The fate of Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement
remains uncertain even as US President Barack Obama tries to get
congressional passage for the bill. The trade deal, which is a strategic and
geopolitical drive to contain China and maintain US hegemony in the
Asia-Pacific, is facing hurdles as Vietnam is delaying its ratification.
Hanoi’s rethink came soon after Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc’s recent
six-day visit to China. US dominance in Asia-Pacific is challenged by
Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte who is cozying up to Beijing. If other
leaders follow suit, the US will soon lose its hold on Asia.
In his final address to the UN General Assembly annual session in New
York on Tuesday, US President Barack Obama failed to list amongst his legacies
what should have been the crowning glory of his presidency – Trans-Pacific
Partnership Agreement (TPP), the mother of all trade deals covering 40% of
world’s GDP. Does it mean this extraordinary statesman is walking out of the
world arena with nothing to show by way of a historic Asian legacy?
Obviously, Obama is unsure which way the wind is blowing. TPP’s fate
hangs in the balance. What ought to have been another platinum grade trade
deal, Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, just capsized, hitting
the rock of popular opposition in Europe.
The TPP can meet a similar fate, hitting an American iceberg. The
populist mood in America regarding trade deals has become unfriendly, given
their dubious reputation for creating wealth for corporate industry while
taking away jobs.
Donald Trump pledges to scupper the TPP, while Hillary Clinton succumbs
to populist politics and intends to renegotiate the terms of the deal to make
it more agreeable to American interests. Of course, Obama himself, famous for
his audacity of hope, is escalating the struggle to get congressional passage
for the TPP.
On Friday, he took a meeting of TPP supporters drawn from Republicans
and Democrats, business leaders, governors and mayors, national security
figures and military leaders to send the message that the trade deal is
important not only for the US economy but also “for our national security and
our standing in the world.”
The emergent salience is that the TPP, which so far was touted as a flag
carrier of free trade values, is being acknowledged, finally, for what it is –
a strategic and geopolitical drive to contain China.
Some Asian allies traveled to Washington to canvass support for the TPP
among America’s political class and opinion makers – Singapore, Australia, New
Zealand and Japan. They stressed that TPP forms part of the US’ pivot to Asia
and aims at making China subordinate to American interests.
They conceded that the great game is about maintaining US hegemony in
the Asia-Pacific. Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe warned that the success or
failure of the TPP will “sway the direction of… strategic environment in the
Asia-Pacific”.
Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong warned that ratification of
the TPP by the US Congress will be regarded in the region as a “test for your
credibility and seriousness of purpose.” The Australian Prime Minister Malcolm
Turnbull saw TPP to be as powerful as “ships and planes” for exerting US
influence in the Asia-Pacific.
But doubt is growing in the Asia-Pacific as to whether TPP will see the
light of day. Nothing else can explain the last-minute rethink in Hanoi to
shelve the ratification of TPP at the forthcoming session of Vietnamese
parliament. (TPP negotiations were finalized in October and must be
ratified by all 12 signatories within the next two years.)
The Chairman of the Vietnamese Parliament Nguyen Thi Kim Ngan noted
that the decision to defer ratification has been taken in view of needs
to examine the global situation, assess actions of the other country
members and wait for the result of the US presidential election.
Hanoi’s decision comes in the downstream of the recent six-day visit to
China by Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc (who succeeded the famously ‘pro-West’
Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung), which has raised hopes of a qualitatively new
level of mutual trust and confidence in Sino-Vietnamese relations.
To be sure, the regional security setting has become highly fluid, which
in turn buffets the US’ overall standing in Asia. Obama’s final Asian tour last
month didn’t go well.
While the G-20 summit in Hangzhou ended up as an assertive Chinese
narrative, the ASEAN summits that followed were a setback for US diplomacy to
drum up public show of resistance to China in the South China Sea disputes.
The mercurial Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte has since ended
joint patrols with the US in the South China Sea, opened Track II to Beijing,
invited Chinese trade and investments (and even arms supplies), demanded the
pull-out of US Special Forces in Mindanao, and is voicing his country’s
“independent foreign policies”.
The Manila Times newspaper disclosed on Tuesday that the
Philippine Council for Foreign Relations sent a mission to China for a series
of dialogues from September 13 to 15, comprising retired ambassadors, military
officials, businessmen and academics, to supplement Duterte’s Track I
initiative such as the appointment of former President Fidel Ramos as special
envoy to China.
While in Beijing, the Track II delegation called on Liu Zhenmin,
vice-minister of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Ambassador Wu Hailong,
president of the Chinese People’s Institute of Foreign Affairs, amongst others.
Liu was cited expressing the hope that “Philippines can meet China
halfway, handle the dispute appropriately, and place relations back on track
through dialogue, consultations and cooperation.”
Liu cautioned Manila that there are bound to be “bumps along the road to
reconciliation due to vested economic, not to mention third-country interests,
which may be at work to try to derail the process towards reconciliation.”
Evidently, the ground beneath the feet of the US’ rebalance is
dramatically shifting. An opinion piece in the Financial Times newspaper
on Monday caught the sombre mood:
· Throughout the Obama years,
the US has attempted to reassure all its Asian allies that America has both the
means and the will to remain the dominant military power in the Asia-Pacific…
But Mr Duterte has now directly challenged the idea… If others take his view,
power could drain away from Washington… The sense that America’s ‘pivot’ to
Asia is in trouble is compounded by the growing doubts about the fate of the
Trans-Pacific Partnership… Unfortunately, long-term strategic thinking is
almost impossible in the current maelstrom of American politics. As a result,
President Obama faces the sad prospect of leaving office with his signature
foreign-policy initiative – the pivot to Asia – sinking beneath the Pacific
waves.
In the unkindest cut of all, Duterte stated recently: “China is now in
power and they have military superiority in the region.” Factually, it is
incorrect to say so. Don’t Americans have 11 aircraft carriers, while China has
only one?
But then, three-quarters of the great game has always been about
perceptions, and the growing perception in Asia is that the American aircraft
carriers are potentially very vulnerable.
This is where the 8-day long China-Russia naval exercises in the South
China Sea, which concluded on Monday, would have a multiplier effect. The grand
finale of the exercises was a spectacular amphibious and air landing operation
on an island off the coast of China’s southern Guangdong Province, which the
region watched with riveting attention.
The challenging drill was carried out in near-live combat situation with
the Russian and Chinese navies indulging in barely-concealed military posturing
that demonstrated their common interest to support each other and push back at
the US.
Shortly before the drills, Russian President Vladimir Putin also
introduced a game changer, expressing support for China’s position
in relation to the international arbitration tribunal’s verdict on
South China Sea. He made it a point to speak from Hangzhou, on Chinese soil.
Ambassador MK Bhadrakumar served as a career
diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service for over 29 years, with postings
including India’s ambassador to Uzbekistan (1995-1998) and to Turkey
(1998-2001). He writes the “Indian Punchline” blog and has written regularly
for Asia Times since 2001.
No comments:
Post a Comment