ISSN 2330-717X

TPP Versus RCEP: What Are The Odds For Thailand? – Analysis

By

With increasing interconnectedness and interdependence in this ‘flat’ world, there has been a renewed focus on multilateral trade agreements globally. In the Pacific region, this focus has been further emphasized in line with world-wide developments. Two of the currently most discussed (and hence also most critiqued) agreements across the Pacific region are undoubtedly the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a trade agreement that the United States is currently negotiating with 11 other countries throughout the Asia-Pacific region (Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam). Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) is a proposed free trade agreement (FTA) between the ten member states of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the six states with which ASEAN has existing FTAs (Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand). Several countries including Thailand are weighing the options and rationale of entering/ staying away from these agreements.

This article discusses the odds for Thailand, to adopt the TPP vis-à-vis the RCEP. It argues the benefits and costs of adopting either / or of the two agreements for Thailand and enumerates the consequences on Thailand and ASEAN as a whole.

Introduction: Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)

With increasing interconnectedness and interdependence in this ‘flat’ world, there has been a renewed focus on multilateral trade agreements globally. In the Pacific region, two of the currently most talked about (and hence also most critiqued) agreements across this region have undoubtedly been the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). This article discusses about the adoption of the TPP and / or the RCEP, its repercussions on Thailand and hence consequences for the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). The article argues the benefits and costs of adopting either / or of the two agreements for Thailand and ties it into the effects on ASEAN.

The TPP is claimed to be one of biggest trade deals in history, involving twelve Pacific Rim nations – Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam – which account for 40% of the global economic output and 26% of world trade. It aims to dismantle tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade and investment between the participant countries. It also foresees streamlining regulations, and the implementation of common standards for the protection of foreign investment and intellectual property, among other things. The TPP will now undergo a two-year ratification period in which at least six countries must approve the final text for the deal to be implemented. Many countries negotiating the TPP such as Australia, Singapore and Canada already have free trade agreements with the US.2

On the other hand, the RCEP was conceived in 2013 and is being negotiated between the ten member states of the ASEAN plus regional trading partners including Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea. RCEP has the objective of “achieving a modern, comprehensive, high-quality and mutually beneficial economic partnership agreement among the ASEAN Member States and ASEAN’s FTA Partners”.3 If signed, the regional free trade agreement will create an economic bloc with a combined population of 3.4 billion and trade volume of USD 10.6 billion, accounting for nearly 30 percent of the world’s trade.4

TPP: The pros and cons

The TPP draws together countries representing two-fifths of the global economy, from Canada and Chile to Japan and Australia, into an umbrella of common rules governing trans-Pacific relations. It presents both opportunities and threats, as have been shared by several economic and political thinkers in the public domain. This section objectively discusses both, the positive and negative aspects of taking on the TPP. The key positives of adopting the TPP are discussed below.

  • Boosting growth: As a companion agreement to the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) (a broadly similar agreement between the United States and the European Union), TTP will help further growth. TPP is expected to increase exports by USD 305 billion per year by 2025.5 In fact, the most cited benefit for labour, an income increase in the United States is expected through TPP due to lower prices on purchased goods. The logic follows that free trade will lead to a lower cost of goods, stretching the value of current labor incomes. Calculations estimate an income increase of USD 77 billion by 2025.6
  • Allowing freer flow of services: While most trade deals have been focusing on the ease of goods flowing between countries, TPP is one of the few with comprehensive provisions for the services trade, as stated by Senior Vice President at consulting firm Frost & Sullivan, Mr. Shivaji Das.7
  • Evening out the playing field: The TPP removes 18,000 tariffs placed on U.S. exports to the other countries. The United States has already withdrawn 80% of these tariffs on foreign imports and non-tariff, regulatory barriers also will also be reduced. This also means that countries will be required to make Customs laws, regulations and procedures more transparent, and also tackle hidden costs impeding business operations, such as corruption.8
  • Setting an example world-wide: The trade ministers who negotiated TPP have predicted that it will turn the accord into a model for future trade agreements.9 In a sense, this has been termed as a ‘21st Century Agreement’ because it taken into account the dynamic factors of growing markets in the Pacific region and even worldwide.

However, the holistic picture is not so rosy after all! Following are key negatives associated with enforcing TPP.

