What is really going on inside the vast Pacific ocean and the continents and landmasses inside and around it, Asia, the Americas, Oceania? Stay here, and find out.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/RCEP.jpg) The Trans-Pacific Partnership (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership) (TPP) is dead, long live the glorious Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Comprehensive_Economic_Partnership) (RCEP)
(http://www.wsj.com/articles/china-picks-up-the-u-s-trade-fumble-1479404990)China Picks Up the U.S. Trade Fumble (http://www.wsj.com/articles/china-picks-up-the-u-s-trade-fumble-1479404990)
Beijing embraced RCEP in 2012 as a counterweight to TPP, but most governments preferred the U.S.-led pact. That's because TPP sought not only to eliminate or reduce tariffs on 18,000 categories of goods, but also to curb nontariff barriers to trade, including subsidies for state-backed firms and theft of intellectual property. This would have spurred economic reforms in Vietnam and Malaysia, opened up Japanese farming and services to competition, and enhanced America's engagement in Asia. "Long-term its strategic value is awesome," said Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.
RCEP is different. With participation from the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations plus China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia and New Zealand, the deal covers 30% of global GDP and half the world's population. But its liberalizing effects will be limited mostly to lower tariffs on goods. That's progress as far as it goes, but trade in services and investment--and non-tariff matters such as subsidies and property rights--will see little improvement. With China dictating the rules, RCEP will be a safe space for statism and cronyism.
A country like Vietnam can expect RCEP to facilitate increased manufacturing investment from firms in Japan, South Korea and China. But modernizers in Hanoi won't have the leverage TPP would have provided to drive systemic change, such as curbing handouts to inefficient state enterprises. Japan can expect easier access to labor in India. But RCEP's lower market-opening standards mean leaders in Tokyo will have a harder time facing down domestic cartels that prefer less competition and higher consumer prices.
TPP included the US and excluded India and China. RCEP includes India and China, but excludes the US. It's truly regional and can be compared with the European Economic Area (EEA) and the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA).
Thus we got South/East Asia and Oceania, the biggest and fastest growing region, and the two roughly equal Europe (or Western Eurasia) and North America. "Others" include South America (outer Mercosur), the African Union, the United People of the Middle East, and Putinland.
RCEP covers roughly half the population of the planet (but not Pakistan and Bangladesh).
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership) (TTIP) seems to be dying too, from multiple American and European stab wounds, but that is for the Eurafroamerica thread.
TPP included the US and excluded India and China.
If this is true (and I've never known jax
to post a falsehood...), why would the American Congress even consider it?
The Pacific nations, minus China and India? :) Obama is
going to go down in history as our worst president...
Personally (and y'all know I'm not an academic, right? :) ) I prefer amicable economic relations -- almost everywhere. The idea of "dealing" with the Pacific nations but excluding China and India invites institutionalization! If you're that
If this is true (and I've never known jax to post a falsehood...), why would the American Congress even consider it?
I'm not sure I understand your question. You would object to a trade agreement with Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, United States, and Vietnam solely on the basis that it doesn't at this moment include India or China?
Beijing embraced RCEP in 2012 as a counterweight to TPP, but most governments preferred the U.S.-led pact.
Most governments (puppets) yes, but not the people who elected them and whose interests they are supposed to represent.
RCEP is different. But its liberalizing effects will be limited mostly to lower tariffs on goods.
TTP had such liberalizing effects
that not even all German parliamentarian had access to the documents.
Those few who had were not allowed to make any copy or even handwritten notations. Access to the documents was limited by time and put under ward.
Add to the above thousands of pages written in English (no translations were available) legal jargon which not even a native English speaker would understand, except he is used to decrypt legal terminology. The documents were classified and it was forbidden to make public their content.
And they had good reasons to keep the documents of TTP top secret.
This transatlantic trade deal is a full-frontal assault on democracy (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/04/us-trade-deal-full-frontal-assault-on-democracy)
The purpose of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is to remove the regulatory differences between the US and European nations. I mentioned it a couple of weeks ago. But I left out the most important issue: the remarkable ability it would grant big business to sue the living daylights out of governments which try to defend their citizens. It would allow a secretive panel of corporate lawyers to overrule the will of parliament and destroy our legal protections.
