TPP: What’s in it for Vietnam?

In this article we will discuss the impact of TPP on Vietnam.

Vietnam is likely to be the biggest winner of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Vietnam’s economy relies largely on exports and TPP slashes an estimated 18,000 tariffs among the dozen participating countries. In a decade, the country’s gross domestic product will be boosted 11 percent and exports may soar 28 percent in the period as companies move factories to the Southeast Asian country.

FOREIGN INVESTMENT- Vietnam’s low-wage economy means a lot of foreign firms would look to relocate their operations here. Key industries for this are- logistics, industrial parks, fisheries and garments.

APPAREL– Reduced import duties in the U.S. and Japan will benefit the country’s apparel manufacturers. Vietnam may have a 50 percent increase in apparel and footwear exports in 10 years, according to the Eurasia Group.

SEAFOOD– Elimination of import taxes on shrimp, squid and tuna, now averaging 6.4 percent-7.2 percent will benefit this industry. However, Vietnam will still face strict rules-of-origin on materials, which could limit these benefits.

GLOBAL COMPETITION– Vietnam’s agricultural industry, particularly livestock, and pharmaceutical companies are expected to struggle with the more efficient global operators.

Current Situation

Overall, the TPP is very favorable for Vietnam; it is aggressively seeking economic partners to balance its relationship with China. However, the agreement still needs to be passed by the governments of the 12 nations. The failure of TPP would leave Vietnam more economically isolated and dependent on China. The uncertainty of the TPP is holding Vietnam from committing to the deal.

Source- http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-08/more-shoes-and-shrimp-less-china-reliance-for-vietnam-in-tpp

Future Uncertain for TTP in Canada

In the article, Ratifying the TPP could be bad for Canada, but not ratifying it would be even worse: memo, the author examines the multiple options around the TTP as well the future of trade in Canada.  As most know, the TTP has been signed by all the countries involved, but it has yet to be ratified.  With growing sentiment against the TTP in the US, Canada, and other countries, it’s not surprising that some experts believe the agreement may never be ratified.

The previous finance minister of Canada, Joe Oliver, warned Canada in an October memo that not participating in the TTP could be disastrous.  In part, Canada needs to be part of the agreement if only for defensive measures.  If Canada were to opt out of the TTP, it would lose its ideal trade positions to the US and Mexico.  The memo noted specifically that these North American supply chains “underpin the [Canadian] economy.  On the positive side, the TTP would open the doors to trade with Asian countries, a position Canada does not hold strongly right now.

On the flip side, the TTP would dilute Canada’s great position within the NAFTA.  There would be significant competition from Asian countries.  Furthermore, the TTP could eliminate Canadian jobs and damage some sectors of the economy.  Interestingly, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has urged Canada to abandon what he described as a “badly flawed” deal.  Suffice to say, the future of the TTP is in doubt.

 

Would the dissolution of the TTP be the best outcome for Canada?

Why hasn’t there been more sentiment in Canada about the TTP’s other provisions aside from trade?

Will Canada’s relations with Asian countries actually become worse if the TTP is not signed?

http://globalnews.ca/news/2627088/ratifying-the-tpp-could-be-bad-for-canada-but-not-ratifying-it-would-be-even-worse-memo/

 

Singapore Supports the TTP, Anticipates US Agreement

In the articles Singapore PM: Rejecting TPP Means War, Shifting Alliances in Pacific More Certain, the author examines how Singapore views the TTP and as well as how Singapore anticipates the US will sign on to the TTP, thus avoiding possible future conflict in the pacific.  These observations stem from the political meeting between President Obama and the Prime Minister of Singapore Lee Hsien Loong in August of this year, where Prime Minister Lee spoke at the White House about the TTP, and how not passing it could be potentially disastrous.

The TTP is a 12-nation trade agreement, which primarily has stalled out in the US congress.  Nonetheless, president Obama, a stark supporter of the TTP, and believes it will get passed.  Singapore’s Prime Minister pointed out that in the next 50 years, the major superpowers in the world can work toward interdependence and peaceful cooperation or towards rivalry and a higher risk of conflict.  Lee also pointed out that the reason there is manageable relationships between countries in the Pacific is because of mutually beneficial trade.  On the flip side, Americans are worried about localized job losses because of an agreement like the TTP, and Obama acknowledged this, though he did not give specifics on how such people will be helped should the agreement pass.

Singapore views the TTP through a Confucian mindset in that the trade agreement is about relationships between countries and how these countries balance their obligations and benefits of the agreement.  In the same thread, Lee likened the US to a bride in this relationship, in that if the bride does not show up, many countries will be hurt.  With both US potential presidential candidates against the TTP, it will be interesting to see what happens.  Surprisingly and optimistically, Lee ended the conference with a statement regarding Singapore’s previous dealings with US Democrats and Republicans, noting that relations have been good with either party in power.

 

Do you think that actual war could break out if the TTP is not passed?

Does the US have the most to lose, or gain, from the TTP?

Do you think that the presidential candidate elected will change his/her stance on the TTP once in office?

 

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/02/singapore-pm-rejecting-tpp-means-war-shifting-alliances-pacific-certain/

 

Canada Weighs Benefits and Drawbacks of TTP

In the article Not joining TPP will cost Canada billions in economic growth: report, the author investigates how Canada is examining its involvement in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TTP), and how the release of a new study could say its opinion.  Canadians have been back and forth in deciding if signing on to the TTP is the right move for the country. It now appears that now signing on to the TTP, baring major countries, like the US, not signing on, is the right move because Canada could lose significant future trade revenue by not being part of the TTP.