  • Capital winning over labour growth: The benefits being described for labour by supporters of TPP acceptance are often based on misguided calculations. For example, looking at expected income increases, while the USD 77 billion is often quoted as the income gain from the TPP, this number is only 1% of the United States’ national GDP, hardly enough to drastically positively impact one person. In addition, the increases in income will really only benefit two groups: those in the labour market who will reap rewards from an expected increase in minimum wage, and those at the very top of the labor market who will see gains from patent and intellectual property right protection.10 Therefore, capital will see large gains from a TPP, and will benefit more than labour. Opening up new markets, restriction free, allows capital to gain new consumers.
  • Is this partnership pitching USA against China? Consider USA President Obama’s statement in 2015, “When more than 95 percent of our potential customers live outside our borders, we can’t let countries like China write the rules of the global economy; We should write those rules, opening new markets to American products while setting high standards for protecting workers and preserving our environment.” This is becoming a bulwark against China’s power.11 It comes as no surprise then, that China has been excluded from this partnership. In the case of RCEP, which will be discussed later in this article, China has been seen as the key driver, which is viewed as an alternative to the U.S.-led TPP agreement, from which the world’s second-biggest economy has excluded.12
  • The dilemma of protecting patents: Many involved in the agreement confirmed that one of the most challenging issues was dealing with biologics, which are advanced medicines made from living organisms. USA sought up to 12 years’ protection for drug makers to withhold data needed to produce generic “biosimilars,” as an incentive for their innovations. Protecting patents for a long period of 12 years would mean withholding the power with pharmaceutical giants, in turn helping contribute to income-inequality with higher-paid owners of the intellectual property receiving greater income gains.
    However, Australia and Peru led most other nations in fighting for five years of protection. The compromise set a mandatory minimum of five years, without setting a maximum, leaving both sides to declare victory. “We do think we have a balanced result,” said Ms. Silva of Peru.13
  • Lack of transparency: TPP has also been criticized of being negotiated behind closed doors by officials from the United States and 11 the other countries. The lack of transparency and accountability in these highly important negotiations makes very difficult for some stakeholders and experts to provide any input in the process.

RCEP: The good, bad and the ugly

In 2012, with the launch of RCEP, the countries commit to liberalizing almost 100% of trade, following the lead of many effective bilateral free-trade pacts between ASEAN and its partners. Following are the positive aspects of the RCEP.

  • Boosting the Asian economy: ASEAN governments and the private sector envisage the RCEP as paving the way for stimulating the Asian economy and helping to balance expansion between Eastern and Western countries. The ASEAN countries and its six RCEP partners together account for 56 per cent or $255 billion of Thailand’s total trade.14
  • Creating an Asia-Pacific FTA: RCEP, as critics claim is also expected to act as an important stepping stone to achieve an Asia-Pacific Free Trade Area (FTA) before 2020.15
  • Reducing tariff rates: Creating a fairer economy lies at the heart of the RCEP where it has been agreed by the sixteen members that they will eliminate tariffs on 65% of all goods, amounting to 8,000-9,000 items, under the RCEP plans. In 2015, Thai Commerce Minister Apiradi Tantraporn said, “Of the 35% of total products not included in the initial agreement, RCEP members are expected to gradually cut tariffs to zero within 10 years after 2017 for 20%, while further talks are needed for the other 15% of products, which are mostly sensitive items”.16

This however, does not imply that the RCEP is bereft of its disadvantages, keeping in mind, the socio-economic and geo-political scenario.

  • Is this partnership China’s game plan? Critics say that China has been the key driver for furthering this pact in the response to the ‘fast track’ status that was given to TTP by US President. Just like the TTP, the RCEP, whose negotiations were launched at the ASEAN Summit in Phnom Penh in November 2012, would connect a large chunk of the global economy, placing China in the center, and harmonize trade-related rules, investment and competition regimes. The RCEP includes a vast array of rules about investment, economic and technical cooperation, intellectual property, competition, dispute settlement and government regulation.
  • Reducing Trade Barriers – Boon or Bane?: While the TPP talks about totally cutting trade barriers in several areas, RCEP concerns itself with reducing trade barriers, setting the bar lower. It may be an advantage to consider though accepting reduction in trade barriers may not be enough to encourage freer flow of goods and services.

TTP versus RCEP17: The New Age Tug of War?

Not only are there different sets of countries adopting TPP and RCEP, there are different sets of advantages and disadvantages, as a part of signing up for these treaties. These two treaties also adopt different approaches altogether.

