7 ms·

Interestingly at today's White House Press Briefing, a reporter asked the Press Secretary whether the Trump Administration thought that it could surround/contai

Interestingly at today's White House Press Briefing, a reporter asked the Press Secretary whether the Trump Administration thought that it could surround/contain China with bilateral trade agreements the way that the TPP had intended to do on a multilateral basis. China has a couple of free trade deals in the region. It has a multilateral effort (RCEP) which is somewhat stalled and primarily pursued bilateral trade agreements. This may put American and China toe-to-toe in reaching agreements with Asian Pacific states. There’s a question about the quality of the trade deals that can be reached, if the target nations are clever enough to play Beijing and Washington off against one another. The Trump Administration has suggested that bilateral agreements are better because they don’t devolve into “least common denominator” the way multilateral deals do; and that they also allow the deals to be quickly withdrawn from or renegotiated to account for new realities.

makomk 10y ago
China's ability to reach trade deals is probably somewhat limited by the fact that they do not believe in free trade or free movement of money and goods. Seriously, if America put anywhere near the kind of obstacles to trade that China has, economists and the press would freak out.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > China's ability to reach trade deals is probably somewhat limited by the fact that they do not believe in free trade or free movement of money and goods. China's economy is built on international trade - specifically, their massive exports - and the movement of money and goods. They don't like it in some cases, but that's true of every nation.
hackuser 10y ago
Here's the real story every time you read about the comparison between multilateral and bilateral international agreements (speaking very generally): * Powerful nations want bilateral agreements, because it's the strong negotiating with the weak. Imagine the U.S. negotiating a trade deal with Nicaragua: The U.S. position is overwhelmingly strong; they could walk away and cancel all trade with Nicaragua; the U.S. would hardly notice and Nicaragua's economy would be devastated. (EDIT: I'll add that this is true of the powerful everywhere; e.g., large businesses don't want to negotiate with government or Congress (law and regulation) or a class in court (a class action), they want to deal with individual consumers one by one.) * Supporters of an international rules-based, law-based order, and of a democratic and rights-based order want broad multilateral agreements. Then the weak nations can band together and resist the powerful; it gives them self-determination, the foundation of democracy; it creates rule of law rather than rule of the powerful. Also, instead of an exceptionally complex system of individual agreements between each pair of countries, it creates one standard - much more like a law. Imagine a global business trying to parse the individual trade deals between every pair of countries from its supply chain to its retail customers - an incredibly, needlessly complex level of regulation compared to one international standard. Imagine if the 50 U.S. states only had bilateral trade deals with each other - that would be 1,225 deals, endless red tape for a national business (and there are many more countries than U.S. states). A major reason the U.S. is so wealthy is that it's the largest single, unified economy; that's what the EU hopes to equal. For example, in the South China Sea, China says they want bilateral negotiations with each country - they oppose the current U.S.-led international order and want negotiations they can dominate. The U.S. and China's neighbors want a multilateral deal; they want to continue the rule of international law and the U.S.-led order, and want to negotiate from a position of strength. My guess in this case is that it's a reflection of the fact that Trump, the Republicans, and their big business constituents prefer rule of the powerful.
- jwtadvice 10y ago
  Thank you! Very keen. To add to this comment, there’s more nuance when speaking less generally: * In cases where there is competition between powerful nations, weaker nations can and do gain advantage by playing the interests of one country off of one another. For instance, during the Cold War the United States and Soviet Union would engage in trade, weapons, and security deals. States caught in the middle understood that both empires were competing with one another to either expand their network outward or prevent the other from doing so (America often included “and you may not trade with the Soviet Union” as an aspect of its bilateral negotiations) would try to internalize the security/strategic value that the empires sought - rather than the pure quid-pro-quo of markets. * The United States effort with both NAFTA and the TPP were to contain Russia and China, respectively, by building a coalition of countries with trade that excludes each specific United States adversary. This strategically weaponizes the second point above: coalitions of nations together banded together against a more powerful economic force. Similarly, the Chinese RCEP agreement bands together trade centered around the Chinese economy, and excludes the United States. Indeed, the Soviet Union was, as a security/power concept, an idea that a trade network on the Eurasian Supercontinent would be able to outperform and outcompete other continental sized trade networks (the United States), which led the United States to disrupt the trade framework with proxy war, etc. * Similar episodes are common throughout history: Nasser’s Egypt had tried, unsuccessfully, to create a Republic of Arab nations in the Middle East, so that they could collectively bargain and negotiate with external powers such as Europe and the United States. This was considered a security threat to these powers, because the West much preferred strong-on-weak bilateral agreements, protectorates and mandates. From the security side of the coin, great nations including China, Russia (now the Eurasian Union), and the United States strategically try to build coalitions of small nations against their powerful adversaries in an attempt to disrupt their ability to successfully compete. The Trump Administration decision to abandon this represents an idea that the United States will be able to “out-deal” regional competitors (primarily China but also Japan, South Korea) on a one-for-one basis. My guess is that the diplomacy will get very nasty - even if its all in the back room.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    Thanks; that's a great addition to the discussion. One important nit: > The United States effort with both NAFTA and the TPP were to contain Russia and China, respectively, by building a coalition of countries with trade that excludes each specific United States adversary As I understand it (I'm no expert in the field), U.S. policy in regard to China is that its rise to superpower status is inevitable, and the U.S.'s strategy is to get China to join a rules-based (i.e., law-based) international order - preferably the existing one - rather than create an anarchic great power competition that often results in terrible wars. On a political level, TPP was designed as a step in that direction; it wasn't intended to exclude China but to compel them to join a rules-based trade regime for the Pacific - i.e., either play by the rules or be excluded from trade. The goal was that they would join.

