TPP'S AMBITIOUS GOALS ARE BOTH ATTRACTION AND HURDLE FOR ASIAN ECONOMIES

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Asian economies, ASEAN nations in particular, have embarked on a combination of multilateral and unilateral measures to reduce barriers to trade goods, services and investments. Since 2000, however, a lack of progress in multilateral liberalization, and domestic reform has led to a proliferation of ASEAN free trade areas (FTAs).

But according to a report by the Asia Development Bank,"while these agreements commit the parties to eliminating tariffs on trade between themselves, they do not effectively address regulatory barriers and other non-tariff barriers like product standards and mutual recognition agreements, services, investment, intellectual property rights, government procurement or the movement of business people -- which are all more important than tariffs for regional economic integration." That's probably part of the reason why four ASEAN members -- Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam --have decided to join the TPP that also involves Australia, Canada, Chile, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, the United States and Peru.

The TPP has been envisioned as "a high-standard, comprehensive and forward-looking trade agreement that aims to address the challenges of the modern economy."

Termed as "the agreement of the 21st century" by its proponents, the TPP is very ambitious. When negotiations have concluded, it could potentially create a free-trade bloc that will comprise some 40 percent of the global economy, according to leading economists.

It aims to reduce tariffs on goods and services to close to zero among disparate economies, and address issues beyond traditional trade and investment, such as labor and environment standards, intellectual property and competitive advantage of state-owned enterprises.

As the leading drive force for the negotiation, the United States has insisted on addressing all these so-called 21st century issues, and asked its TPP partners to commit themselves to a high- standard agreement.

However, different economic interests and diverse levels of economic growth inevitably make the negotiations very difficult from the very start.

Given the complexity of the pact and the political pressure governments face in winning domestic approval, most analysts had long viewed the goal of cutting a deal by the end of this year as unrealistic. They predict that hard haggling lie ahead even in late January next year.

In a recent interview with Xinhua, Sarah Tong, senior research fellow at the East Asian Institute of National University of Singapore, compared TPP with Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership(RCEP), the free trade pact among 10 ASEAN countries and its FTA partners of Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand to be concluded by the end of 2015.

She noted that the RCEP comes to economies in the Asia-Pacific region as something more natural and something easier to understand, which offers members tangible benefits in such spheres as supply chains and regional economic integration.

As economies in the region have achieved a lot in bilateral trade pacts and regional economic integration, what they need to do is further integration, namely to add all things up and, in the process, address the inconsistencies, she said.

By comparison, TPP seems to have taken a top-down approach, in which objectives are set first, then deduction is performed to leave out what is unattainable at the moment or allow members to opt out of some of their obligations. Therefore, TPP faces much greater difficulties, she added.

To John Franklin Copper, professor emeritus of international studies at Rhodes College, Memphis, Tennessee, TPP differs from other trade arrangements in that it aims at fair trade or management of trade, instead of merely dealing with free trade.

"The TPP seems to be trying to regulate trade, and more regulate financial transactions and things that are connected to trade somehow," he told Xinhua in a recent interview.