WASHINGTON – With U.S. President Donald Trump having just delivered his appraisal of the state of the union, it’s worth remembering what still ranks as one of the worst decisions of his presidency: the withdrawal of the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It happened just about a year ago.
You’ll recall that the TPP was an agreement between the U.S. and 11 other countries — Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei, Chile and Peru — representing about 40 percent of the world economy.
Rejecting the TPP was, for Trump, a highly symbolic act buttressing his assertions that the U.S. has made bad trade deals that have diverted jobs, incomes and influence to foreign countries. He pledged to do better.
The reality is just the opposite, as a short analysis by economist Jeffrey Schott of the Peterson Institute makes clear. It turns out that the other 11 countries weren’t willing to sacrifice the TPP’s benefits.
They decided to adopt the agreement anyway — without the U.S. — calling it the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or (a mouthful) CPTPP. It’s scheduled to be signed on March 8 in Chile.
The new agreement makes the U.S. “the biggest loser” from the whole TPP episode, writes Schott. For starters, there will be lower exports and incomes. Economic simulations done by researchers at the Peterson Institute estimated that the TPP would ultimately raise U.S. gross domestic product by $131 billion, or 0.5 percent of GDP. Those gains are now gone.
Schott notes that a number of TPP provisions advocated by the U.S. but opposed “by most other countries” have been dropped in the new agreement. These include “obligations regarding patents on certain pharmaceutical products, procedures involving investor-state disputes, prohibitions on the illegal taking and trade in wildlife” and restrictions on government-owned firms.
The biggest winner in the TPP episode is, almost certainly, China. Although China wasn’t a member of the TPP, Trump’s decision to withdraw leaves other Pacific-rim countries less dependent on the U.S. for their trade and more dependent on China — and, therefore, more subject to Chinese economic and political influence.
Rarely has the U.S. embraced a policy that, in contrast to the supporting rhetoric, is so contrary to its own interests. Even Trump may recognize this. In his speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, he hinted obliquely that he might resume negotiations with the other TPP nations “if it is in the interests of all.”
The open question now is whether the president will repeat his mistake by repudiating the North American Free Trade Agreement, the trade pact among the U.S., Mexico and Canada that Trump has sharply criticized. The damage would be even greater.
Robert J. Samuelson writes a column on economics for The Washington Post. © 2018, The Washington Post Writers Group