泛太平洋協議的爭鬥

常說泛太平洋貿易協議（也叫跨太平洋經濟夥伴協議，TPP，Trans-Pacific Partnership）才是美國的殺手鐧，今年年初，都說今年通過勝算大：

路透社
2014.12.11Pacific trade pact chances 'significantly' better than 50-50: Obama
2015.02.26White House sees China as trump card in trade debate

今天美國國會兩黨達成共識（就是談妥了，法律還沒正式通過），要給總統“快速審批”條件（Fast-Track Authority），不是總統簽訂貿易協議不需國會批準，而是國會隻能說批準或不批準，不能修正。這大大簡化審批過程，為最後批準打下基礎。

紐約時報：Deal Reached on Fast-Track Authority for Obama on Trade Accord
國家雜誌：Senate Trade Deal a Rare Opportunity for Obama

可以說，美國國內的機會成熟了，是兩黨的共識。難免不覺得最近亞投行事件對此推了一把。

目前泛太平洋貿易協議談判進展緩慢，但是有進展，除了菲律賓說退出外（菲律賓也沒說不參加了，隻是本屆政府不了），其它還在談著。

不過“兩黨的共識”，是兩黨骨幹的共識，不是所有人都有次共識。任何協議，國內國外有輸有贏，贏的自然挺，輸的，尤其是窮人，不可能不鬧。

民主黨左派代表，麻省參議院華倫（Elizabeth Warren）就不讓，奧巴馬趕快安撫：

英國衛報：Obama urges Democrats to back new trade bill and 'support more American jobs'

華倫很頑強，不會讓步，她代表的窮人受害最大，她不能坐視不管。當然最後美國各種勢力會把她扼殺了的，錢啊錢。

我相信泛太平洋貿易協議除了美國外，對大家都不利，會把各國變成美國的奴隸，原因是此合約貿易法和各種法律（環境、勞工等）、知識產權為主，都是美國的核心強項，遠遠勝過他人，你要是簽了合約，無異帶上枷鎖，遺憾的是大家都意識不到。

就目前中國和各國、地區簽訂的自貿協議來看，泛太平洋貿易協議對中國有影響，但遠遠不是美國想象的那程度。白費勁了。

參見：
中日韓第七輪自貿協定工作談判13日在首爾啟動
中國-東盟關係


2015.04.16
Democrats’ civil war over free trade
The open in-fighting ramped up after a breakthrough on the historic bill was announced.
Adam Behsudi

The most important trade bill in a decade has pitted Harry Reid against President Barack Obama. Liberal Democrat Rosa DeLauro against moderate Democrat Ron Kind. Labor unions against pro-business Democrats. And Elizabeth Warren against virtually everyone who supports a landmark piece of legislation that would allow the president to close what could be the biggest free-trade deal in history.

The open warring among Democrats over fast-track trade legislation, and the party’s broader existential crisis on free trade, grew more pronounced Thursday as senior lawmakers announced a breakthrough on the trade bill. Many Democrats still feel the burn, 20 years later, of lost manufacturing jobs from the North American Free Trade Agreement — pushed through by former President Bill Clinton — and they fear another Democratic president is on the verge of turning his back on working-class Americans by negotiating a trade deal that would send jobs overseas.



What’s at stake substantively is giving the president streamlined authority to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a 12-country free-trade deal that would dwarf NAFTA. But there’s also much more at stake politically for a Democratic Party whose progressive wing is enjoying an upswing thanks to the aggressive populism of Warren and liberals like Sen. Bernie Sanders, who are unabashedly anti-free trade deal. Obama wants to cement a legacy on global free trade, but his work negotiating with Republicans has created several factions within the Democratic Party.

Take Kind and DeLauro. Both Democrats come to the fast-track debate from opposite sides.

Kind, a Wisconsin lawmaker who joined the trade-friendly New Democrat Coalition, has provided solid support for the White House, boosting its message that the so-called TPP, which includes enhanced labor and environment protections, isn’t reminiscent of the trade policy of years past.

DeLauro, from Connecticut, has been a central figure in the fight against the bill, forming a powerful progressive coalition of labor, environment, social justice and religious groups that argue any improvements are window dressing at best.

“The single biggest economic issue facing American families is that jobs do not pay enough to live on,” she said following the Trade Promotion Authority bill’s introduction on Thursday. “Fast tracking the TPP would make it easier for corporations to offshore Americans jobs and force our workers to compete with those in Vietnam making less than 60 cents an hour.”

While the New Dems on Thursday said they were still studying the legislation, they were encouraged by the inclusion of provisions to protect workers and renew trade preference programs. Kind has yet to issue a formal statement, but in January the Wisconsin lawmaker talked favorably about fast track.