Recently, one of Canada’s own top economists, Andre Downs, published a paper advising Canada’s ruling part, the Trudeau Liberals, that failure to sign onto the TTP would cost the country upwards of 5.3 billion dollars in lost trade revenue.  On the other hand, signing on to the agreement would generate long-term gains for the Canadian economy, expanding output by $4.3-billion.  With such large numbers in play, it’s obvious that a decision on the TTP is very important to Canada’s future economy.

The curveball in Canada’s decision is the ratification of the TTP by the other countries who could be involved, primarily the US.  All of Canada’s recent estimates assume the US will ratify the TTP.  It is interesting to consider that both US presidential candidates are currently publicly against the TTP.  Furthermore, there is protectionist sentiment in Canada, and there are voices that believe any benefit of the agreement will be nullified by its increased cost to Canadians.  These extra costs include billions of dollars in compensation for farmers as well as bigger price tags for copyrighted goods and patented medicines.  With all of this information in mind, it will be interesting how the future of trade unfolds for Canada based on the participation and ratification of the TTP.

 

Do you believe Canada will end up agreeing to the TPP?

If the US backs out of the TTP, will any other countries agree to the TPP?

Do you believe that Canada’s fears of lost trade revenue or justified or overblown?

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/not-joining-tpp-will-cost-canada-billions-in-economic-growth-report/article31809986/

 

Trade minister: TPP dead and ‘buried’ if Trump becomes US president

An article posted on March 21st, 2016 in the Malay Mail Online, http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/trade-minister-tpp-dead-and-buried-if-trump-becomes-us-president, states that the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) will likely end if Donald Trump becomes the next US President and the world superpower opts to withdraw from the trade deal. Malaysian International and Industry Minister Datuk Seri Mustapa Mohamed believes that the trade deal would be ineffective without participation from the US seeing as it is the world’s biggest economy. According to Mustapa, “We don’t want to make a prediction but if Congress doesn’t agree with the TPPA, then TPPA will be buried because section 30 of the TPPA needs the participation of the US because they are the world’s largest economy, with 20 per cent of the global economy,” and “So when we negotiate TPPA without the US, then it’ll be less effective and have less meaning.” He also stated that Malaysia will not agree to the TPP if the United States seeks to push through any amendments to the current proposal. Donald Trump has already shown his feelings about the TPP, reportedly calling it the “biggest betrayal” of Americans, and claiming that the deal will result in job losses to US countrymen from massive work outsourcing. No one is certain who will win the United States Presidential Election this year, but it is very apparent that it will have a huge impact on Malaysia and all of the 12 countries involved in the TPP.

Do you think that the TPP will be buried if Donald Trump is elected president? Do you think that the US will back out of the TPP if Donald Trump is elected president?

Scott Morrison vetoes ‘rear view’ analysis of Trans-Pacific Partnership

According to an article published on February 17th, 2016 in The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/17/scott-morrison-vetoes-rear-view-analysis-of-trans-pacific-partnership, the Treasurer of Australia, Scott Morrison, has ruled out conducting a “rear view” analysis of the Trans Pacific Partnership, stating that the Australian government is already satisfied with its projected benefits. The only official analysis of the trade deal was conducted by the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, but multiple consumer groups had asked for an independent review of the trade deal. According to Morrison, “The work has been done … in securing these agreements and the sceptics will always doubt the trade benefits of these sorts of deals,” and “They’re welcome to their skepticism. The government is convinced of it.” Earlier this month trade minister Andrew Robb rejected calls for a cost-benefit analysis of the trade deal after it emerged that Australia’s economy would only grow by 0.7% as a result of the agreement. An analysis done by the World Bank showed that Australia fared worse than all other countries besides the US in the trade deal. Even with this analysis, it appears that the Australian government is still very confident that the TPP will have a positive economic impact for Australia and they continue to back it.

Should Australia make a “rear view” analysis of the TPP? Do you think the TPP will benefit Australia more than projected?

Malaysia to promote halal products to TPP countries

According to a recent article posted in Astro AWANI, http://english.astroawani.com/malaysia-news/malaysia-promote-halal-products-tpp-countries-92542, Malaysia is looking to expand their halal market to the countries involved in the Trans Pacific Partnership, including Australia and New Zealand. Halal is defined as relating to or denoting food, specifically meat, that is prepared as prescribed by Muslim Law. Malaysian International Trade and Industry Minister Datuk Seri Mustapa Mohamed said that Malaysia has been working with the two countries as they are familiar with Malaysia’s halal agenda. According to Mustapa, “We are looking for markets in some of these (TPP) countries. For example, in the United States and Canada, where the Muslim population is growing,” and “By promoting halal products in those countries, we hope Malaysian exporters would get better market access in some of the TPP countries.” Mustapa also stated that the halal industry and their agenda was recognized as an important focal point to the government to help develop Malaysian halal business. Led by the International Trade and Industry Minister, the World Halal Week 2016 will take place from March 28th to April 2nd at the Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre. The event, which is themed “Beyond the Economy” marks Malaysia’s determination to identify the untapped potential of the halal industry beyond commercial and trade value.

Do you think countries like Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and Canada will purchase more Halal products from Malaysia? How important do you think Halal products are to Malaysia’s success?