in assistance. (The Chinese government, by

contrast, pledged only $100,000 before increasing its total contributions to a measly $1.5 million.) In another example of diplomatic heavy-lifting only Washington can do , President Obama, in a remarkable display of trilateral solidarity , sat down with the leaders of Japan and South Korea this week so the two of them, along with the US, could focus on the strategic interests which bind them together.

Not key to pivot – key countries not included and Asia-Pacific support only luke warm – their claims are false and biasedKampmark, 13 -- Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge, He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne, New Zealand International Review, April, http://www.nziia.org.nz/Portals/285/documents/lists/256/NZIRMarApr2013.pdf

Potential isolation The TPP is also a mechanism of potential isolation. The BRIC powers are not included in the discussions, and an argument has been made suggesting that one of the key targets of the arrangement is China and its disposition to flouting international copyright arrangements. This is not something that Chinese authorities will necessarily want to let on. Discussion on the matter, when available, has often been subtle and diplomatic. A publication by Professor Cai Penghong, director of the APEC Research Centre at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, sees the various trade options in the Asia—Pacific region as complementary' rather than a 'zero game relationship". 'Our understanding is that TPP like others such as ASEAN +3, ASEAN +6 is a critical tool to the APEC destination in Asia Pacific.'

Other countries in the Asia—Pacific region have only shown qualified support for the TPP suggesting that such an agreement has to take place within a broader framework of treaties. Japans position is a good example of this. The Japan Business Federation (Nippon Keidanren) has, through its 'Proposals for Japans Trade Strategy', argued for a 'proactive and strategic trade policy' that would involve concluding the WTO Doha Round and pro-moting 'the conclusion of TPAs with the

United States, China and the EU... through the frameworks of the TPP, ASEAN+6, and Japan—EU EIA'.~°1 The Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry has been less sure, encouraging the use of free trade agreements as a means of boosting Japanese economic recovery while stating that it 'might be desirable' for Japan to join the TPP Purpose defeated There is nothing unreasonable about Washington promoting its own interests in the global economy, ensuring

that US companies have first bite of the cherry in such areas as innovation and development. But the use of such agreements as the TPP ostensibly designed to create a free trade zone that is not so much free as selectively liberal in favour of Washington's own laws , defeats the purpose . The project, if anything, is designed to arrest the innovative challenges posed by the emerging powers, of which China is the primary target, and more broadly speaking companies in the developing world.

We must take the arguments from the smaller delegations (Australia, New Zealand, Peru, to name but a few) as not merely ill-informed factually but ideologically misplaced and unreliable.

Pivot inevitable and resilient – their evidence hyperbolizes the importance of single policies

--Lower Mekong Initiative

--SKFTA

--Assistance to Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Viet Nam

--participation in ASEAN and the East Asia Summit

--Military presence throughout Asia

--increased engagement with China

Ratner 14 – analyst @ Foreign Policy

(Ely, “The False Cry of the Pivot Denier,” Foreign Policy, Lexis)

Former Vice President Al Gore told a crowd at the University of Hawaii on April 15 that using fake science to mislead the public on climate change is "immoral, unethical, and despicable."

Currently on a weeklong trip to Asia, President Barack Obama can probably sympathize, as he faces a cadre of skeptics committed to the idea that one

of his leading foreign policy priorities -- the pivot to A s ia -- is somehow an illusion. After a decade of war in the Middle East and South Asia, Obama and his national security team launched a comprehensive set of initiatives in the fall of 2011 to afford greater attention and resources to Asia. The official moniker has since evolved into the "rebalancing" to Asia, but its contents haven't changed much. And its achievements are considerable . But don't tell that to the Pivot Deniers , who won't talk about Obama's successes on trade and development in

Asia, such as the Lower Mekong Initiative, an innovative assistance program strengthening cooperation among Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam; implementing the U.S.- South Korea free trade agreement , which the U.S. International

Trade Commission estimates will increase U.S. exports by over $10 billion through tariff cuts alone; and striving to complete the most important trade deal in a

generation, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Pivot Deniers never mention that the U nited S tates has dramatically deepened its engagement with the region's institutions, either: Since 2009, it has joined the East Asia Summit, the premier leaders' forum in Asia;

stationed a resident ambassador to the Association for Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the region's most important multilateral body; and now regularly attends the ASEAN Regional Forum, which , thanks to high-level U.S. participation, has been ground zero for critical multilateral diplomacy on dangerous disputes in the South China Sea. They further i gnore the diplomatic opening with Myanmar and the substantial progress in revising the U.S. military presence in the region ; new agreements that give U.S. troops access to bases in Australia, the Philippines, and Singapore; and the substantial deepening of U.S. engagement with China that has seen more presidential-level meetings, more substantive cooperation on key geopolitical issues like Iran,

and more military-to-military engagement than in the previous decade. The deniers almost universally discount that, in more instances than not, U.S. officials and their counterparts in Asia describe bilateral relations as hav ing " never been stronger ." None of that matters

to the Pivot Deniers, who refuse to admit that the administration has accomplished more in Asia, and has a more coherent approach