makomk 10y ago

China's ability to reach trade deals is probably somewhat limited by the fact that they do not believe in free trade or free movement of money and goods. Seriously, if America put anywhere near the kind of obstacles to trade that China has, economists and the press would freak out.

hackuser 10y ago
> China's ability to reach trade deals is probably somewhat limited by the fact that they do not believe in free trade or free movement of money and goods. China's economy is built on international trade - specifically, their massive exports - and the movement of money and goods. They don't like it in some cases, but that's true of every nation.

hackuser 10y ago

Here's the real story every time you read about the comparison between multilateral and bilateral international agreements (speaking very generally): * Powerful nations want bilateral agreements, because it's the strong negotiating with the weak. Imagine the U.S. negotiating a trade deal with Nicaragua: The U.S. position is overwhelmingly strong; they could walk away and cancel all trade with Nicaragua; the U.S. would hardly notice and Nicaragua's economy would be devastated. (EDIT: I'll add that this is true of the powerful everywhere; e.g., large businesses don't want to negotiate with government or Congress (law and regulation) or a class in court (a class action), they want to deal with individual consumers one by one.) * Supporters of an international rules-based, law-based order, and of a democratic and rights-based order want broad multilateral agreements. Then the weak nations can band together and resist the powerful; it gives them self-determination, the foundation of democracy; it creates rule of law rather than rule of the powerful. Also, instead of an exceptionally complex system of individual agreements between each pair of countries, it creates one standard - much more like a law. Imagine a global business trying to parse the individual trade deals between every pair of countries from its supply chain to its retail customers - an incredibly, needlessly complex level of regulation compared to one international standard. Imagine if the 50 U.S. states only had bilateral trade deals with each other - that would be 1,225 deals, endless red tape for a national business (and there are many more countries than U.S. states). A major reason the U.S. is so wealthy is that it's the largest single, unified economy; that's what the EU hopes to equal. For example, in the South China Sea, China says they want bilateral negotiations with each country - they oppose the current U.S.-led international order and want negotiations they can dominate. The U.S. and China's neighbors want a multilateral deal; they want to continue the rule of international law and the U.S.-led order, and want to negotiate from a position of strength. My guess in this case is that it's a reflection of the fact that Trump, the Republicans, and their big business constituents prefer rule of the powerful.

jwtadvice 10y ago
Thank you! Very keen. To add to this comment, there’s more nuance when speaking less generally: * In cases where there is competition between powerful nations, weaker nations can and do gain advantage by playing the interests of one country off of one another. For instance, during the Cold War the United States and Soviet Union would engage in trade, weapons, and security deals. States caught in the middle understood that both empires were competing with one another to either expand their network outward or prevent the other from doing so (America often included “and you may not trade with the Soviet Union” as an aspect of its bilateral negotiations) would try to internalize the security/strategic value that the empires sought - rather than the pure quid-pro-quo of markets. * The United States effort with both NAFTA and the TPP were to contain Russia and China, respectively, by building a coalition of countries with trade that excludes each specific United States adversary. This strategically weaponizes the second point above: coalitions of nations together banded together against a more powerful economic force. Similarly, the Chinese RCEP agreement bands together trade centered around the Chinese economy, and excludes the United States. Indeed, the Soviet Union was, as a security/power concept, an idea that a trade network on the Eurasian Supercontinent would be able to outperform and outcompete other continental sized trade networks (the United States), which led the United States to disrupt the trade framework with proxy war, etc. * Similar episodes are common throughout history: Nasser’s Egypt had tried, unsuccessfully, to create a Republic of Arab nations in the Middle East, so that they could collectively bargain and negotiate with external powers such as Europe and the United States. This was considered a security threat to these powers, because the West much preferred strong-on-weak bilateral agreements, protectorates and mandates. From the security side of the coin, great nations including China, Russia (now the Eurasian Union), and the United States strategically try to build coalitions of small nations against their powerful adversaries in an attempt to disrupt their ability to successfully compete. The Trump Administration decision to abandon this represents an idea that the United States will be able to “out-deal” regional competitors (primarily China but also Japan, South Korea) on a one-for-one basis. My guess is that the diplomacy will get very nasty - even if its all in the back room.
- hackuser 10y ago
  Thanks; that's a great addition to the discussion. One important nit: > The United States effort with both NAFTA and the TPP were to contain Russia and China, respectively, by building a coalition of countries with trade that excludes each specific United States adversary As I understand it (I'm no expert in the field), U.S. policy in regard to China is that its rise to superpower status is inevitable, and the U.S.'s strategy is to get China to join a rules-based (i.e., law-based) international order - preferably the existing one - rather than create an anarchic great power competition that often results in terrible wars. On a political level, TPP was designed as a step in that direction; it wasn't intended to exclude China but to compel them to join a rules-based trade regime for the Pacific - i.e., either play by the rules or be excluded from trade. The goal was that they would join.