CFR Presents

Asia Unbound

CFR experts give their take on the cutting-edge issues emerging in Asia today.

Print Print Email Email Share Share Cite Cite
Style: MLA APA Chicago Close

loading...

The Futility of Obama’s Southeast Asia Trip?

by Joshua Kurlantzick
September 30, 2013

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks as Brunei's Sultan and Prime Minister Hassanal Bolkiah listens during the Trans-Pacific Partnership Leaders meeting at the Hale Koa Hotel during the APEC Summit in Honolulu, Hawaii, on November 12, 2011. (Larry Downing/Courtesy Reuters) U.S. President Barack Obama speaks as Brunei's Sultan and Prime Minister Hassanal Bolkiah listens during the Trans-Pacific Partnership Leaders meeting at the Hale Koa Hotel during the APEC Summit in Honolulu, Hawaii, on November 12, 2011. (Larry Downing/Courtesy Reuters)

Later this week, President Obama will embark on a six-day trip to Southeast Asia, visiting Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei, to attend the East Asia Summit, the annual ASEAN leaders summit, and the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting, along with a global entrepreneurs’ meeting in Malaysia. It might seem surprising that the president would leave the United States at such a critical time in federal budget negotiations, but these are the biggest leaders’ meetings in Asia, and since 2009, the White House has committed to increasing the presence of the president and other top Cabinet officials in Asia.

Certainly, face time is critical in Southeast Asia, and the president’s presence at these summits is a sign of the continued U.S. commitment to the region, a sign further burnished by the launch earlier this year of the comprehensive partnership with Vietnam. But what about the substance of these meetings? The White House has pledged to finalize the Trans Pacific Partnership(TPP) by the end of this year, and this will be the top subject at nearly all the summits Obama attends. But the TPP negotiations held in Washington two weeks ago did not make substantial progress on many sectors, and most major U.S. business trade groups are pressing Obama not to make the kinds of compromises on intellectual property during his trip to Asia that most of the other TPP countries demand for talks to be finalized. And even if they did actually finalize TPP, the White House has almost no chance of getting fast trade track authority from Congress again, despite pledges by the Office of the United States Trade Representative to work for it. Without fast track, and with so many concerns in Congress over the vast scope of the TPP, it would likely be dead on arrival on the Hill.

Later in the week, I’ll take a look at how Obama should, during his trip, address concerns over the state of political freedom in Southeast Asia, particularly in Malaysia, Myanmar, and Cambodia.

 

Post a Comment 2 Comments

  • Posted by D'Marie Mulattieri

    If the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement is so wonderful why has it been negotiated in secret? Why has it been virtually impossible for our Congress members to see the draft texts? Why has Rep. Alan Grayson, said that he understood why the TPP was called NAFTA on steroids and that it is a huge punch in the face for the American middle class? Why is that our Congress cannot have access yet 600 corporate advisers are given that privilege?

    I certainly hope our Congress has enough sense NOT to grant Obama Fast Track authority and certainly does not give our national sovereignty away by elevating multi-national corporations to “investor state” status thereby allowing them to sue us on national and state levels for future loss of profits due to our health, safety and environmental laws by approving this un-American abomination called the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

  • Posted by Nguyen N. Ngoc

    There is also Vietnam in part of the negotiations, the only communist country. Negotiations with Vietnam surely have to deal with state-owned enterprises, where socio-cultural factors play a vital roles, and quite difficult to understand.

Post a Comment

CFR seeks to foster civil and informed discussion of foreign policy issues. Opinions expressed on CFR blogs are solely those of the author or commenter, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions. All comments must abide by CFR's guidelines and will be moderated prior to posting.

* Required

Pingbacks