Oceans in Asia: pacific for merchandise, bellicose for acronyms

For those interested in Asia, specializing in acronyms is recommended. This comment refers to the APEC summit, where the proposition of the FTAAP seems to have supplanted the TPP. The acronyms’ obscurity hides important news.  The most recent Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit occurred from November 10 to 12 in Beijing, and projected images Obama, Xi Jin Ping, and other heads of state in elegant attire that exalted Chinese silk. The results were in line with expectations for a summit that represents (among the 21 nations in the Pacific) 54% of the world’s GDP and 40% of its population. All of the commentators confirmed that it was a diplomatic triumph for Beijing. China was able to sign an agreement with the US for environmental protection, almost reached a free trade agreement with South Korea, and found consensus for the launch of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank under its leadership. Finally, China was able to bring all the countries together over the prospect of the Free Trade Area Asia Pacific. The inspiration behind the idea is to converge all the countries on a few fundamental principles. China’s ambition to divide responsibility with the US and achieve an equal status shines through immediately. The elimination of trade barriers would greatly facilitate exchanges. In any case, the advantages would be distributed unequally, and China would get the biggest slice. It’s already the premier import-export country in the world, and its industrial capacities are titanic. The US tried to dilute the initiative’s impact. It undersigned it, but it required that the final signatures of national parliaments not occur until 2025. The first step will be the launch of a preliminary 2-year study. The real fear for the US’ viscosity is the Trans-Pacific Partnership’s oblivion. It was an accord being discussed regarding 12 countries in the Pacific, excluding China and Russia, however. It is an instrument of Obama’s doctrine to pivot US foreign policy toward Asia, especially to stem China’s expansion into southern seas. Now, the US seems to be conceding a blatant advantage to China by signing an agreement (FTAAP) that will probably dispel or encompass their creation (TPP). In reality, the White House knows that an agreement’s value lies in negotiations. The negotiation tables are going to be difficult and organized. There are basic questions that dominate everything. Some countries demand absolute respect for free markets: full competition, intellectual property rights, protection of human rights, labor and environmental standards; others underline the need for development, protection of diversity, and the recognition of procedural exceptions. Industrialized countries need the same treatment for their agricultural products and banking, financial, and insurance services, where they have reached efficiencies unassailable for emerging countries. Pharmaceutical companies want to value their patents, and IT companies want to value the enormous R&D costs necessary for their products.  Consumer electronics multinationals tend to impose standards they possess for designing and creating gadgets and screens. Supremacy is determined by technology as well, with the ability to stabilize prices and intercept the most consistent link in the value chain. The economy is probably more devious than politics and industries more silent than armies. In any case, both have determined spectacular changes on both sides of the Pacific. This is why studying lexical abbreviations is not a useless exercise.