Cold War II in Asia: The Trade Wars

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Comprehensive_Economic_Partnership

With the turn of the calendar the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) went into effect on 1 January 2022. Initially meant to counter the US attempt to re-shape Asian diplomacy and trade by means of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the RCEP represents a geopolitical and diplomatic victory for Beijing – another sore blow to US hegemony in the Asia-Pacific.

A key plank to Obama's Pivot to Asia strategy the TPP was meant to create a trade bloc and platform for cooperation between Washington and a sizable percentage of the Asia-Pacific population. Designed to exclude China, it was an attempt by the US to shore up its power in the region and solidify the order it established in the aftermath of WWII.

Opposed domestically by elements on the Right and the Left, the TPP was unpopular and the US withdrew from the agreement when Trump came into office in 2017. But by then China had already acted and capitalising on US hesitation and instability – it had rolled out its own alternative. The RCEP is a weaker and less comprehensive agreement but helps to establish stronger ties between Beijing and its signatories – many of whom were initially on board with the TPP. It's an embarrassing defeat for US diplomacy and it's no wonder its implementation has received little coverage by Western media.

The TPP still exists on paper – albeit in revised form (and without the US) but it's clear the initial goals of the project have failed.

The Left in the United States (which does not include the Democratic Party) was upset over the globalisation elements and hints of corporate authoritarianism contained within the TPP. The agreement targeted journalism and definitely represented a legal update in terms of technology, surveillance, and the like. There were real fears of the growing power of Wall Street and trans-national capitalism.

The Democratic Party which champions Wall Street, the US Empire, and to some degree authoritarian measures and regulations within the United States, fully supported the TPP. In the end, its so called Left-wing, led by Sanders, Warren, and others did little more than channel these dissident elements back into the party and into supporting Clinton's 2016 campaign. Her victory would have finalised the TPP but Trump's victory ended it as he quickly abandoned the project.

The American Right opposed the deal in many respects due to its anti-Obama strategy. If he suggested it, it had to be opposed. The Libertarian wing opposed it because of their general opposition to trade and economic structures – demonstrating once again their naiveté regarding real world capitalist pragmatics. The Free Market may work in theory and even on a local level (for a time) but when large companies are planning and investing they want laws and regulations that they can rely on and utilise. International trade means the ability to access international finance and exchange as well as arbitration and a means of constructing and enforcing contracts. The deal did represent a further outsourcing of US jobs and investment but that's not something Libertarians are opposed to in principle. Nevertheless they have a tendency to spin such realities as an attempt by other nations to get the upper hand over the US – when in fact it is capitalism itself (and the corporations which dominate it) that are the biggest enemy to the American worker and the working class.

US media has moved on from the TPP issue and yet its collapse cannot be overstated. Trump's quashing of the agreement (for the US withdrawal effectively killed it) was a watershed moment. For all of his anti-China rhetoric, and his desire to increase American power, Trump left a huge vacuum which has been filled by China. US allies like Japan were left shaken as evidenced by Shinzo Abe's frantic trip to the US to meet with then president-elect Trump. For nations like Japan, the abandonment of the TPP was a disaster and yet for nationalists like Abe who seek to remilitarise Japan, it also potentially represented a moment of opportunity. The US was ceding some of its power and as the United States appears unstable, the nations which comprise the US-dominated order (the Asian satrapies as it were) are going to have to seek their own path. It's already happening on multiple fronts.

And yet once again, China isn't going away. They will have to find a way to co-exist and the RCEP provides (from their perspective) a needed framework for economic exchange. The RCEP is not the triumph for China that the TPP would have been for the US but it's a victory all the same and it (along with the Belt and Road Initiative) has set the context for the recent actions of various nations – Vietnam, South Korea, and the ASEAN bloc, to signal a moving away from US hegemony and subservience.

Trump often decried the fact that China was 'winning'. He did more than most to help Beijing score crucial points. In 2020, the record is clear – Beijing was rooting for Trump. Four more years of him, and they could virtually lock-up East Asia and break the US hold on the Asia-Pacific region. It would have been game over for the US Empire in Asia.

See also:

https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2020/12/asian-tensions-and-clash-of-empires.html

https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-legal-and-technological-matrix-for_2387.html

https://pilgrimunderground.blogspot.com/2016/02/tpp-internet-and-establishment-agenda.html

https://pilgrimunderground.blogspot.com/2018/02/obor-in-laos-and-thailand.html

https://pilgrimunderground.blogspot.com/2021/05/asia-is-marching-toward-war.html

https://pilgrimunderground.blogspot.com/2020/01/trump-and-asian-pivot.html