to the region than any other part of the world. So who are these folks? The most prominent group is the hardcore anti-Obamanians who fill the conservative halls of Congress and right-leaning think tanks. Facts have failed to clear the fog of the ever-popular "over-promising and under-delivering" meme of Obama's policy. And despite supporting almost every element of the rebalancing strategy, this crowd nevertheless feels compelled to argue that the policy "doesn't really exist" or, even if it once did, is now "dead." No setback or gaffe is too small to elicit a torrent of obituaries. A second group of Pivot Deniers appears more emulous than angry. These are the former Bush administration officials who bristled at former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's declarations that "the United States is back" in Asia. They contend that everything Obama has done in the region had antecedents in the mid-2000s. These are Bush initiatives, they say -- Obama is just following through. To them, the rebalancing policy is just a marketing exercise, and a clumsy one at that. They call the pivot a "myth" or a "misnomer," because the United States never left. But they are wrong. They call the pivot a "myth" or a "misnomer," because the United States never left. But they are wrong. U.S. troops based in Japan and South Korea were sent to backfill in Afghanistan and Iraq; and U.S. policy in Southeast Asia after 2001 centered on fighting the

war on terror, rather than building stronger institutions and partnerships. That may have been the right call at the time, but there's no question that it distracted from Asia. The final

group of deniers is a motley crew of op-ed writers, editors, and D.C. pundits who can't resist the easy hook . Here's how it works: Pick your favorite crisis of the day and use a catchy title like, "Forget Asia -- Pivot to Europe" or "The Year the US Pivoted Back to the Middle East" or even "Are We Pivoting to Africa Rather Than Asia?" Then, without actually assessing U.S. policy in the region, simply declare that, "the pivot to Asia appears to have been largely called off." And even if your article has

nothing to do with Asia, use a subtitle like, "How the standoff in Ukraine could split NATO and kill the Asia pivot." [Ed. - Sorry, that one's on us.] Journalists are equally

culpable. I get it. Sometimes you need a good narrative and no one -- besides me, perhaps -- wants to read a story titled, "Obama Goes to Asia to Continue Relatively Successful, Long-Term Reorientation of U.S. Foreign Policy." So instead, you go with something foreboding, like "Obama Looks to Salvage Asia ‘Pivot'" or "Obama's Strategic Shift to Asia Is Hobbled by Pressure at Home and Crises Abroad."

Excluding China means it can’t solve asia conflict or US strategyFeldman, 14 -- Dr. Elliot J. Feldman, former Director of the University Consortium for Research on North America at Harvard University, 6/23/14, http://www.chinaustradelawblog.com/2014/06/articles/trade-negotiations-2/the-pivot-to-asia-and-the-inevitable-failure-of-the-trans-pacific-partnership/

The fate of TPP as a matter of foreign policy is caught between a grand scheme to knit together 40 percent of the world’s economy, on the one hand, and the triangle of disagreement over sovereignty and security involving the three most important economies in Asia, on the other. It raises the existential question whether a trade pact designed to contain or isolate China is good for the future of world trade.

Many think it is because they doubt that China plays by the rules. Many think it is not because China’s economic power is here to stay. The regrettable feature of this dilemma is that it has not been addressed systematically at all. Instead, the Obama Administration has slipped into it, drawn first by four economically and militarily insignificant Pacific countries worried about China, and then pulled more forcibly by a nationalistic Japanese leader looking to rearm and be more assertive globally. There is reason to think that the Obama Administration is not postured as it would have liked. It wanted to engage China, not contain it. It wanted to develop a regional trade agreement that would attract China, not repel or even expel it. TPP, instead of becoming a source of regional amity, has evolved into a potential source of conflict. The

President’s National Security Adviser counsels “constructive relations with China,” but there is little in the pivot to Asia, especially in the cornerstone of the TPP , that is reassuring.

Not key to asia security – TPP countries intentionally exaggerate fears, China’s rise and trade rule influence inevitableBrinkley, 15 – John, Forbes, Columnist on international trade and investment, speechwriter at the U.S. State Department, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Investment Company Institute, and the Embassy of South Korea in Washington,

Obama's Pivot to Asia: A Day Late and a Dollar Short President Obama’s “pivot to Asia,” intended to impede China’s growing economic and

geopolitical power, seems to have come a little late in the game . The main part of the pivot is the Trans-Pacific Partnership that the U.S. is negotiating with 11 Pacific Rim countries. Its proponents argue that those countries, and this one, are faced with a stark choice: either the United States writes the rules or China does . “The TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) would ensure that the Pacific Rim plays by U.S.-style rules and regulations, rather than by China’s neo-mercantilist ones,”

The Washington Post said in an April 13 editorial. That might make sense were it not for the fact that the Pacific Rim is already playing by China’s rules . China has trade agreements of one kind or another with 10 of the 12 parties to the TPP. Those countries do a booming business with China and are not looking to the United States to protect them from it. “None of them seems to be particularly afraid of China,” said Clyde

Prestowitz, an economist with a long background in trade policy.2 He said U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman had told him that America’s allies “need reassurance” that the U.S. is still their friend. Prestowitz said he responded,

“Those guys don’t need reassurance. They’re playing both sides.” Indeed they are. China has free trade agreements with Singapore, New Zealand, Peru and Chile. It has a free trade agreement with the ASEAN countries,

which include Vietnam, Brunei and Malaysia. It has concluded negotiations on a free trade agreement with Australia. And it has bilateral

investment treaties with Canada and Mexico. All those countries are TPP members. The only TPP countries that have no formal trade arrangement with China are Japan and the United States. There is long-standing animosity between Japan and China, owing to the former’s occupation of the latter from 1937-45. The United States is trying to defend its position as king of the global hill against China’s depredations. Raising the sweat factor for the Obama administration is that China has proposed the establishment of an Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which it would control. The bank would finance infrastructure projects throughout Asia and would rival the US-controlled World Bank and International Monetary Fund. The AIIB has 46 founding members in Asia, Europe and South America. In an obvious effort to poke the United States in the eye with a sharp stick, China has persuaded Australia and Denmark to join the bank over the Obama administration’s objections.