The TPP aims to be a high quality preferential trade agreement with few exemptions and extensive regulatory alignment is in areas such as labour laws, environmental protection and intellectual property rights. RCEP, on the other hand, accepts that countries will reduce trade barriers at different rates—especially among less developed members—and also makes limited demands for regulatory harmonisation.18

The TPP is open to new entrants already, as will the RCEP be in the future. More importantly, neither agreement restricts participants from joining other trade groupings. Nonetheless, it’s hard to ignore the fact that the China-supported RCEP does not presently involve the United States and the US-led TPP negotiations don’t presently include China. And while China isn’t excluded from the TPP in principle, the regulatory emphasis of the arrangement makes them less likely to join.

Although the two agendas aren’t mutually exclusive, there’s geopolitical competition between the two proposals. To quote Peter Drysdale, the TTP ‘would drive a wedge down the middle of the Pacific, not only or mainly economically but also politically—between the United States, its partners and China.’ Jagdish Bhagwati goes further, describing the TPP as ‘a political response to China’s new aggressiveness, built therefore in a spirit of confrontation and containment, not of cooperation’.19 China, critics say, has responded to the TPP by promoting the RCEP, which would promote rapprochement between Beijing and Tokyo.20 Regional influence between the United States and China has been a bone of contention while discussing about these two trade agreements.21

However, the question now arises, what’s in it for Thailand?

Adopting the TPP would mean there is a positive influence among investors which would benefit Thailand, as stated by Thai Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-o-cha.22 This is because of the sheer coverage of these two partnerships and the number of countries they involve, controlling a large part of global trade and investment in either case (whether the TPP is adopted or the RCEP).

Taking a closer look at the consequences on Thailand of adopting TPP, critics notice that currently, because Thailand does not have an FTA with the United States, it will not enjoy the zero tariffs afforded to ASEAN nations such as Malaysia and Vietnam. This is also because among the 20+ areas covered by TPP, one is that of intellectual property (IP). Moreover, if Thailand is to join TPP, it has to improve IP-protection measures for medicines, which may increase the operating cost for local pharmaceutical companies. Many business leaders and academics have also warned that Thailand’s overall competitiveness will be subject to significant losses, particularly in exports and foreign investment. Mrs Apiradi has said that while Asean members Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei and Vietnam have joined the TPP, this will not add pressure on Thailand, which already has free trade agreements (FTAs) with every country in the TPP group except Canada, Mexico and the US.

Recently, Thai exports have been in the negative domain chiefly because of China’s slowdown and a fall in purchasing power within ASEAN. However, foreign companies may also forget about Thailand as a location for their investment projects and opt for ASEAN’s TPP members, which are bound to improve intellectual property protection and labour standards. That in turn will weaken the Thai manufacturing sector and overall competitiveness. 23 Kasikorn Research Center (KResearch) says the TPP will inevitably affect the trade and investment of non-TPP economies. Thailand’s exports to USA, may sustain themselves in the short term because the USA’s tariff privileges for Thailand will run until the end of 2017. But once those benefits expire, Thailand’s competitiveness will be undermined relative to TPP member states such as Malaysia, Vietnam and Mexico, KResearch says. By then, if USA does not renew those privileges or Thailand does not join the TPP, Thai exporters can expect higher import tariffs of 2.7%, versus the current 2.3%.

The effects of trade diversion resulting from the TPP on Thai exports include:

  • Exports that are the least competitive will be the most affected. They will include products of labour-intensive industries such as garments, textiles, shoes and leatherwear.
  • Exports that are relatively competitive now but may fail to be attractive in the long term will be moderately affected, including hard disk drives, electronics, rubber products, petrochemicals, and automobiles and parts.
  • Exports that are very competitive now and will remain so in the long term will be the least affected. Among these are products made by highly skilled workers such as jewellery and canned food products.

Meanwhile, many industries in TPP economies are likely to see their competitiveness bolstered. Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia (which has expressed an intent to join the TPP in two years) are among those to benefit from common standards and rules of origin being developed, especially for textiles and automotive, KResearch says. This will precipitate trade diversion (raw material procurement or sourcing) and possibly even investment diversion from non-TPP countries to TPP member nations, thus steepening the risk of production relocations.24

On the other hand, Singapore-based trade expert Deborah Elms has said, “With only some ASEAN countries poised to enjoy the benefits of TPP (currently Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam); and RCEP poised to link ASEAN’s dialogue partners – including China and India – for the first time, it is more important than ever for ASEAN to complete its goals under the AEC (Asean Economic Community)”.25 It is said that RCEP can create huge benefits and help offset potential losses caused by the TPP.

