Connect with us
//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Trade

Trump and Asia

The recent tours of Asia taken by Trump’s most senior staff had focused on security issues, primarily American commitment to longtime allies Japan and South Korea

Published

on

U.S. President Donald Trump has just completed his first foreign trip, a whirlwind tour of the Middle East plus stopovers in Brussels and Rome, and concluding with the G7 meeting in Sicily.

Despite unflattering headlines involving French president Emmanuel Macron and Montenegrin Prime Minister Dusko Markovic, foreign leaders whom Trump had met on the trip got to develop a handle on his administration’s foreign policy goals.

What the White House plans to do with Asia and ASEAN, however, remains to be out of the President’s personal realm of interest.

“It’s been mentioned that Asia’s not been on its list of priorities but…you’ve had the Vice President, you’ve had the Secretary of State and you’ve had a Defense Secretary in this region, met with the Chinese and the Japanese in the U.S. and then engaged or at least reacted to North Korea,” says Killick Datta, Vice-Chair of the American Chamber of Commerce in Singapore, pointing out visits to Asia by Mike Pence, Rex Tillerson, and James Mattis. “That was just the first part because I do believe that he is engaged with Asia and in many ways.”

Datta made those comments at a recent panel discussion “The U.S. President and Asia” for Singapore-based station Channel NewsAsia’s Perspectives programme where he was joined by James Tang, Dean of Social Sciences, Singapore Management University; Angela Mancini, Partner, Global Client Services, Control Risks; and Piyush Gupta, CEO and Director, DBS Group

The recent tours of Asia taken by Trump’s most senior staff had focused on security issues, primarily American commitment to longtime allies Japan and South Korea. While that has been welcome and perhaps not completely unexpected, questions on trade and the fallout of America’s pulling the plug on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) remain largely unanswered.

“First of all I think exiting TPP was a mistake,” Gupta states. “I think if we waited six months, I don’t think the US would’ve exited TPP as precipitously as Trump did on day one.” But when asked if companies are now changing long-term planning to adjust to the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) replacing the TPP as the main multilateral free trade agreement in Asia, Gupta does not think so.

“I don’t think that will happen,” he asserts. “I think like many of other notions on Trump, I think he’ll check the boxes. So you’ll wind up seeing sectorial tariffs or sectorial issues. Steel is one [issue], they’ll impose imports duties on steel [and enact] anti-dumping [laws].

“Look at NAFTA. They started off saying, ‘Hey, let’s get out of NAFTA’ and now they’re saying, ‘We’ll tweak NAFTA.’ So I really think they’ll be pragmatic. I think they will do the things that will allow them to check the box, declare victory but I don’t think you’re going to see an end to global trade.”

Even so, governments are increasingly wary to laud the benefits of free trade. In an APEC Ministers Responsible for Trade meeting in Hanoi earlier this month, the resulting statement delivered softer language regarding protectionism ostensibly in response to Trump’s tough talk on renegotiating trade deals. According to Mancini, it could affect the global flow of goods.

“I think the big issue that we haven’t yet talked about is supply chains,” she explains. “It’s very politically unpopular to be pro-free trade right now in the U.S. if you’re a politician but…the supply chains are global.

Your phone is assembled in China and…Americans would say maybe that’s a China issue but the screens are made in Korea, the processors are in Taiwan.

“How will that be impacted if changes to the trade regime are made, and also countries like Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia have trade surpluses with the U.S., how are those going to be impacted? We just don’t know. I think that’s just something to watch.”

Trumping up security concerns

Much of the uncertainty is a result of uncertainty in domestic American politics where Trump has lurched from one crisis to another for much of the month of May. Mancini describes the first months of the Trump presidency as such:

“I think there was Trump the campaigner which had a lot of inflammatory rhetoric, and the first 100 days as we’ve seen have also not had at all a coherent policy agenda that you would think that most president’s administration would seek to advance. I think what is interesting with this administration of course is they’ve introduced for the first time perhaps ever the concept of political risk in the U.S.”

“I’m positive about Trump as a president moving forward only up to a point,” assesses Tang. “The security dimension is, I think, getting very challenging. Trump announced that if China is not on board, the United States could do it alone in solving the Korea problem but I think Korea and East Asia is really very different from what we’ve seen in the Middle East.

“Any unilateral American attack will create consequences that are unthinkable, not only in terms of immediate casualties, destruction for South Korea, Japan and the potential for escalation for conflicts, nuclearisation in North east Asia; really, huge, huge security risks.

He concludes: “At this point, Trump seemed to be able to get the Chinese on board to at least tentatively and sort of taking baby steps to put more pressure on North Korea. Now, how North Korea is going to respond is something really very difficult to predict but I think at least the divergence of the Trump administration and the Xi government in Beijing seemed to have narrowed at this point.”

“Give Trump time”

Even as Trump attempts stave off the constant sense of crisis on Capitol Hill, the panel points to the makeup of his team and his domestic policies as a source of trouble for his administration.

“He’s got kind of three groups around him: the business people, professionals, bankers, ex-Goldman Sachs folks; the generals like Mattis in defense and the others; and then the ideologues that helped with the campaign. It looks like the first two groups are helping to drive the policy agenda which I think is bringing comfort to people that have been worried about the high degree of uncertainty but I think let’s be frank, I think there continues to be a very high degree of uncertainty.”

Datta, who is also CEO & President of fashion wholesalers Global Brand Partners, and who have known influential Trump advisor Steve Bannon “for quite some time”, insists the Breitbart News founder can be good for the administration.

“I think you have people who are advising him who are very good businessmen,” referring to Bannon and Tillerson, who served as Chief Executive for oil giant ExxonMobil before becoming the American Secretary of State. “They know global businesses, they’ve done businesses worldwide and I think they’re not going to do anything that completely endangers trade with Asia and I think there’s not going to be anything rash.