Canada has applied for membership. The United States is legitimately worried about the rise of China, a communist country that plays by a radically different set of rules. It manufactures implements of torture and exports them to African dictators. Chinese demand for African elephant ivory and rhino horns is driving those species toward extinction and the government is doing almost nothing to stop it. China props up the malicious and criminal regime in North Korea. It has been pursuing an aggressive military expansion and claiming disputed territorial waters as its own. And it wants to supplant the United States as the global superpower. One step the U.S. could take to

postpone the inevitable is to let China join the TPP after ratification by the 12 original members. That ostensibly would require China

to adhere to rules that reflect Western values and ideals. The key would be enforcement, which would necessitate a huge commitment of U.S. money and resources to be effective. Even in a best-case scenario, China’s joining the TPP wouldn’t stop it from realizing its ambitions. It’s hard to imagine what would.

Not key to solve China, influence or trade rulesLester, 15 – Simon, trade policy analyst with Cato’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, worked for the trade law practice of a Washington, D.C. law firm, and also as a Legal Affairs Officer at the Appellate Body Secretariat of the World Trade Organization, has taught courses on international trade law at American University’s Washington College of Law and the University of Michigan Law School, J.D. from Harvard Law School., CATO institute, 3/11, http://www.cato.org/blog/tpp-necessary-response-china

Is the TPP Necessary as a Response to China? Paul Krugman has a blog post on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) today. Overall, he is skeptical of the need for it. He refers to a recent op-ed by Larry Summers, and notes that Summers appears to support “an idealized TPP that could have been,” but is “against the TPP that actually seems to be on the table.” Krugman says he feels similarly. Tyler

Cowen responds as follows: I agree with much of the economics in his post, though I would frame the points with a different kind of rhetoric. But I think Krugman is nonetheless wrong to oppose TPP. You will notice the word “China” does not appear in his argument. He closes with a question: “Why, exactly, should the Obama administration spend any political capital – alienating labor, disillusioning progressive

activists – over such a deal?” The answer is simple: this deal either happens on American terms, or an alternative deal arises on Chinese terms without our participation. For rather significant foreign policy reasons we prefer the former, and the pragmatic side of President Obama understands this pretty well. Cowen is one of my favorite bloggers, both for style

and substance, but I want to push back a little bit here. The alternative deal he is referring to is the Regional Comprehensive

Economic Partnership (RCEP), a negotiation among 16 countries, including China and India, in the Pacific region. There is a good deal of overlap, in terms of participating countries, with the 12 TPP parties. I think he is making two points here: (1) If there is no TPP, there will be an RCEP, and that will be bad for the United States; and (2) the RCEP will reflect Chinese priorities, not U.S. priorities, and that will be bad for the

United States. Just briefly, let me comment on both points. First, the RCEP may be, to some extent, a response to the TPP. If the TPP fails, the motivation for the RCEP might also diminish. Furthermore, regardless of what happens with the TPP , it will not be easy to complete the RCEP. Getting India, China, and 14 other countries to agree will not be easy. So there may never be an RCEP. Second, the reference to Chinese terms makes it sound like this will be an agreement that establishes state-owned companies as the norm. In reality , if you

look at the topics covered, I’m not sure this agreement would be much different than any other trade agreement, except perhaps less emphasis on labor rights and intellectual property protection than in U.S. agreements. There will be

tariff lowering, services liberalization, and all the usual issues. In my view, then, we should consider the TPP on its own merits and not worry so much about what other countries do. If they want to liberalize amongst themselves, that’s great. But that’s not a threat, just an incentive to do a better job with trade negotiations ourselves.

No Asia Conflict

Zero risk of Asian war or miscalc Bisley 14(Nick, executive director of LaTrobe Asia at LaTrobe University, It’s not 1914 all over again: Asia is preparing to avoid war, March 10, http://theconversation.com/its-not-1914-all-over-again-asia-is-preparing-to-avoid-war-22875)