The numbers26 say it all:

  • The TPP countries encompass about 40% of global trade or $295 trillion a year, with a combined GDP of $28.3 trillion, representing 38% of the world’s GDP. Population in the TPP countries is roughly 800 million or 11% of the world’s population.
  • In comparison, the RCEP’s 16 member countries represent 29% of global trade or $10.7 trillion, with a combined GDP of $21.2 trillion or 28% of the world’s GDP. The RCEP’s population numbers 3.4 billion, making up half the world’s population.
  • Thailand’s exports to RCEP countries reached $127 billion in 2014, representing 56% of total export value.
  • Imports totalled $133 billion or 58% of Thailand’s total imports.
  • RCEP members made up 70% of foreign direct investment (FDI) in Thailand last year.
  • Thai shipments to TPP countries were valued at $92 billion, representing 40.4% of the country’s total exports.
  • Imports amounted to $83.4 billion or 36.6% of the country’s total imports.
  • In 2014, TPP members represented 45% of Thailand’s FDI.

“Given the sheer size of the RCEP, the market offers more potential,” says Nopporn Thepsithar, president of the Thai National Shippers’ Council (TNSC).27

Conclusion: Is this a ‘Catch – 22’ for Thailand?

From the macro perspective, various critics have voiced their views for Thailand to join one agreement over another. However, there are others who have been optimistic to state that Thailand should in fact consider joining both the TPP and RCEP. The reason is simple, Thailand’s GDP (US$378 billion) is only 0.49 per cent of the world economy. It is a relatively small economy which cannot afford to be excluded from any major trade bloc in Asia and the Pacific.28 A ‘fine balanced approach’ could be favourable for maintaining Thailand’s competiveness in the marketplace, boost its potential for trading through furthering the AEC agenda in ASEAN and reap the benefits of liaising with powerful economies such as the US (with which it does not have an FTA as yet). Reforms internally to enhance competitiveness in key areas will help. Thus, if such an approach is adopted, Thailand will escape the ‘Catch 22’ scenario amidst the power-play between China and the US. At the same time, it will benefit the country’s trade and investment portfolio, significantly empowering the economy and over the long term, its people.

Taking a step further and analyzing Thai relations with USA and China, there are more insights that may lead one to believe that adopting a ‘fine balanced approach’ would be favourable for Thailand. For example, considering Sino – Thai relations (in the larger picture of the RCEP and its evolution), Thailand has become a very important country for China. This is true both in terms of trade (China provides a market for 14% of all exports from Thailand and its share in Thai imports constitutes 18%) as well as in terms of its growing clout both internally and externally.

Internally, as explained by several interviewees including Indian businessmen (Satish Sehgal, D.K. Bakshi, Mr. Bajaj) many major Thai businesses are owned by the Chinese (44% of all businesses are owned by Chinese, having taken on Chinese names and the latter have integrated seamlessly into the Thai society. In fact, China’s engagement with Thailand in infrastructure build-up and the acquisition of resources has increased in recent years.29

Additionally, Thailand has been one of the United States’ most steadfast regional allies since a long time.30

Although in the post-coup scenario, there have been some irritants in U.S.-Thailand relations, despite this the two countries have been managing the relationship.31 Looking at the sheer numbers, United States is Thailand’s third-largest bilateral trading partner, after Japan and China, with total bilateral trade valued at more than $44 billion in 2014. The United States is also one of the largest investors in Thailand, with over $14 billion in foreign direct investment.32 In this light, the importance of maintaining US-Thai ties has been paramount.

Therefore, the above data substantiates further that Sino-Thai and US-Thai relations have an overbearing impact on how adopting both the multilateral agreements can be of immense benefit to Thailand. Adoption of the ‘fine balanced approach’ has the potential to further smoothen Thai relations with the US and propel amicable Sino-Thai relations. Moreover, in the scenario of China-led RCEP and US-led TPP evolving to become New Age Tug of War, a ‘fine balanced approach’ would help Thailand escape the immense complications of the US-China power-play and yet at the same benefitting from the positive outcomes of both the agreements.

About the author:
*Dr. Reena Marwah
is Associate Professor, Jesus and Mary College, Delhi University. Email: [email protected]

Bibliography
About News (2016), “What is the Trans-Pacific Partnership?”, About News. URL: http://useconomy.about.com/od/Trade-Agreements/fl/What-Is-the-Trans-Pacific-Partnership.htm (Accessed on 10 February, 2016)

Aisa Sentinel, (2011), “China comes to Thailand”, Asian Correspondent. URL: http://asiancorrespondent.com/2011/07/china-comes-to-thailand/ (accessed on 5 March 2016)

Bangkok Post (2015), “Trade Pacts: Torn Between two giants”. URL: http://www.bangkokpost.com/print/773560/ (Accessed on 19 February, 2016).

