1. US PTAs and their impacts on trading partners Tim Josling

2. Intro US played the Bilateral trade game in the pre- war period (RTA Act) Was main protagonist for multilateral trade rules in the Post-war system (GATT) Began to waiver in 1980s (Israel, as a political gesture) and (Canada, as a friendly response) Burst of activity in 1990s (NAFTA) And birth of “competitative liberalization” 2Canterbury June 2011

3. Currently 17 PTAs NAFTA Chile Australia CAFTA+DR Bahrain, Oman Singapore Israel, Jordan, Morocco Peru 3Canterbury June 2011

4. In the pipeline 3 awaiting Congress – Panama – Colombia – Korea Under negotiation – TPP (Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, NZ, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam) Some in abeyance – South Africa – FTAA – Thailand – Ecuador – Bolivia – UAE 4Canterbury June 2011

5. … and don’t forget Schemes with extensive preferential access: – CBI – AGOA And the persistent “non-PTA” process: – APEC And all the Trade and Investment Framework agreements (TIFA) and Bilateral Investment Treaties (BIT) that stop short of PTAs 5Canterbury June 2011

6. So what’s important to agriculture? NAFTA created a single market between US and Mexico for farm goods US-Chile is a “clean” agreement that includes agriculture fully (high-quality agreement) CAFTA+DR secures access already granted to CA, but gives US better access in CA markets – Limited sugar access but otherwise “clean” in agriculture Australia-US by contrast is low-quality: long transition period to a not-too-open market – Sugar excluded altogether 6Canterbury June 2011

7. Korea changes the game Good (not perfect) access to a major market for US agriculture Rice protected by Korea, but hope of some access eventually Enough beef access into Korea to satisfy (most) US beef exporters Hope was for model for Japan PTA with a big market elevates the interest level 7Canterbury June 2011

8. TPP: what does this add? Of the nine negotiating partners, four already have Bilaterals with the US: but hope that it would “clean up” some of these (sugar with Australia?) Seen as a way of involving ASEAN countries (maybe Thailand, Philippines and Indonesia will follow?) Japan ambivalent but has been attending sessions 8Canterbury June 2011

9. TPP … Rhetoric is for “high-quality” agreement: Obama’s trade legacy? Consistent with Article XXIV GATT Get “first mover advantage” on EU negotiations with Asia Advance more ambitious parts of APEC that had stalled Provide a model for “open regionalism” and inter- continental pacts Restore momentum lost by Doha foot-dragging Begin the task of including China in a WTO+ agreement 9Canterbury June 2011

10. Link with Europe? Systemic pressure on EU to agree to multilateral agreement not at issue: EU wants Doha more that does US (and Asia?) Concern that EU has a more flexible political mandate for PTAs (US Congress major hurdle) Playing catch-up in certain markets (EU-Korea ahead of US-Korea?) For manufactures, ROO will be important Simultaneous negotiations between US and EU with Japan will provide interesting dynamic 10Canterbury June 2011

11. Links with other regions Response to Brazil’s rejection of FTAA plans and attempt to consolidate SAFTA Concern with Chinese policies in Latin America may lead to PTAs that gave LA exports edge in Chinese market Counterweight to ASEAN + 3 agreements that exclude North America Isolate India if it reverts back to more protectionism 11Canterbury June 2011

12. Links with other regions Establish US interests in integrating Asia BTAs (c.f. original aim of FTAA) Examples include Peru-Korea; India-South Africa; India- Indonesia, Cambodia; China-NZ; China-Korea; Australia-China, Taiwan; China- ASEAN; Australia-NZ-ASEAN; Australia-India; India-Japan; China-Japan; China-Taiwan. WTO is one way of filling in the matrix: super- PTAs is another 12Canterbury June 2011

13. Agricultural component of TPP? Present talks have avoided controversial issues of timelines for transition Many farm products would have to be included to attract support in US, Canada, Australia, NZ, Thailand, etc. Korea, Japan appear willing to test the (political) limits of including agriculture Could include more that just tariff cuts and long transition periods for market access 13Canterbury June 2011

14. Conclusion New dynamic in trade system largely unrelated to Doha Managing the matrix will be challenge for the rest of this decade Agriculture will be inside many agreements, even those that include EU (CAP reform allows that to happen with less internal disruption) Doha may get agreed eventually as a way of facilitating many of these PTAs Is this a cause of concern? Or should we be welcoming it as a way forward, a building block in contrast to the WTO “big round” stumbling block? 14Canterbury June 2011

15. Thanks Contact me at Josling@stanford 15Canterbury June 2011