One hundred years ago, Europe stumbled into an unexpected and utterly devastating war. It was unexpected for two reasons: the diplomatic mechanisms set up after Napoleon’s defeat had kept the continent free from great power war in the 19th century, and that Europe’s economies had become profoundly intertwined. War became possible because a rising power could not find satisfaction in the existing international order. Chauvinistic nationalism, a complacent mindset about warfare and non-existent diplomatic efforts to reduce the risks of conflict dragged Europe to war. For some, history seems on the cusp of a tragic repetition. China appears to have all the trappings of Kaiser Wilhelm II’s Germany. It is a great power that is increasingly dissatisfied with the dominant order and is now able to deliver on its potential and ambition. The US is cast as an overstretched Britain: not quite aware of its limits and overconfident of its ability to see off challengers. A confident and nationalistic Japan is one possible catalyst for conflict. Its alliance with the US is reminiscent of the complex arrangements that caused an assassination in Sarajevo to lead to World War One. The rumbling from North Korea, itself an ally of China, is touted as another spark

that might ignite conflict. Asia is cast as a region as complacent about the risks of war as Europe was in its belle

époque. Analogies are an understandable way of trying to make sense of unfamiliar circumstances. In this case, however, the historical parallel is deeply misleading. Asia is experiencing a period of uncertainty and strategic risk unseen since the

US and China reconciled their differences in the mid-1970s. Tensions among key powers are at very high levels: Japanese

prime minister Shinzo Abe recently invoked the 1914 analogy. But there are very good reasons, notwithstanding these issues, why Asia is not about to tumble into a great power war. China is America’s second most important trading partner. Conversely, the US is by far the most important country with which China trades. Trade and

investment’s “golden straitjacket” is a basic reason to be optimistic. Why should this be seen as being more effective than the

high levels of interdependence between Britain and Germany before World War One? Because Beijing and Washington are not content to rely on markets alone to keep the peace. They are acutely aware of how much they have at stake. Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe has likened China-US tensions to relations between Britain and Germany leading up to World War

One. CSIS: Centre for Strategic & International Studies, CC BY-NC-SA Diplomatic infrastructure for peace The two powers have established a wide range of institutional links to manage their relations. These are designed to improve the level

and quality of their communication, to lower the risks of misunderstanding spiralling out of control and to manage the trajectory of their relationship. Every year, around 1000 officials from all ministries led by the top political figures in each country

meet under the auspices of the Strategic and Economic Dialogue. The dialogue has demonstrably improved US-China relations

across the policy spectrum, leading to collaboration in a wide range of areas. These range from disaster relief to

humanitarian aid exercises, from joint training of Afghan diplomats to marine conservation efforts, in which Chinese law enforcement officials are hosted on US Coast Guard vessels to enforce maritime legal regimes. Unlike the near total absence of diplomatic

engagement by Germany and Britain in the lead-up to 1914, today’s two would-be combatants have a deep level of interaction and practical co-operation. Just as the extensive array of common interests has led Beijing and Washington to do a lot

of bilateral work, Asian states have been busy the past 15 years. These nations have created a broad range of multilateral institutions and mechanisms intended to improve trust, generate a sense of common cause and promote regional prosperity. Some organisations, like the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), have a high profile with its annual leaders’ meeting involving, as it often does, the common embarrassment of heads of government dressing up in national garb. Others like the ASEAN Regional Forum and the ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting Plus Process are less in the public eye. But there are more than 15 separate multilateral bodies that have a focus on regional security concerns. All these organisations are trying to build what might be described as an

infrastructure for peace in the region. While these mechanisms are not flawless, and many have rightly been criticised for being

long on dialogue and short on action, they have been crucial in managing specific crises and allowing countries to clearly

state their commitments and priorities. Again, this is in stark contrast to the secret diplomatic dealings in the lead-up

to 1914. Higher risks, greater caution States in Asia today are far more cautious about the way they use force than Europeans were in 1914. A century ago, war was seen as not only a legitimate policy choice but was championed by many for its ability to demonstrate national virtue, honour and prowess. The experiences of war in the 20th century, the legal prohibitions that states have since

created and the professionalisation of armed forces have meant that there is not the same taste for war that existed 100 years ago. Asia is not about to succumb to a great power war because of the existence of nuclear weapons. The destructive power of these armaments focuses the mind of decision-makers on the consequences of using force in any

significant way. Their existence acts as a crucial moderating influence on the policies of Asia’s great and aspirant great powers. This is not a counsel borne out of complacency – the region has very real problems, which require careful and

active management. Tensions in the East and South China Seas over tiny islands do have very significant risks of friction and conflict escalation. A nuclear breakout in northeast Asia remains an unlikely but nonetheless real possibility, while the old flash-points of Taiwan and Kashmir remain. The region will require a great deal of vigilance to keep the peace. But it is an awareness of this effort that marks perhaps the final point of contrast with pre-war Europe. Asia’s statesmen and women are well aware of the challenge that confronts them. So far we must pay them the credit of being up to that challenge and being capable of taking the necessary steps to ensure devastating

war does not return. We live in difficult times, but Asia is not about to sleepwalk into conflict.