Bilaterals (2015), “Full steam ahead for RCEP trade deal”. URL: http://www.bilaterals.org/?full-steam-ahead-for-rcep-trade (Accessed on 15 February, 2016)

Calmes, J (2015), “Trans-Pacific Partnership Is Reached, but Faces Scrutiny in Congress”, The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/business/trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal-is-reached.html?_r=0 (Accessed on 12 February, 2016)

Domínguez, G., (2016), “The pros and cons of the Trans-Pacific Partnership pact”, DW. URL: http://www.dw.com/en/the-pros-and-cons-of-the-trans-pacific-partnership-pact/a-18597149 (Accessed on 12 February, 2016)

Embassy of US in Thailand (2015), “U.S. Relations with Thailand – Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs –
Fact Sheet”. URL: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2814.htm (accessed on 6 March 2016)

Food Industry Asia, (2015), “TPP vs RCEP: What Does It Mean For Businesses in Asia?” URL: http://foodindustry.asia/tpp-vs-rcep-what-does-it-mean-for-businesses-in-asia (Accessed on 19 February, 2016).

Kit Tang, S., (2015), “RCEP: The next trade deal you need to know about”, CNBC. URL: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/14/tpp-deal-pressures-rcep-trade-talks-in-busan-china-keen-for-progress.html (Accessed on 9 February, 2016)

Marwah, R., (2016), “Thailand’s Increasing Closeness To China: What It Implies For ASEAN – Analysis”, Eurasia New Analysis. URL: http://www.eurasiareview.com/05012016-thailands-increasing-closeness-to-china-what-it-implies-for-asean-analysis/ (accessed on 4 March, 2016)

Ministry of Trade & Industry, (2016), “Factsheet: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP (RCEP)”. URL: https://www.mti.gov.sg/MTIInsights/SiteAssets/Pages/FACTSHEET-WHAT-YOU-NEED-TO-KNOW-ABOUT/Factsheet%20on%20RCEP%20(June%202014).pdf (Accessed on 15 February, 2016)

Parameswaran, P., (2015), “Exclusive: Managing the Strained US-Thailand Alliance”, The Diplomat. URL: http://thediplomat.com/2015/12/exclusive-managing-the-strained-us-thailand-alliance/ (accessed on 5 March 2016)

Stuenkel, O., (2015), “TPP vs. RCEP: Trade and the tussle for regional influence in Asia”, Post-Western World. URL: http://www.postwesternworld.com/2015/08/21/tussle-regional-influence/ (Accessed on 14 February, 2016)

The Nation, (2016), “It’s not too late for Thailand to join TTP, says PM”, The Nation Multimedia. URL: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Its-not-to-late-for-Thailand-to-join-TTP-says-PM-30271498.html (Accessed on 8 February, 2016).

The Nation, (2015), “Thailand needs to join TPP, RCEP and fine right balance”, The Nation Multimedia. URL: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Thailand-needs-to-join-TPP-RCEP-and-fine-right-bal-30272205.htmlhttp://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Thailand-needs-to-join-TPP-RCEP-and-fine-right-bal-30272205.html (Accessed on 19 February, 2016).

The Nation, (2015), “Thailand’s tough choice: TPP or RCEP”, The Nation Multimedia. URL: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Thailands-tough-choice-TPP-or-RCEP-30271652.html (Accessed on 18 February, 2016).

The Nation (2012), “The pros and cons of far-reaching trade agreements”. URL: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/business/the-pros-and-cons-of-far-reaching-trade-agreements-30196735.html (Accessed on 14 February, 2016)

Thomson, M., (2013), “Trade partnership competition: TPP vs RCEP”, The Strategist. URL: http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/trade-partnership-competition-tpp-vs-rcep/ (Accessed on 14 February, 2016)

Weiser, D., (2015), “Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement: Pros & Cons”, Investopedia. URL: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex/052915/capital-and-labor-who-wins-transpacific-partnership.asp (Accessed on 14 February 2016)

Yan Min, C., (2015), “10 benefits that the Trans-Pacific Partnership will bring Singapore”, The Straits Times. URL: http://www.straitstimes.com/business/economy/10-benefits-the-trans-pacific-partnership-will-bring-singapore (Accessed on 14 February, 2016)

