Demise of the West? What about the Rest?
(Published in The Shillong Times, 09/02/2017)
Among many other rapid
alterations brought up by the American president Donald J. Trump after his
taking of office, the termination of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is one
worth talking of. The TPP is a trade agreement between Australia, Brunei, Canada,
Chile, Japan, Mexico, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and the
United States of America (till January 2017 when Trump decide to abandon it). The
TPP aimed at reducing both tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade between the
signatories and establish an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism. Once
in operation, it was expected to be the largest regional trade bloc in the
history with an annual gross domestic product of nearly $28 trillion, i.e.,
roughly 40 percent of global GDP and one-third of world trade. Trump’s
predecessor Barack Obama had carefully steered the TPP with a view to bind the Pacific
nations closer through lower tariffs and in a way checking the rising Chinese
influence in the region. At an ordinary
glance the act of abandoning the TPP appears to be the mere rejection of a
trade agreement. But viewed in light of the series of events occurring across
the transatlantic of late, the act appears to have far reaching implications
for the world at large. Above all the American exit from the agreement signals
Trump’s reluctance to engage in the global theatre any more at the cost of
domestic interests of the US. Trump built on his election campaign by
criticizing his predecessor for unnecessary involvement in the Middle East and
the world in general. As explicit, Trump and his supporters look up to reducing
the US involvement as a global leader. The decision to abandon TPP thus seems
to be in line with two popular catchphrases of Trump during his election
campaign – “America First” and “Making America Great Again”. The agreement had
already become a flashpoint during the US presidential campaign wherein
nominees of both major parties had opposed it citing loss of American jobs
overseas and competitive wages.
Questions that tickle the
consciousness of international policy circles at this critical juncture are – how
does the U.S. withdrawal from the global theatre impact the transatlantic world
order administered by the U.S. since the end of World War II? Does the US
withdrawal in anyways pose a question mark to the merits of free trade and
globalization? How does US withdrawal impact the Asians?
The world requires no mention of
U.S.’s role in the aftermath of the World War II in tying together the devastated
Western Europe and upholding a world order based on liberal values. The end of
the Cold War had proved the resounding victory of the Western world order,
making globalization and trade liberalization the dominant narratives. After
more than seven decades of World War II, Europe now appears to be disillusioned
with the fruits of free trade that they had once engulfed rapidly. This perhaps
has been granting leverage to the economic nationalist leaders across Europe and
fueling a wave of populism across the continent. The financial crisis in
Greece, the never-ending migration crises, withdrawal of Britain from the
eurozone and talks of a similar withdrawal by France in coming times has been
keeping the continent in sheer restlessness for a while. Under such
circumstances, the withdrawal of the US as the global leader and Trump’s
resolve for an inward-looking policy is undoubtedly expected to pose a threat
to the Western world order. The prospects of stability in the transatlantic
without a dominant role of the US had forever been uncertain and for that
matter is still under jeopardy. In regard to US involvement in the Europe in
coming times, all eyes must definitely look up to the upcoming Summit of North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) leaders in May 2017 (NATO is the umbrella
organization for collective security in Europe). It requires mention here that
in respect to the NATO, Trump had already called it “obsolete” given its
creation long back in the midst of the Cold War. Talking at a Pennsylvania
scrap facility earlier in June 2016 Trump had urged the U.S. to follow the
trend set in by Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union. He further
stated, “Our friends in Britain recently voted to take back control of their
economy, politics and borders. Now it’s time for American people to take back
their future. We are going to take it back”. Going by his proposed strategy of
international isolationism, if Trump eventually takes up a decision that does
not favour active US involvement in the NATO, the collective security
initiative is bound to face severe setback. If that is to happen, the supremacy
of the West would further depreciate in coming times.
The greatest probable beneficiary
after the US withdrawal from the TPP appears to be China. If Trump is to stick
to his strategy of withdrawing from the world, China perhaps would be left back
with even greater leverage in the South China Sea. Although there have been no
updates regarding the bilateral agreements that US holds with the nations in
the Asia Pacific region, the withdrawal from the multilateral TPP is obvious to
run optimisms across Chinese policy circles for the time being. On the contrary
the greatest setback from a failed TPP appears to be faced by Japan. In
addition to all the economic benefits that were expected by Japan, the country
was particularly interested in the project so as to set up a counter against
rising Chinese influence. Although Japan is attempting to boost its trade with
China, it had always wanted to set the rules of the game rather being the way
around. Among other things, the setting up of the Asian Infrastructure
Investment Bank (AIIB) under the aegis of China poses a threat to the Japan led
Asian Development Bank (ADB) and Japan saw in TPP the opportunity to stay ahead
in the game of Asian diplomacy. As far as India is concerned the ill effects of
the US withdrawal from the TPP appears to be at bay since India anyways was not
a member and direct beneficiary of the project. On contrary India might hope
for some indirect gains with TPP becoming less appealing vis-à-vis the RCEP, of
which India is a member.
Comments
Post a Comment