These negotiations have overcome significant political obstacles, with countries accepting difficult reforms of their economies. For example, Japan`s powerful agricultural lobby has opposed the reduction of tariffs on agricultural goods, while the country has agreed to remove barriers to its auto market. Canada has agreed to grant more foreign access to its highly protected dairy market, while Brunei, Malaysia and Vietnam have promised to reform their labor laws, and U.S. negotiators agree on some of their demands for stricter patent protection on drugs. In 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton outlined the strategic motivation for an Asia-focused trade deal. The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates that “the TPP would have positive effects, if only as a percentage of the overall size of the U.S. economy.” [13] There will be an additional 128,000 full-time jobs. [165] By 2032, U.S. Real annual income would increase by 0.23%, real GDP would be $42.7 billion, or 0.15%, employment would be 0.07% higher, U.S. exports would increase by 1%, and imports would increase by 1.1%. [13] The report adds: “In general, the TPP would establish trade-related disciplines, strengthen and harmonize rules, enhance security, and reduce trade costs for companies operating and investing in the TPP region.” [13] Vietnam is often considered the largest beneficiary of TPP. [166] [167] [23] The U.S.
International Trade Commission identifies the following U.S. industries as net beneficiaries of TPP: passenger cars; clothing, milk production; retailers and wholesalers; and business services; and as net losers: auto parts; textiles; soybean production; transport and tourism; and chemicals and drugs. [13] [168] In a 2018 study on general foreign trade, researchers found that a large majority of adults in the United States viewed foreign trade as beneficial to the United States. Growth rather than foreign threat. [74] In the international context, Americans are generally among the least likely to support the Trans-Pacific Partnership and there is a clear partisan divide among the American public regarding support for the trade agreement. [75] Brunei, Chile, Singapore and New Zealand are parties to the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (TPSEP), signed in 2005 and entered into force in 2006. The original TPSEP agreement contains an accession clause and reaffirms “the commitment of members to promote the accession of other economies to this agreement”. [56] [57] It is a comprehensive agreement that affects trade in goods, rules of origin, trade remedies, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, technical barriers to trade, trade in services, intellectual property, government procurement and competition policy. In particular, it called for a 90% reduction in all tariffs between Member States by 1 January 2006 and a reduction of all trade duties to zero by 2015. [79] These provisions mainly concern investment, public procurement and intellectual property.
[80] On January 23, 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump signed a presidential memorandum to withdraw the U.S. signature from the agreement, making it virtually impossible to ratify, as it did in February 2016. [29] In a joint statement, the countries` heads of state and government said the trade deal would be a decisive part of their plans to recover from the pandemic that has forced countries around the world to block their economies. . . .