Pacific free trade competition

With TPP, RCEP and FTAAP exist in the Pacific room at least three competing free trade concepts

What TTIP (the "Transatlantic commercial and investment partnership") Want to reach the North Atlantic, should with TPP ("Trans Pacific Partnership") succeed in Far East. The pivot point of both free trade agreements are the US, which is one of the driving force of these agreements. China and the ASEAN countries of the Association of South-East Asian Nations work as a counterpole at RCEP ("Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership") And the FTAAP ("Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific"To).

During the US-launched free trade zones, the BRICS states remain ahead, because the planned free trade should expand both China and Russia, TTP sits next to the USA the following states at the table: Australia, Mexico, New Zealand, Singapore, Chile, Malaysia, Peru, Vietnam, Brunei and Japan since 2013.

The USA hoped to help your TPP concept for your TPP concept on the last annual meeting of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) in Beijing in November this year. But they moved to the Chinese FTAP roadmap the shortner – and so the creation of a feasibility study to develop a Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP) decided to exist in two years.

Under the same short since 2006 a Free Trade Agreement for the Asia-Pacific through the land, which is also demanded by China. In addition, the negotiations on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) continue to run for a good two years. In addition to the ten ASEAN members, RCEP also includes the Lander Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand and Sudkorea (ASEAN + 6). The US is just as little part of the RCEP negotiations as the EU. However, companies from Europe and North America were able to benefit from the Asian free trade zone if they have subsidiaries around subsidiaries.

The flap for TPP against FTAAP was for the USA (whose Prasident had dilanted the APEC Annual Meeting 2013 in Bali with its absence) in several ways bitter: On the one hand, the Chinese ideas of a free trade zone were obviously more attractive than TPP – and on the other hand Russia is a member of APEC. Against the background of the current sanction strategy against Russia, it is difficult to imagine that the US wants to find out with FTAP in a free trade zone with Russia. On the other hand, the 21 APEC member states represent a tremendous market, because there is about half of the global evolution.

Pacific Free Trade Competition

22. Apec economic meeting. Photo: apec

China has a framework agreement with the ASEAN countries, which runs among the names China-Aseean FTA or CAFTA (but has nothing to do with the Central American Free Trade Zone of the same name). It was signed in 2002 and as soon as expanded. In the meantime, in addition to the goods trade, the areas of services and investments.

At the beginning of the free movement of goods, the farmers in the ASEAN states were very enthusiastic about the new disablement, because very cheap Chinese agricultural products on the market of sudostasies did not love the cultivation in some segments no longer economically sensible appearing. In the meantime, however, trade between China and the ASEAN states seems to have successfully established themselves and will have achieved a volume of $ 346.6 billion in the past year – with 6.5% growth.

Who use the free trade agreements?

Free trade agreements are usually presented as trading facilities between the states involved. In fact, however, they are therefore concluded in order to facilitate trade within multinational corporations because different rules in the individual countries for these companies lead to increased voting expenses.

Even at the China-ASEAN FTA, the local corporations were the driving force. For middle-class companies, due to the increased documentation and evidence usually, there is usually a significant increase in extra expenses in the export in Lander, with which there is a free trade agreement. Because only if the required evidence has been provided and documented, the customs benefits of the free trade agreement can be used.

Using the example of the free trade agreement between the EU and Sudkorea (EU Korea FTA) premiered in 2011, it has been shown that with smaller exporters the additional effort became so rough that export is no longer worthwhile. The economic benefit due to omitted import law were only the Korean importer. The only flower EU Korea FTA carries an indication of the potential development of CETA and TTIP: a free trade agreement must not be ratified by both sides to be established.

Free trade agreements are generally not completed and fixed systems, but are repeatedly renegotiated and handled again and again. This is what new negotiations are currently undergoing CAFTA. Which changes arise during the review, do not have to predict and depends on the respective negotiating partners and their positions. Only those who can continuously pursue and accompany these negotiations has a chance to draw their benefits. And what was successfully baptized at a round of negotiation from the negotiation material, can succeed in the next round.

If the German Federal Government is now warning that Germany was losing the economic connection if TTIP was not signed quickly (and referring to the TPP to the TPP with the US), then it is either quite badly informed about the current development – or you hopes in Berlin that the news from the APEC summit in Beijing in Germany can not be read.

Like this post? Please share to your friends:
Leave a Reply

;-) :| :x :twisted: :smile: :shock: :sad: :roll: :razz: :oops: :o :mrgreen: :lol: :idea: :grin: :evil: :cry: :cool: :arrow: :???: :?: :!: