Why is TPP so important for the US?

0 34

October 15, 2015-

Vzglyad.ru translated for Fort Russ by Soviet Bear-

export-oriented re-industrialization creates a ring of dependent economies. On
the one hand, intensified the work on creation of the Transpacific partnership
and Transatlantic on the other.

 The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is finally
in place. It was in the news of all news agencies in the world. What is this
organization? Can we call it trade and investment, or is it something more? 

American press calls the TTP a huge success for US. Barack Obama gives to
understand that it is his child.  The
contracts have been signed recently.

Australia, Brunei,
Vietnam, Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Chile, Japan
and the US – these countries have signed in Atlanta (GA) the “trade”
Treaty that makes these “open economies” more open to American
capital, rules and requirements.

Obama stressed that
the USA and not China is the leader in the region, and they use leadership for
a new economic architecture. And it all goes smoothly.

What was agreed
between the partners? And why did they leave aside not only China and Russia
but also India? It was important for the U.S to sign the contract, which other
countries can to join later

This Treaty would have
caused a public outrage in the largest countries if they began to discuss it.
USA did not discuss it with them, knowing that they are not inclined to
sacrifice sovereignty for the sake of “pure trade”. For them the
gates of the TPP is not formally closed. But the window for a dialogue is
closed for them. A large market begets large independence than small economies.
  From the point of view of the US all
the BRICS have a “birth defect”. They can be centres of attraction for small
countries, creating customs agreements with them.

Can these agreements be
the basis for more in the future? Washington is worried about the prospect.
Because the struggle for small countries became extremely important for the US
in recent years, when a new economic strategy of Washington was being determined.

In 2011-2013, the US
has experienced a time of political clashes. They almost had a technical
default of the state. With scandal the FED underwent an audit which revealed
that 16 trillion dollars spending on aid to banks was illegal.

A shutdown was
organized – an emergency shutdown of the government funding. It seemed that
world hegemony is about to collapse under the weight of its own contradictions.
But it had not collapsed. Republican pressure on Obama had its result. The US
has adjusted its economic policies.

export-oriented reindustrialization was complemented with a policy of building
a ring of dependent economies. On the one hand, intensified the work on
creation of the Trans Pacific partnership and Transatlantic on the other.

And if the second
agreement has not moved because of negotiations with EU, then the first will be
operational shortly. But it is more stringent than the agreement on WTO
membership. It would also require submission of the member-countries to the
United States instead of cooperating with them on the basis of common
interests. Washington is still dissatisfied with the regional project, the
Asia-Pacific economic cooperation (APEC), which unites 21 countries, including
China and Russia.

The United States
believes APEC is insufficiently profitable. APEC doesn’t provide new
opportunities and does not allows to increase the degree of dependence of
countries on the U.S. market.

But the time for this
is perfect. There is an outflow of capital from China and other countries in
the Pacific region to the United States. Politicians Washington are convinced that
in the future recovery of the world economy the United States should determine
areas of investing.

This happened after
the crisis of the 1970-ies. However, the current “second crisis” is
far from complete, and it is not clear yet, how and when it will happen in the
United States itself. And yet the American politicians know that the US remains
the center of capital accumulation, and their market is huge.

These advantages are
very important. Even in China, the leader of economic growth and investment
flows among the BRICS countries doesn’t these advantages. there is a huge
outflow of capital from China now

China will also
experience the devaluation of the yuan, a further decline in the stock market,
the crisis in the banking sector, and then industrial bubble pop. The
Washington players are confident that these troubles will make China a less
ambitious country.

Then perhaps you can
invite China to the Trans Pacific partnership. Something similar can be
expected of India, but not Russia. Russia is the enemy of the US in another
area of interest, not in the Pacific, but in Europe.

Washington picks
enemies by itself believing that might makes right. China did not provoke the
US to create a new trade bloc in the region which the United States hastened to

And it’s been created.
In anticipation that it will expand at the expense of new smaller countries,
but it is unclear: what method of stimulating economic growth the US will be
able to use and will it work.

Especially it is
unclear will there be economic growth in the TPP countries. Growth is possible,
if manufacturing from other countries, such as China, India or Brazil gets
moved to this zone. But will it be a significant growth and will it be derailed
by the “second crisis” in the USA?

The TTP – is a narrow
agreement not involving economic development for most participants. The USA do
not plan no growth. The social system of the countries members of TPP will be
dismantled, democracy at the local level will become a facade, as the
“trade” agreement will stand above it.

However, the
narrowness of the TTP and its not yet established Transatlantic twin is not
only in the limitation of the sovereignty of countries (except the US), but
also the ability to stabilize ONLY the US economy. The markets of the TTP
countries will not provide sufficient demand for the goods from the USA. This
will further complicate the reindustrialization of America unless its domestic
economic policy will not change.

Trans-oceanic trading
partnerships is a new page of globalization. Or at least they think so in
Washington. But what will happen to this page if the book of the neo-liberal
“Union of peace” will be closed, and the continental countries will successfully
deal with their problems and offer the best possible terms of cooperation to
the countries dependent on the US?

- Advertisement -

__ATA.cmd.push(function() { __ATA.initDynamicSlot({ id: 'atatags-1476137431-6040d4c8d6369', location: 120, formFactor: '001', label: { text: 'Advertisements', }, creative: { reportAd: { text: 'Report this ad', }, privacySettings: { text: 'Privacy settings', } } }); });
Subscribe to our newsletter
Sign up here to get the latest news, updates and special offers delivered directly to your inbox.

Get real time updates directly on you device, subscribe now.