But... But... Aren't the eco-fascists allowed to dictate who can make and sell stuff? :) I mean, we're destroying the Earth -- and not killing the "right" kind of people!
I think Obama has been one of the more forward thinking presidents recently, he clearly has given some thought to where he would want USA to be in 2030 (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=136.new). His vision is good, in my view, the execution, or at least the results, not so much.
The pivot to Asia is a case in point. The goal, to move away from areas that are not strategic for US interests (and that includes West Asia/the Middle East) to the areas that are (i.e. the rest of Asia), is reasonable and the desire to engage and contain China understandable. But the pivot has been to now a failure.
China and the US are frenemies, competing allies, you have more in common than divide you, but the interests don't completely overlap. In particular China does not want to be contained. Not by the US, not by India, not by anyone. This has made China and Pakistan best friends forever. China is Pakistan's insurance policy against India and Afghanistan, while Pakistan is China's route to the sea and an intermediary to the Islamic world. Similarly there is love in the air between Communist Vietnam and the US, Burma may flip as well, while Bangladesh may be more comfortable with China as that country is neighbouring India. Next to Pakistan Iran is important to China, though being friendly to all three of Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel is not going to be an easy feat.
The Chinese government has realised that they can't remain inward-looking and have embarked on a strategy of sorts. India is not quite there yet. Indian foreign policy has largely been squabbles with Pakistan and worries about China. For the longest time they had an isolationist policy that was an unmitigated disaster. They manage to have friendly relationships with both the US and Russia, Japan would be a prize, Vietnam would be useful. They could have a Kissinger moment and ally with China.
TPP in this context is old world. It would strategically draw together the economies of the countries worried about China, basically all the neighbours. It is deep instead of wide (fewer countries, more commitment).
Have you ever visited Australia? Great country - isn't it?
UTOPIA a documentary by John Pilger
Vimeo is also auto-embedded if you use the regular link. ;)
Vimeo is also auto-embedded if you use the regular link. ;)
This (http://johnpilger.com/videos/utopia) was the original source I've been using (opened in a frame). ;)
Howie should like this: Throw it out! (http://theweek.com/articles/750816/americas-constitution-terrible-lets-throw-start-over)(In other words, let's try to be British again -- because their kind of dysfunction is so much more, well, sophisticated!
If Australia is in Europe, why shouldn't Britain be in Amerasia? The sun never falls...
The sun never sets and the blood never dries. Don't forget the second part. :P
Kim probably coronaed.
A special train possibly belonging to the North Korean ruler, Kim Jong-un, has been spotted at a resort town, according to satellite images reviewed by a Washington-based North Korea monitoring project, amid conflicting reports about Kim's health and whereabouts.
This is a train indeed.
On Thursday the US president, Donald Trump, played down reports that Kim was ill. "I think the report was incorrect," Trump told reporters, but he declined to say if he had been in touch with North Korean officials.
Trump has met Kim three times in an attempt to persuade him to give up a nuclear weapons programme that threatens the US as well as its Asian neighbours. While talks have stalled, Trump has continued to hail Kim as a friend.
No reporting is complete without Trump.
Kim Jong Un resurfaces, so previous was fake news.
North Korea's Kim Jong Un appears in video after 21-day absence
Video footage of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un attending a fertilizer plant opening has been released by state media outlet the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA). The footage follows KCNA reporting that Kim cut a ribbon at the event on Friday, ending three weeks of speculation about his wellbeing.
The video footage, which emerged on Saturday, shows the leader of the secretive East Asian nation in an all-black suit. He appears relaxed and healthy while he claps, talks and cuts a red ribbon in front of the factory. He is surrounded by functionaries -- most of who are wearing facemasks.
The video footage has not yet been independently verified, but it is thought to be from Friday.
Media interest is often stoked by the notable absence of the country's leading figures from key events. In 2014, Kim disappeared for nearly six weeks before reappearing with a cane. South Korea's spy agency later said he had a cyst removed from his ankle.