UnthinkableVannarith, 10 (Chheang - Executive Director of the Cambodian Institute for Cooperation and Peace. PhD in Asia Pacific Studies, Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific U, Asia Pacific Security Issues: Challenges and Adaptive Mechanism, http://www.cicp.org.kh/download/CICP%20Policy%20brief/CICP%20Policy%20brief%20 No%203.pdf)

Some people look to China for economic and strategic interests while others still stick to the US. Since, as a human nature, change is not widely acceptable due to the high level of

uncertainty. It is therefore logical to say that most of the regional leaders prefer to see the status quo of security architecture in the Asia Pacific Region in which US is the hub of security provision. But it is impossible to preserve the status quo since China needs to strategically outreach to the wider region in order to get necessary resources especially energy and raw materials to maintain her economic growth in the home country. It is understandable that China needs to have stable high economic growth of about 8 percent GDP growth per year for her own economic and political survival. Widening development gap and employment are the two main issues facing China. Without China, the world will not enjoy peace, stability, and development. China is the locomotive of global and regional economic development and contributes to global and regional peace and stability. It is understandable that China is struggling to break the so-called containment strategy imposed by the US since the post Cold War. Whether this tendency can lead to the greater strategic division is still unknown. Nevertheless, many observers agree that whatever changes may take place, a multi-polar world and multilateralism prevail. The reasons or logics supporting multilateralism are mainly based on the fact that no one country can really address the security issues embedded with international dimension, no one country has the capacity to adapt and adopt to

new changes alone, and it needs cooperation and coordination among the nation states and relevant stakeholders including the private sector and civil societies. Large scale interstate war or armed conflict is unthinkable in the region due to the high level of interdependency and democratization. It is believed that economic interdependency can reduce conflicts and prevent war. Democracy can lead to more transparency, accountability, and

participation that can reduce collective fears and create more confidence and trust among the people in the region. In addition, globalism and regionalism are taking the center stage of national and foreign policy of many governments in the region except North

Korea. The combination of those elements of peace is necessary for peace and stability in the region and those elements are present and being improved in this region.

No asia war - costs of aggression are too highPorter 14

Dr. Patrick Porter is a reader in War and International Security and Leverhulme Research Fellow at the University of Reading, and a fellow of the UK Chief of the Defence Staff’s Strategic Forum, War on the Rocks, January 28, 2014, "IT’S TIME TO ABANDON THE GLOBAL VILLAGE MYTH", http://warontherocks.com/2014/01/its-time-to-abandon-the-global-village-myth/

Strategic space is not a politically uncontested thoroughfare of climate and terrain simply to be moved through. (That is not even true of tourism!) Space is a medium into which other humans intrude, through which (and for which) violent political struggle takes place. Amidst the white noise of globalisation rhetoric, this distinction has been lost. Nowhere is this more true than along Asia’s maritime peripheries. New weapons and instruments have widened, rather than shrunk, the Asia-Pacific space . Surveillance assets in the hands of watchful defenders make it harder to inflict a sudden surprise long-range attack like Pearl Harbor. Tools of “ access denial ” —such as long-range anti-ship missiles—make it easier for states to fend off enemy fleets and raise the costs of aggression . Even weaker enemies can inflict a devastating, even f atal sting on aggressors . This makes it harder for America to intervene in a war with China—but harder also for China to expand. Conquest has become an expensive rarity.

No Asian war or instabilityBitzinger 9 (Richard A. Bitzinger, Senior Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies and Barry Desker, Dean of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies and Director of the Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, 2009. Survival vol. 50 no. 6, “Why East Asian War is Unlikely,” p. Proquest)

Yet despite all these potential crucibles of conflict , the Asia-Pacific , if not an area of serenity and calm, is certainly more stable than one might expect . To be sure, there are separatist movements and internal struggles, particularly with insurgencies, as in Thailand, the Philippines and Tibet. Since the resolution of the East Timor crisis, however, the region has been relatively free of open armed warfare. S eparatism remains a challenge, but the break-up of states is unlikely. Terrorism is a nuisance, but its impact is contained . The North Korea n nuclear issue , while not fully resolved, is at least moving toward a conclusion with the likely denuclearisation of the peninsula. Tensions between China and Taiwan , while always just beneath the surface, seem unlikely to erupt in open conflict any time soon, especially given recent Kuomintang Party victories in Taiwan and efforts by Taiwan and China to re-open informal channels of consultation as well as institutional relationships between organisations responsible for cross-strait relations. And while in Asia there is no strong supranational political entity like the European Union, there are many multilateral organisations and international initiatives dedicated to enhancing peace and stability, including the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation ( APEC ) forum , the Proliferation Security Initiative and the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation. In Southeast Asia, countries are united in a common geopolitical and economic organisation – the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN ) – which is dedicated to peaceful economic, social and cultural development, and to the promotion of regional peace and stability. ASEAN has played a key role in conceiving and establishing broader regional institutions such as the East Asian Summit, ASEAN+3 (China, Japan and South Korea) and the ASEAN Regional Forum. All this suggests that war in Asia – while not inconceivable – is unlikely .

No China Conflict

No risk of China conflict or regional aggressionAllen Carlson, Cornell University Associate Professor, 2/21/13, China Keeps the Peace at Sea, www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139024/allen-carlson/china-keeps-the-peace-at-sea?page=show

At times in the past few months, China and Japan have appeared almost ready to do battle over the Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands --which are administered by Tokyo but claimed by both countries -- and to ignite a war that could be bigger than any since World War II. Although Tokyo and Beijing have been shadowboxing over the territory for years, the standoff reached a new low in the fall, when the Japanese government nationalized some of the islands by purchasing them from a private owner. The decision set off a wave of violent anti-Japanese demonstrations across China.

