Holy place

On January 23, in accordance with the decree of President Donald Trump, the United States ceased its participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) program.

Vladislav Inozemtsev, Director of the Center for Post-Industrial Society Studies

The refusal of the United States to participate in the TPP was one of the first steps of President Trump, which is exactly what he promised to do. Trump was skeptical of the breakthrough regional free trade agreement signed less than a year ago, on February 4, 2016, and the general principles of regulation of many economic practices of the countries of four continents - Asia, North and South America and Australia - which account for 40% of the global gross product . Trump's skepticism towards the TPP is determined by his skepticism towards free trade and globalization in general, which he has spoken about more than once. But as consistent as Trump has been, the problem is that the TPP served his other purpose well: formulating a tough approach on China, which accounts for 21.1% of US imports. The TPP just did not include China, and therefore, it would seem, it should not have caused particular irritation of the 45th President of the United States. No, it didn't happen...

But what's done is done. The most interesting thing now is what will follow the American demarche. And there are two possible scenarios.

On the one hand, China may seize the opportunity to seize the lead: since November 2012, it has been actively promoting the idea of ​​​​creating a Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) consisting of 10 ASEAN countries, as well as South Korea, Japan, India, Australia and New Zealand. With 31% of global GDP, this union could become the largest free trade zone in the world. However, negotiations are difficult, and many participants remain skeptical about China's own intentions to achieve both real trade liberalization and, more importantly, comply with global standards in areas that Japan and Australia pay special attention to.

On the other hand, the position of leader in the TPP, which became vacant after the US left, could be taken over by Japan. Tokyo certainly needs to increase its international influence, and it is difficult to come up with a better option, in my opinion. Considering that the TPP agreement has not even been ratified yet, the US withdrawal from it may not deal a death blow to the project: the interaction between Asia, Australia and Latin America is long overdue, and Mexico if Trump also starts to revise the North American Free Trade Agreement ( NAFTA) - you need to look for new markets. In other words, the tripartite configuration of Japan (as looking for a leadership position), Mexico (as in need of new markets) and Australia (as the main supplier of minerals) could become an alternative to the original plans of the TPP.

Now, of course, it is difficult to make long-term forecasts, but Donald Trump is not eternal, the ebb and flow of globalization happen all the time. And therefore, it would be more correct for the countries participating in the TPP to preserve the created infrastructure, leave America alone with China and, watching their epic confrontation, expand and deepen free trade in the Pacific region, which (and not Asia at all) will certainly become the economic center of the world in the 21st century.