For Washington, the appropriate metaphor seems to be something about the Trans-Pacific Partnership being the cherry on top of the sundae.
Because while the trade agreement between the United States and 11 other Pacific Rim nations — not including China — will face some strident opposition in this country, here is one example of the impact it would have: Vietnam currently collects a 10 percent tariff on Washington cherries, which makes it difficult for growers in this state to compete with tariff-free cherries from Australia. Under the proposed TPP, the tariff on Washington cherries would drop to 0 percent over three years. Washington is the nation’s leading producer of cherries, and 30 percent of those cherries are exported, with Vietnam representing a potential growth market.
Of course, the Trans-Pacific Partnership and its 30 chapters of intertwining agreements regarding tariffs, jobs, labor rules, environmental protections, and myriad other economic factors addresses much more than cherries. And with the deal being signed just two weeks ago, many of the details have yet to be vetted. But that hasn’t prevented naysayers from weighing in prematurely.
Hillary Clinton, who as secretary of state suggested that the agreement might be the “gold standard” of trade pacts, has come out in opposition to the TPP as a presidential candidate. Which led The Washington Post to write editorially: “There is no way that Ms. Clinton can oppose the 12-nation deal on its merits. In part, that’s because she doesn’t know all the details, as she acknowledged.”
Clinton is not alone among politicians in her rush to judgment and a desire to pander to certain constituencies. Several labor groups have opposed the agreement out of a belief that protectionism is best for U.S. workers. But protectionism is counter-productive in the modern global economy, placing the United States in a position of either taking a lead in international trade agreements or being left behind. The Trans-Pacific Partnership, which followed some five years of negotiations, includes countries that account for roughly 40 percent of the world’s economy.
In Washington, the nation’s most trade-dependent state, the deal will have a particularly profound impact. In addition to cherry producers, those who grow other tree fruits are likely to see some benefits from opening world markets to their products. So will Washington wineries, and aircraft-part manufacturers, and the ports that move goods in and out of the United States.
Undoubtedly, there will be losers as well as winners. Negotiating any agreement among 12 nations requires compromise as each country identifies and pursues its own priorities. One of the primary concerns for U.S. negotiators, for example, was protection for the intellectual property rights of American drugmakers. Those details and others will need to be scrutinized, and once the Trans-Pacific Partnership is published, the American public will have at least 60 days to review it and provide comment. From there, the debate in Congress is likely to take several months as representatives advocate for their particular constituencies.
For now, the agreement appears to tie together many of the world’s major economies in a fashion that will provide some counterweight to China’s growing influence throughout the region. For now, it appears to anchor U.S. economic predominance in a crucial region for decades to come.
And in Washington, the outcome might be appetizing.