“You can complain about [the fast track bill] all you want, but if you allow a Republican Congress to amend and change [future trade deals] you’re going to end up in a worse position than what you started with,” Kind said. “It doesn’t make sense for a Democratic member to oppose it.”

The internal Democratic wars are spilling into the presidential campaign as well, putting Hillary Clinton on the spot.

Clinton has been reluctant to show her hand on the pending trade legislation, although she voiced support for the massive Asia-Pacific pact that the administration is negotiating while serving as Obama’s secretary of state. When running against Obama for president in 2008, she instead said the U.S. needed to take a "timeout" on trade.

Other potential Democratic candidates, including former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, have assumed the progressive populist mantle and are already positioning themselves to Clinton’s left by preemptively coming out against the TPP.

Unlike Clinton, Warren has been unequivocal in her opposition to fast-track authority and the Asia trade deal, and that's one of the reasons some anti-trade liberals keep pushing her to get in the presidential race, though she continues to say she is not interested.

Warren declared herself all in on the battle against fast track and the TPP deal at a rally on Wednesday.

“We’re here today to fight,” the Massachusetts Democrat said, whipping up a crowd of about 1,200 people in a park facing the Capitol Building. “We are here to fight. Are you ready to fight?”

Most other Democrats in Congress, too, are skeptical of Obama’s free-trade agenda and are expected to vote against the trade promotion authority legislation, which will fast track trade deals through Congress by limiting amendments and subjecting the agreements to up-or-down votes.

The trade promotion authority bill introduced Thursday puts Obama and others who support the measure where they were a little more than a year ago when Reid stopped the legislation dead in its tracks. The Senate Democratic leader has never liked the legislation, voting against it in 1997 and 2002. This time, however, the GOP controls the Senate.

Past trade deals “haven’t always lived up to their promise,” Obama said in a statement issued Thursday, echoing a comment he made in his State of the Union address. But he asserted that he would only sign his name to an agreement that “helps ordinary Americans get ahead.”

“The bill put forward today would help us write those rules in a way that avoids the mistakes from our past, seize opportunities for our future, and stay true to our values,” Obama said.

In the Senate, where Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, wants a vote by late April, the fast track trade bill will need six Democrats to support it to get to the 60-vote filibuster-breaking threshold.

However, at a Senate Finance Committee hearing on Thursday, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) protested plans to rush to a vote.

“Not fair and not adequate on such an important issue,” the Senate’s third-ranking Democrat told Chairman Orrin Hatch. “Not fair. Not fair. And you are a fair-minded man.”

In the House, Republicans want a vote before the current legislative session breaks for the Memorial Day recess, Rep. Pat Tiberi, an Ohio Republican, said Thursday. The tally is expected to be close.

As few as 10 House Democrats, primarily from the ranks of the business-friendly New Democrat Coalition, are firmly committed to supporting the legislation. The measure needs 218 votes to pass in the lower chamber, which means getting the yeas of anywhere from 10 to 50 Democrats, depending on how many of the 247 Republicans in the House vote against the trade bill. Estimates of Republican defections vary widely from two dozen to as many as 60.

“What I can tell you, which is good news, is a lot of members are feeling the heat,” Sanders said Wednesday night to constituents belonging to the liberal group Democracy for America.

“Whether we can beat it in the Senate or not, I don’t know. I think we have a better shot frankly in the House where to the best of my knowledge the overwhelming majority of Democrats are against it,” the Vermont independent said.

“We don’t know how many tea party Republicans will not want to give the president this authority,” said Rep. Tim Ryan, an Ohio Democrat. “You see on some of the negotiations with Iran, they want a heavy amount of oversight they want to watch every move that he makes … if that same group applies that same standard to this trade agreement there may be some backlash with us in the House not having the ability to amend it.”

Ryan, who represents a manufacturing-heavy district in the state’s northeast, is among those vocally opposing the bill. But he said there are still a lot of maybes out there in the caucus.

“They’ve been fairly quiet and I think they want to see how it plays out with fast track and they obviously want to see the agreement too,” he said. “There’s a lot of unknowns out there for a Democrat to get out in front and say I’m definitely voting for this.”

Despite an impressive coalition aimed at defeating the deal, the number of Democrats who support the bill could grow depending on the position of leadership. But so far, there is little indication that Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi or Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer will support the legislation.

Pelosi has offered a consistent message that Democrats want a “path to yes.” She has even organized a series of briefings on the Asia-Pacific trade deal to help members be able to make a more educated decision, but — based on her past record — she is not expected to support a fast-track bill.