In the wake of these events, the conflict quickly reached what political scientists call a state of equivalent retaliation -- a situation in which both countries believe that it is imperative to respond in kind to any and all perceived slights. As a result, it may have seemed that armed engagement was imminent. Yet, months later, nothing has happened. And despite their aggressive posturing in the disputed territory, both sides now show glimmers of willingness to dial down hostilities and to reestablish stability . Some analysts have cited North Korea's recent nuclear test as a factor in the countries' reluctance to engage in military conflict. They argue that the detonation, and Kim Jong Un's belligerence, brought China and Japan together, unsettling them and placing their differences in a scarier context. Rory Medcalf, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, explained that "the nuclear test gives the leadership in both Beijing and Tokyo a chance to focus on a foreign and security policy challenge where their interests are not diametrically at odds."

The nuclear test, though, is a red herring in terms of the conflict over the disputed islands. In truth, the roots of the conflict -- and the reasons it has not yet exploded -- are much deeper. Put simply, China cannot afford military conflict with any of its Asian neighbors.

It is not that China believes it would lose such a spat; the country increasingly enjoys strategic superiority over the entire region, and it is difficult to imagine that its forces would be beaten in a direct engagement over the islands, in the South China Sea or in the disputed regions along the Sino-Indian border. However, Chinese officials see that even the most pronounced victory would be outweighed by the collateral damage that such a use of force would cause to Beijing's two most fundamental national interests -- economic growth and preventing the escalation of radical nationalist sentiment at home. These constraints, rather than any external deterrent, will keep Xi Jinping, China 's new leader, from authorizing the use of deadly force in the Diaoyu Islands theater. For over three decades, Beijing has promoted peace and stability in Asia to facilitate conditions amenable to China's economic development. The origins of the policy can be traced back to the late 1970s, when Deng Xiaoping repeatedly contended that to move beyond the economically debilitating Maoist period, China would have to seek a common ground with its neighbors. Promoting cooperation in the region would allow China to spend less on military preparedness, focus on making the country a more welcoming destination for foreign investment, and foster better trade relations. All of this would strengthen the

Chinese economy. Deng was right. Today, China's economy is second only to that of the United States. The fundamentals of Deng's grand economic strategy are still revered in Beijing. But any war in the region would erode the hard-won, and precariously held, political capital that China has gained in the last several decades. It would also disrupt trade relations , complicate efforts to promote the yuan as an international currency, and send shock waves through the country's economic system at a time when it can ill afford them. There is thus little reason to think that China is readying for war with Japan. At the same time, the specter of rising Chinese nationalism, although often seen as a promoter of conflict, further limits the prospects for armed engagement. This is because Beijing will try to discourage nationalism if it fears it may lose control or be forced by popular sentiment to take an action it deems unwise. Ever since the Tiananmen Square massacre put questions about the Chinese Communist Party's right to govern before the population, successive generations of Chinese leaders have carefully negotiated a balance between promoting nationalist sentiment and preventing it from boiling over. In the process, they cemented the legitimacy of their rule. A war with Japan could easily upset that balance by inflaming nationalism that could blow back against China's leaders. Consider a hypothetical scenario in which a uniformed Chinese military member is killed during a firefight with Japanese soldiers. Regardless of the specific circumstances, the casualty would create a new martyr in China and, almost as quickly, catalyze popular protests against Japan. Demonstrators would call for blood, and if the government (fearing economic instability) did not extract enough, citizens would agitate against Beijing itself. Those in Zhongnanhai, the Chinese leadership compound in Beijing, would find themselves between a rock and a hard place. It is possible that Xi lost track of these basic facts during the fanfare of his rise to power and in the face of renewed Japanese assertiveness. It is also possible that the Chinese state is more rotten at the core than is understood. That is, party elites believe that a diversionary war is the only way to hold on to power -- damn the economic and social consequences.

But Xi does not seem blind to the principles that have served Beijing so well over the last few decades. Indeed, although he recently warned unnamed others about infringing upon China's "national core interests" during a foreign policy speech to members of the Politburo, he also underscored China's commitment to "never pursue development at the cost of sacrificing other country's interests" and to never "benefit ourselves at others' expense or do harm to any neighbor."

Trade/Econ

TPP Not Key Trade/Econ

Not key to trade or econ – it reduces competition – prefer our best expertsOnselen, 15 -- Leith van Onselen, Leith is an economist and has previously worked at the Australian Treasury, Victorian Treasury and Goldman Sachs, 4/28, http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2015/04/paul-krugman-slams-tpp-trade-deal/

If there is one “expert” that you should listen to on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement it is Paul Krugman. In 2008, Krugman won a nobel prize in economics for his contributions to New Trade Theory, so it

is fair to say that he knows a thing or too about trade agreements. In March last year, Krugman wrote a stinging rebuke of the TPP, noting that it would “increase the ability of certain corporations to assert control over intellectual property [including]

drug patents and movie rights”. Krugman also claimed that “there isn’t a compelling case for this deal , from either a global or a national point of view”, and that the “ economic case is weak, at best ”, with “the push for T.P.P… weirdly out of touch with both economic and political reality”. In March this year, Krugman followed up with

another flattering analysis of the TPP, noting that it “doesn’t look like a good thing for either the world or the United States, and you have to wonder why the Obama administration, in particular, would consider devoting any political capital to get this

