Looking ahead to the next Congress, Republicans on Capitol Hill see trade as one issue where they actually, maybe, possibly might be able to compromise with the White House. In fact, it’s many of Obama’s fellow Democrats who have expressed opposition to the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which, if signed, would bring the United States into a new economic pact with 11 Asia-Pacific countries. (“NAFTA on steroids,” some have called it, and not admiringly.)
While the politics of the potential deal remain uncertain, the scale of it is clear: huge. Together, the TPP member countries would account for roughly 40 percent of global GDP and one-third of worldwide trade. On a trip to Asia and Australia last week, President Obama called the potential agreement “a historic achievement.” The stakes are high, and the potential enormous. But what might we be overlooking or failing to anticipate? Politico Magazine asked leading thinkers around the country to tell us the biggest unintended consequence of the agreement—whether the implications for 2016 presidential politics, domestic reform in China or marine fisheries—and here’s what they told us.
Read the full article at POLITICO.
More from CNAS
CommentaryA Resource-Sustainable Strategy for Countering Violent Extremist Organizations
The United States has been trying to pivot from counterterrorism to strategic interstate competition for almost a decade....
By Stephen Tankel
CommentaryThe United States Can’t Quit on the UN
U.S. retrenchment empowers only China....
By Kristine Lee
CommentarySharper: America and the United Nations
The UN is emerging as a key arena for ideological competition as authoritarian actors seek to bend the organization toward illiberalism....
By Kristine Lee, Chris Estep & Cole Stevens
CommentaryOvercoming the Tyranny of Time: The Role of U.S. Forward Posture in Deterrence and Defense
The next defense strategy has the opportunity to codify the critical role of forward posture....
By Billy Fabian