Hoyer, who has been supportive of past trade deals, struck an unusually cautious tone about the legislation when asked about it earlier this week.

“It’s very controversial over here as you well know,” he said.

Hoyer supported a fast-track trade bill last year, putting him at odds with Pelosi.

The top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Sander Levin, has come out against the bill. Levin has pushed for Congress to resolve outstanding issues in the Asia-Pacific pact before voting to give the president negotiating authority.

The fast-track compromise “gives up Congressional leverage at the exact wrong time,” the Michigan lawmaker said in a statement. “Instead of pressing USTR to get a better agreement or signaling to our negotiating partners that Congress will only accept a strong agreement, the Hatch-Wyden-Ryan TPA puts Congress in the back seat and greases the skids for an up-or-down vote after the fact.”



【附錄】
金融時報中文網
切勿用TPP製衡中國
美國外交關係委員會地緣經濟研究中心主任 邁克爾•列維 為英國《金融時報》撰稿 2015-04-15

在美國國內兜售自由貿易協定是項艱難的工作，因為公眾對這類協定對美國就業的影響持懷疑態度。因此，《跨太平洋夥伴關係》（Trans-Pacific Partnership，簡稱TPP）協定的擁躉們在努力贏取支持者時，日益強調達成協定帶來的地緣政治好處。

這些人看法的正確之處在於，好的貿易與投資協定的確會帶來地緣政治上的好處，談判破裂的確會產生嚴重破壞。但他們往往誇大這個因素的重要性——而且，這種誇大其實也會催生切實的地緣政治風險，危及他們想要達成的協定。

TPP的地緣政治好處顯而易見。它可幫助美國的亞洲盟國（特別是日本）進行改革，由此加強它們的經濟，使它們成為更具實力的地緣政治夥伴。參與TPP的亞洲國家可使它們的經濟關係變得更加多元，減少對難以捉摸的中國的依賴。如果該協定真的能為中國提供一個最終加入進來的選擇，那麽它還有助於把中國拉上一條更加自由化的發展道路。

相反，如果美國國內的爭吵導致TPP談判破裂，會讓所謂美國機能紊亂的說法變得更有市場，大幅加大美國領導世界的難度，還會讓中國更容易推進它那些將美國排除在外的貿易安排。

但是，以強調“地緣政治”的方式兜售TPP，也伴隨著嚴重的風險。如果美國不小心行事，中國可能會將該協定視為一個從經濟上遏製中國的企圖。達成一項加強美國與盟友經濟關係、同時鼓勵中國在推行一係列合理經濟改革後也加入其中（與中國加入世貿組織(WTO)的過程大致相同）的協定是一回事，以對抗性方式搞出一項協定、以此來製衡中國（即從經濟上遏製中國，與從軍事上遏製中國的戰略相對應）則是另一回事。

麵對這種前景，北京方麵很可能會斷定，維係一個開放、和平、基於規則的國際經濟秩序（他們從這個秩序中受益匪淺），給他們帶來的好處要比他們之前所認為的少得多。從曆史角度看，形成這種認識的主要大國，往往會轉而訴諸特殊的外交或軍事安排來尋求經濟安全，給國際安全帶來災難性後果。（上世紀30年代的日本侵略雖然受到多種因素推動，但日本擔心被隔絕在全球經濟體係之外無疑是影響因素之一。）

美國的亞洲盟國（更不用提加拿大和拉美了）也不想參與到與中國的直接對抗中。如果美國的夥伴對這種不受歡迎的聯合感到厭煩，將削弱華盛頓方麵在該地區打造的聯盟以及美國的地緣政治地位。除此之外，美國越向亞洲夥伴表示TPP是關於地緣政治，協定未達成造成的地緣政治危害就越大。

過多談論地緣政治也會在美國國內帶來風險。TPP的倡導者之所以改用這種戰術，部分原因在於單純從經濟好處角度來兜售該協定難度太大。

但是，強調地緣政治的做法可能會讓一些騎牆派更加持懷疑態度。冷戰期間，美國經常加入不平衡的貿易協定，認為幫助盟友的經濟比加強自身經濟更重要。如今，美國人感覺更加脆弱，也不像以前那樣信任經濟一體化。現在的當務之急是，打造一個從經濟好處角度講站得住腳、而地緣政治紅利隻算額外好處的TPP。

美國需要以公開言論或至少是台麵下的外交來闡明一點：TPP並不是為了分裂亞洲。這將有助於確保達成的任何協定都不僅是地緣政治上的成功，也是經濟上的成功。

本文作者是美國外交關係委員會(Council on Foreign Relations)莫裏斯•格林伯格地緣經濟研究中心(Maurice R Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies)主任