through”. Krugman also noted that the TPP’s strengthening of intellectual property protections “means creating a monopoly” and “introduces a distortion that would make the world a bit poorer ”. Overnight, Krugman wrote

another short blog at the New York Times claiming that the TPP is political not economic: [The TPP] is not a trade agreement. It’s about intellectual property and dispute settlement; the big beneficiaries are likely to be pharma companies and firms that want to sue

governments. Those are the issues that need to be argued. David Ricardo is irrelevant. The Abbott Government would do well to heed the warnings of Paul Krugman and back-track from the TPP before it is too late. The agreement has absolutely nothing to do with advancing the cause of free trade. Rather, it is about significantly strengthening the

pricing power of the powerful US pharmaceutical and digital industries, in turn lessening competition, and worsening outcomes for consumers and taxpayers alike.

Not key to trade or economy – gains small and free trade inevitable – their ev flawed by lit bias and wild exaggerationKrugman, 15 – Paul, Nobel Prize winning economist and trade expert, NYT, 3/11, http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/tpp-at-the-nabe/

Not to keep you in suspense, I’m thumbs down. I don’t think the proposal is likely to be the terrible, worker-destroying pact some

progressives assert, but it doesn’t look like a good thing either for the world or for the United States, and you have to wonder why the Obama administration, in particular, would consider devoting any political capital to getting this through. Actually, I was glad

to see Larry Summers weigh in on the same subject in yesterday’s FT. Reading that piece, you may wonder what just happened – did Larry

come out for the deal or against it? The answer, I think (slide 1), is that he basically supported an idealized TPP that could have been, but came out against the TPP that actually seems to be on the table . And that means that he and I are in a

similar place. So, about the deal. The first thing you need to know is that almost everyone exaggerates the importance of trade policy. In part, I believe, this reflects globaloney : talking about international trade sounds glamorous and forward-thinking, so everyone wants to make that the centerpiece of their remarks. (The same thing happens to an even greater extent when international money issues like the dollar’s role as a reserve currency

crop up.) Also, there’s an odd dynamic involving the role of international trade in the history of economics . Comparative advantage was an early, classic example of how economic reasoning can lead to results that are true but not obvious; naturally,

economists have always wanted this intellectual victory to be important in the real world too. This leads to the odd dynamic: comparative advantage says “yay free trade”, but also suggests that once trade is already fairly open, the gains from opening it further are small. But because economists want to keep shouting yay free trade, they look for reasons why those gains might be larger – even though the stories they then end up telling are inconsistent with the competitive model that was the basis for free-trade advocacy in the first place. One particular misuse of the yay-free-trade sentiment is the persistent effort to make protectionism a cause of economic slumps, and trade liberalization a route to recovery . How many times have you seen the

Kindleberger “spiderweb” chart showing declining world trade in the early years of the Great Depression, which is then invoked as

showing the evils of protectionism (slide 2)? In fact, it shows no such thing; you can draw a similar chart for the Great Recession (slide

3), when we know that there was no upsurge in protectionism. The fact is that at this point trade is fairly free (slide

4), and estimates of the cost of protectionism from standard models are quite small (slide 5). Trade restrictions just aren’t a major drag on the world economy these days, so the gains from liberalization must be small.

Our ev assumes services and “new economy” – gains are tiny and liberalization high nowKrugman, 15 – Paul, Nobel Prize winning economist and trade expert, NYT, 3/11, http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/tpp-at-the-nabe/

What about TPP? There are still important barriers in agriculture, but advocates are pinning most of their case on services, where we’re talking about more diffuse issues of access. How much could that be worth? I try to put some upper bounds on the gains (slide 6). I’ve estimated that “hyperglobalization” – the expansion of world trade to unprecedented levels since 1990 – has added about 5 percent to world incomes; but that’s the combination of everything: containerization, drastic trade liberalization in developing countries, the internet. A better model might be Europe’s Single Market Act, which the European Commission

now estimates added 1.8 percent to real incomes; but Eichengreen and Boltho suggest that about half of that reflects policy changes that would have happened anyway . And Europe , which has a compact geography and the

kind of shared institutions and culture (and transparency) that make access doable, is surely a better case than the diverse, sprawling group of countries involved in TPP. I’d argue that it’s implausible to claim that TPP could add more than a fraction of one percent to the incomes of the nations involved ; even the 0.5 percent suggested by Petri et al looks high to me. These gains aren’t nothing, but we’re not talking about a world-shaking deal here.