“I think sending the 7th fleet over here is no different from sending fleets they’ve sent into Middle East or anywhere else whenever there’s a hotspot. The press is making a lot out of every single movement because they’re trying to figure out what is Trump’s position on just about anything because he’s new to Washington.”

Going forward, Tang says the Trump White House needs to be given more time before it can find its footing on the world stage.

“I think so far Trump has been more focused on an unilateral or bilateral approach, and it is important for the Trump administration to recognise that things in this region is really rather complex and some attention to supporting multilateral institutions would still be critical.

“It took Obama several years before they come up with the pivot to Asia so I’m hopeful that the Trump administration could develop something, be clearer with a more coherent approach to the problems and engage with this part of the world. After all, 3-4 months is not 3-4 years.

“So I think I’m still cautiously optimistic about constructive engagement of the Trump administration with this part of the world.”

 

Killick Datta, James Tang, Angela Mancini, and Piyush Gupta were part of a discussion panel, “The U.S. President and Asia” for the SMU-Channel NewsAsia programme Perspectives that was recorded at SMU Labs at Singapore Management University.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trade

Fixing fragmentation in the settlement of international trade disputes

Published

on

Fragmentation in global trade due to the lack of development in multilateral trade rules at the WTO has led to an increase in FTAs. The Appellate Body impasse has further exacerbated fragmentation, requiring a multilateral approach for reform.

Fragmentation in Global Trade

Fragmentation in global trade is not new. With the slow development of multilateral trade rules at the World Trade Organization (WTO), governments have turned to free trade agreements (FTAs). As of 2023, almost 600 bilateral and regional trade agreements have been notified to the WTO, leading to growing fragmentation in trade rules, business activities, and international relations. But until recently, trade dispute settlements have predominantly remained within the WTO.

Challenges with WTO Dispute Settlement

The demise of the Appellate Body increased fragmentation in both the interpretation and enforcement of trade law. A small number of WTO Members created the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA) as a temporary solution, but in its current form, it cannot properly address fragmentation. Since its creation in 2020, the MPIA has only attracted 26 parties, and its rulings have not been consistent with previous decisions made by the Appellate Body, rendering WTO case law increasingly fragmented.

The Path Forward for Global Trade

Maintaining the integrity and predictability of the global trading system while reducing fragmentation requires restoring the WTO’s authority. At the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference in 2022, governments agreed to re-establish a functional dispute settlement system by 2024. Reaching a consensus will be difficult, and negotiations will take time. A critical mass-based, open plurilateral approach provides a viable alternative way to reform the appellate mechanism, as WTO Members are committed to reforming the dispute settlement system.

Source : Fixing fragmentation in the settlement of international trade disputes

Continue Reading

Trade

WTO ministerial trading in low expectations and high stakes

Published

on

The WTO’s 13th Ministerial Conference is set to focus on e-commerce transparency, investment facilitation, and admitting new members. However, progress may be hindered by disputes, especially regarding fisheries subsidies.

The World Trade Organisation’s 13th Ministerial Conference

The World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) 13th Ministerial Conference is set to take place in Abu Dhabi on 26–29 February, with expectations of deals on electronic commerce transparency, investment facilitation for development, and the admission of Timor Leste and the Comoros as WTO members. Despite these positive developments, the expectations are relatively modest compared to promises made at the 12th Ministerial Conference, which included addressing fisheries subsidies and restoring a fully functioning dispute settlement mechanism by 2024.

Challenges in Dispute Settlement and Agricultural Trade Reform

However, challenges remain, especially in the deadlock of dispute settlement since December 2019 due to a US veto on the appointment of Appellate Body judges. Progress in restoring the dispute settlement mechanism has stalled, and discord continues regarding India’s grain stockholding policy as a potential illegal subsidy. Restoring a fully functioning dispute settlement mechanism hinges on addressing US concerns about perceived bias against trade remedies in relation to China’s state subsidies.

Geopolitical Tensions and the Future of Trade Relations

The likelihood of reaching agreements amid geopolitical tensions between Western democracies and China appears slim, with issues surrounding subsidies and global supply chains causing rifts in trade relations. As nations focus on self-reliance within the global value chain, opportunities for trading face obstacles. Advocacy for open markets and addressing protectionist sentiments remains crucial for fostering resilience to external shocks and promoting economic growth.

Source : WTO ministerial trading in low expectations and high stakes

Continue Reading

Trade

Getting Vietnam’s economic growth back on track

Published

on

Vietnam’s economy grew 8% in 2022 but slowed in 2023 due to falling exports and delays in public investments. The economy’s future depends on structural reforms and reducing dependency on foreign investment.

Vietnam’s Economic Roller Coaster

After emerging from COVID-19 with an 8 per cent annual growth rate, Vietnam’s economy took a downturn in the first half of 2023. The drop was attributed to falling exports due to monetary tightening in developed countries and a slow post-pandemic recovery in China.

Trade Performance and Monetary Policy

Exports were down 12 per cent on-year, with the industrial production index showing negative growth early in 2023 but ended with an increase of approximately 1 per cent for the year. Monetary policy was loosened throughout the year, with bank credit growing by 13.5 per cent overall and 1.7 per cent in the last 20 days of 2023.

Challenges and Prospects

Vietnam’s economy suffered from delayed public investments, electricity shortages, and a declining domestic private sector in the last two years. Looking ahead to 2024, economic growth is expected to be in the range of 5.5–6 per cent, but the country faces uncertainties due to geopolitical tensions and global economic conditions.

Source : Getting Vietnam’s economic growth back on track

Continue Reading