With the rise of Chinese economy to claim an important place on the global economic scene, the anxieties of developed nations continue to grow. In an unusual development on 4th February, 2016, the biggest-trade deal in the history was signed, yoking 12 Pacific Rim countries in a US-led initiative aimed at wresting influence from booming China. The ambitious Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) aims to slash tariffs and trade barriers for an enormous 40 percent of the global economy excluding China. Of course, the deal whose birth was fraught by domestic opposition in the US and Japan is a key plank of Obama's so-called "pivot" to Asia to counter the rising power of China. After the pact was signed in Auckland (New Zealand), President Obama said that "TPP allows America - and not countries like China - to write the rules of the road in the 21st Century." Those who signed the TPP included trade ministers from Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the US and Vietnam. Although, the signing of TPP marks the end of negotiation process, yet member states have still two years to get the deal approved at home before it becomes legally binding.
The signing of TPP, whatever the US has to say, is undoubtedly a contentious issue and a clear recognition of the growing might of China which has come to dominate the region, both militarily and economically, threatening American influence. Supporters of the deal in the US say that harnessing of the power of free trade with the help of other countries in the Pacific Rim was vital if the superpower had to fend off China's challenge to its supremacy. Though this was the most important aspect of the deal yet the US trade representative in Auckland said quite diplomatically that "the agreement was not directed against any specific country" and it was very important to have a constructive economic relationship with China. The participating countries could also claim that TPP would provide for better access for goods and services to more than 800 million people in their countries which make up about 36 percent of global GDP. However, the agreement could be criticised for cutting jobs and slowing economic activity in non-participating countries, especially in less-developed economies if such agreements are planned and implemented. It was, therefore, no coincidence that while 12 trade ministers were shaking hands in Auckland, thousands of protesters clogged the streets outside to voice their opposition, arguing that TPP would cost jobs and impact on sovereignty in Asia Pacific states. However, most disturbing aspect was the plight of most other countries. Though the Doha Round was progressing only in slow motion and its conclusion was not guaranteed, yet almost every country saw a ray of hope of freer trade and more open markets if the Round was successfully completed. The success of TPP would diminish the interest of participating countries in early conclusion of the Doha Round.
As for the ratification of TPP was concerned, it may prove to be a difficult task. In the US, its ratification is highly unlikely before the elections in November. As Tom Switzer of the University of Sydney's US Studies Centre remarked "in an election year, free trade is not a popular cause and there are a lot of constituencies in both the Democratic and Republican parties who are very much opposed to free trade and any kind of trade deal." The Canadian government has yet to decide whether to go through ratification or not. However, politicians and economists in Japan have generally supported the TPP as a positive development for Tokyo's export-driven growth. In the academic circles, Nobel laureate, Joseph Stiglitz commented that TPP "may turn out to be the worst trade agreement in decades. In 2016, we should hope for the TPP's defeat and the beginning of the new era of trade agreements that don't reward the powerful and punish the weak". Anyhow, TPP may also be a reaction to the China-initiated Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) viewed by some as a rival to the World Bank. In our view, all the powerful countries of the world should shun rivalries and promote constructive engagement to enhance world trade and spur global growth. In this context, efforts should be made to let the emerging economies, especially China, to play their due role in international organisations and take them on board if new arrangements have to be made. Cooperation and not confrontation should be the name of the game to ensure a peaceful and prosperous global order.