TPP Not Key Trade

Not key trade or protectionism – no rules on protectionist remedies or subsidies, and no credible resolution mechanism, WTO still outweighsLester, 7/9/15 – Simon, trade policy analyst with Cato’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, worked for the trade law practice of a Washington, D.C. law firm, and also as a Legal Affairs Officer at the Appellate Body Secretariat of the World Trade Organization, has taught courses on international trade law at American University’s Washington College of Law and the University of Michigan Law School, J.D. from Harvard Law School, Huffington Post, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/putting-tpp-perspective

After a bruising political battle, Congress has passed Trade Promotion Authority legislation, which sets out a framework for President Obama to negotiate trade agreements and have Congress vote yes or no on them, without any amendments. First up in the queue will almost certainly be

the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), a 12 nation trade pact that has been under negotiation for the past few years, and is almost complete. The TPP is often talked about as a “high standard,” 21st century trade agreement that could reshape the international economic architecture. In reality, however, the TPP may remain of secondary importance, as just one of many bilateral and regional trade agreements that are subsumed under the broader framework established by the World Trade Organization (WTO). A review of some of the key rules — and gaps in these rules — of the WTO and TPP makes clear why the WTO is likely to maintain its preeminent role in trade governance. First, while we have not yet seen the full text of the TPP, if past trade agreements and TPP negotiating leaks are any guide, there will be no TPP rules on trade remedies and subsidies . Trade remedies

refers to anti-dumping duties, countervailing duties and safeguards, three mechanisms which can be used to impose additional tariffs, beyond the standard ones, on imports. For the first two categories, additional tariffs are

sometimes said to be imposed in response to “unfair” trade, but most economists agree that these tariffs are nothing more than protectionism. As for subsidies, they come in many shapes and sizes. Some are more clearly linked to trade, through export contingency or local content requirements; others simply give an advantage to domestic producers over their foreign

counterparts. Unfortunately, the TPP will do nothing about these core types of protectionism . Instead, for constraints on these kinds of government actions, we must turn to the WTO , which has detailed agreements on anti-dumping, on subsidies and countervailing duties and on safeguards, imposing discipline in areas where there has been a great deal of protectionism over the years . Related to this point,

WTO obligations of this kind are enforceable through a sophisticated dispute settlement system, with a highly respected appeals process. Since its inception in 1995, governments have filed 496 complaints against each other at the

WTO, resulting in around 200 panel reports and over 100 Appellate Body reports. By contrast, the dispute settlement provisions of the hundreds of recent bilateral and regional trade agreements are rarely invoked . There have been only a few cases decided, and thus the real impact of these agreements is sometimes unclear. Perhaps they are more about political deal-making than an effort to rein in protectionism through international rules.

Liberalization in “new areas” will be highly limitedLester, 7/9/15 – Simon, trade policy analyst with Cato’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, worked for the trade law practice of a Washington, D.C. law firm, and also as a Legal Affairs Officer at the Appellate Body Secretariat of the World Trade Organization, has taught courses on international trade law at American University’s Washington College of Law and the University of Michigan Law School, J.D. from Harvard Law School, Huffington Post, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/putting-tpp-perspective

And while the TPP and other bilateral and regional trade agreements go beyond the WTO in some ways, the particular ways they do so are something of a mixed bag . In terms of lower tariffs and opening up services/procurement markets to foreign competition, there could be some value in the TPP. However, any benefits are inherently limited because they only go to a handful of countries , not all 161 WTO members. In addition, many TPP parties already have FTAs with each other, so there may not be all that much new liberalization. In terms of additional obligations, the TPP is developing rules on state-owned enterprises that would be

the first of their kind. These could be useful, but it is likely that countries will exempt many of their existing state-owned enterprises, thus limiting any benefit .

Not key – multiple reasonsLester, 7/9/15 – Simon, trade policy analyst with Cato’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, worked for the trade law practice of a Washington, D.C. law firm, and also as a Legal Affairs Officer at the Appellate Body Secretariat of the World Trade Organization, has taught courses on international trade law at American University’s Washington College of Law and the University of Michigan Law School, J.D. from Harvard Law School, Huffington Post, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/putting-tpp-perspective

Beyond trade liberalization, the TPP will also pursue global governance issues, such as intellectual property,

investment protection, labor protections, and the environment. Originally designed to bring more supporters to trade negotiations (e.g., letting Hollywood use trade agreements to protect its copyrights abroad), these provisions now generate just as much opposition. Liberal NGOs are incensed about the “corporate-friendly” intellectual property and investment provisions; and free market advocates are skeptical of the Obama administration’s touting of “progressive” aspects of the TPP. The controversy from these

issues may make Congressional approval more difficult than some anticipate. Thus, the benefits of some of the “WTO plus” provisions in the TPP — intellectual property, investment, labor, and the environment — are debatable. And the TPP’s “WTO minus” provisions — the absence of trade remedies and subsidies, and weak dispute settlement — have a negative impact . Generally speaking, if a TPP party’s government has a concern about another TPP country’s protectionist measures, it probably has to go to the WTO with its complaint. Thus, the WTO remains the indispensable international organization for keeping trade friction from turning into full-blown trade wars. The TPP’s future is less certain. Perhaps it can be expanded to cover a few more

countries, or even the whole Asia-Pacific area. But even if that happens, its gaps and weaknesses may leave it playing second fiddle to the WTO’s overarching and comprehensive rules-based trading system . As noted,

the TPP’s impact may depend on how far it can push liberalization of sensitive products and services. A TPP that achieves only limited new liberalization may drift into obscurity. Of course, the main flaw with the WTO is its inability to negotiate new

liberalization in recent years. But as with everything in trade negotiations, success here depends on the willingness of governments to liberalize. Pursuing trade agreements which include only limited liberalization is a sign that the problem with trade negotiations is that governments are not taking trade liberalization seriously. Ultimately, whether they liberalize at the WTO or through some other agreement is not the most important thing . The question is whether they are willing to do it at all these days.