CFR Presents

Renewing America

Ideas and initiatives for rebuilding American economic strength.

Print Print Cite Cite
Style: MLA APA Chicago Close

loading...

Trump and the TPP: Giving Away Something for Nothing

by Edward Alden
January 23, 2017

Opponents of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement protest outside of the White House in Washington (Gary Cameron/Reuters).

Share

President Donald Trump likes to claim that he is a smart negotiator. “He’s an amazing negotiator, probably the best in this world,” his attorney Michael Cohen boasted during the campaign. “He will deal with trade and deal with issues.”

Yet in his first act as President today, Trump showed he does not understand the first thing about trade negotiations. In announcing the U.S. withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement, Mr. Trump has just unilaterally given away the biggest piece of leverage he had to deal with the biggest challenge in the world of trade, which is the increasingly troubling behavior by the world’s second largest economy, China. It is the first rule of any negotiation that you don’t give away something for nothing. Mr. Trump just did. And as foreign policy analyst Dan Drezner tweeted: “That sound you hear is the clinking of champagne glasses in Beijing.”

Trump’s actions today are no surprise of course. He said repeatedly during the campaign that he would pull the United States out of the TPP, calling it “another disaster done and pushed by special interests who want to rape our country, just a continuing rape of our country.” In a short video several weeks after the election, he promised to withdraw from the deal, which was concluded in October 2015 but never ratified by the U.S. Congress.

But there is no evidence that he or his advisors have given any serious thought to the implications of killing TPP for their own trade agenda. Trump has made clear that his goal is to negotiate “better deals” that would help to reduce the chronic U.S. deficit in goods trade. Putting aside the many other non-trade issues that affect trade balances, the biggest problem in that regard is China, which by itself accounts for nearly half the U.S. trade deficit in goods.

Under the current rules, China has little incentive to change its behavior. Despite more than a dozen cases brought by the Obama administration against China for alleged violations of World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, the WTO has shown itself unequal to the China challenge. TPP was no panacea, but it would have been an important tool for the United States. With 12 countries representing about 40 percent of the world economy under its umbrella, TPP would have given big advantages to companies that located investment inside the trading bloc, including the United States. China would have been relatively disadvantaged, and faced with the difficult choice of conforming to TPP rules or watching its investment share shrink.

TPP was far from perfect, to be sure. If Trump had asked me, I would have suggested, for example, demanding a renegotiation of the “rules of origin” for trade in automobiles, which would have opened the doors to cars being assembled in Japan using cheap, Chinese-made components and then exported duty-free to the United States. There were certainly other aspects of the deal – including the controversial Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provision and the lack of binding prohibitions on currency manipulation – that a Trump administration should have sought to change, all in the service of his goal of increasing investment and creating jobs in the United States.

Had he taken a moment to learn, Trump would have recognized that this was what past presidents have done. Bill Clinton was no big fan of the NAFTA as negotiated by the first President Bush, and demanded the addition of side accords on labor rights and environmental protection before sending the deal to Congress. President Obama similarly disliked the bilateral deals that the second President Bush had negotiated with Korea, Colombia and Panama and also demanded changes before moving ahead.

Contrast Trump’s precipitous withdrawal from TPP with his own approach to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), another deal that he has lambasted. Whatever the merits of Trump’s complaints about NAFTA, his tactics so far show some genuine skill as a negotiator. Judging from the campaign, Trump hates NAFTA even more than he hates TPP, calling it “the single worst trade deal approved in this country.” Yet despite his loathing for the agreement, his first act was to call up the leaders of Mexico and Canada and invite them to Washington to start a conversation on renegotiation. As a result, the United States will go into those negotiations with considerable leverage. Trump’s stated willingness to pull the plug on the deal will give him credibility to drive a hard bargain on NAFTA renegotiation, and fight for the best deal possible.

He should have extended the same approach to TPP, which is potentially far more important for the U.S. economy, even putting aside the larger concerns that Trump has now gravely weakened U.S. credibility among its allies in Asia and opened the door for China to become the unchallenged economic power in the region. His decision to pull the plug on TPP immediately shows an astonishing and disturbing short-sightedness.

Trump’s big selling point to many American voters was his supposed prowess as a great negotiator. On trade, one of his signature issues, he demonstrated today that he doesn’t actually know anything about negotiating.

Post a Comment 7 Comments

  • Posted by Charles Blum

    Ted, you may be rushing to judgement. Trump likes to show one card at a time, without revealing his full hand. Perhaps the Trump strategy is to deal with NAFTA first and, if possible, to “solidify relationships” (in Wilbur Ross’s phrase) with one or both of them. This would make sense given the long history and extent of our interrelationships, albeit with problems that have cried out for attention for a long time.

    The idea of pursuing freer and fairer trade and investment relations with freer and fairer trading partners could be a welcome departure in our trade policy. In its deal with the EU, Canada moved past the ISDS that proved to be one major albatross around the TPP. Why not explore that with Ottawa? In the TPP negotiations, Canada and Mexico also took a much tougher line on automotive rules of origin. By abandoning them on that issue, the US opened the door to what would have been a disastrous auto regime — for auto and auto parts production not just in the Us, bit in Canada and Mexico as well. Why not explore how we can defend our common interests in dealing with the rest of the world?

    Maybe “America First” includes some “North America First” dimensions that would over the long run lead to higher disciplines in trade deals with other Pacific countries. I’d rather have a series of more ambitious agreements that work than a watered-down multilateral arrangement. Why not give this a chance? Why nit try to help make it work?

  • Posted by Pleb

    Away with globalisation !

  • Posted by deathtokoalas

    he thinks it’s a secret plot by the chinese, and he won’t let anybody explain otherwise.

    there were no advisers behind this, besides perhaps a pollster. this is all donald. everybody around him supports the agreement. so, what he demonstrated is that he’s beyond logic, and a lost cause to anybody that wishes to advise him.

  • Posted by Savannah

    It really scares me! You can be a great negotiator when you have the right informations in hand. Thinking about US and its lack of informations it can be a bluff!

  • Posted by Lou

    The CFO of Ford just sided with Trump.
    Biggest issue is currency manipulation, and TPP did nothing.
    I will side with the practitioner and not the Ivory Tower.
    PS: At this point, neither you or I or anyone else has any idea of what Trumps strategy will be towards China. I highly doubt they are toasting their champagne glasses.

  • Posted by dumb and dumber

    So this author thinks that something that has not been rectified, will not be rectified by congress and has not been implemented, can be used as leverage in negotiation with Chinese. And those Chinese negotiators will be dumb enough to believe that waving pieces of empty papers will make them make concessions in areas that we want.

    Yeah, I believe the author is a “greater” negotiator than Trump. The next time I have something that I need to negotiate (with my business partners, bankers, etc), I should come up with something that everyone known is dead and used it as “leverage”.

  • Posted by Irwin Noval

    What response does Trump have to this? What do Trump supporters say about this probably the biggest factor in the diminishment of American power.
    Shows him to be an utter fool

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