Annexure I: Countries involved in TTP and RCEP

Source: http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/trade-partnership-competition-tpp-vs-rcep/ (Accessed on 15 February, 2016)anex1

Annexure II: The exclusion – inclusion game

Source: http://www.postwesternworld.com/2015/08/21/tussle-regional-influence/ (Accessed on 15 February, 2016)anex2

Annexure III: Key statistics on RCEP and TTP

Source: http://www.bangkokpost.com/print/773560/ (Accessed on 19 February, 2016)

anex3

Notes:
1. Dr. Reena Marwah is Associate Professor, Jesus and Mary College, Delhi University. Email: [email protected]
2. Domínguez, G., (2016), “The pros and cons of the Trans-Pacific Partnership pact”, DW. URL: http://www.dw.com/en/the-pros-and-cons-of-the-trans-pacific-partnership-pact/a-18597149 (Accessed on 12 February, 2016)
3. Ministry of Trade & Industry, (2016), “Factsheet: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP (RCEP)”. URL: https://www.mti.gov.sg/MTIInsights/SiteAssets/Pages/FACTSHEET-WHAT-YOU-NEED-TO-KNOW-ABOUT/Factsheet%20on%20RCEP%20(June%202014).pdf (Accessed on 15 February, 2016)
4. Kit Tang, S., (2015), “RCEP: The next trade deal you need to know about”, CNBC. URL: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/14/tpp-deal-pressures-rcep-trade-talks-in-busan-china-keen-for-progress.html (Accessed on 9 February, 2016)
5. About News (2016), “What is the Trans-Pacific Partnership?”, About News. URL: http://useconomy.about.com/od/Trade-Agreements/fl/What-Is-the-Trans-Pacific-Partnership.htm (Accessed on 10 February, 2016)
6. Weiser, D., (2015), “Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement: Pros & Cons”, Investopedia. URL: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex/052915/capital-and-labor-who-wins-transpacific-partnership.asp (Accessed on 14 February 2016)
7. Yan Min, C., (2015), “10 benefits that the Trans-Pacific Partnership will bring Singapore”, The Straits Times. URL: http://www.straitstimes.com/business/economy/10-benefits-the-trans-pacific-partnership-will-bring-singapore (Accessed on 14 February, 2016)
8. Yan Min, C., (2015), “10 benefits that the Trans-Pacific Partnership will bring Singapore”, The Straits Times. URL: http://www.straitstimes.com/business/economy/10-benefits-the-trans-pacific-partnership-will-bring-singapore (Accessed on 14 February, 2016)
9. Calmes, J (2015), “Trans-Pacific Partnership Is Reached, but Faces Scrutiny in Congress”, The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/business/trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal-is-reached.html?_r=0 (Accessed on 12 February, 2016)
10. Weiser, D., (2015), “Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement: Pros & Cons”, Investopedia. URL: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex/052915/capital-and-labor-who-wins-transpacific-partnership.asp (Accessed on 14 February 2016)
11. Calmes, J (2015), “Trans-Pacific Partnership Is Reached, but Faces Scrutiny in Congress”, The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/business/trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal-is-reached.html?_r=0 (Accessed on 12 February, 2016)
12. Kit Tang, S., (2015), “RCEP: The next trade deal you need to know about”, CNBC. URL: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/14/tpp-deal-pressures-rcep-trade-talks-in-busan-china-keen-for-progress.html (Accessed on 9 February, 2016)
13. Calmes, J (2015), “Trans-Pacific Partnership Is Reached, but Faces Scrutiny in Congress”, The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/business/trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal-is-reached.html?_r=0 (Accessed on 12 February, 2016)
14. The Nation (2012), “The pros and cons of far-reaching trade agreements”. URL: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/business/the-pros-and-cons-of-far-reaching-trade-agreements-30196735.html (Accessed on 14 February, 2016)
15. The Nation (2012), “The pros and cons of far-reaching trade agreements”. URL: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/business/the-pros-and-cons-of-far-reaching-trade-agreements-30196735.html (Accessed on 14 February, 2016)
16. Bilaterals (2015), “Full steam ahead for RCEP trade deal”. URL: http://www.bilaterals.org/?full-steam-ahead-for-rcep-trade (Accessed on 15 February, 2016)
17. Refer to Annexure I
18. Thomson, M., (2013), “Trade partnership competition: TPP vs RCEP”, The Strategist. URL: http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/trade-partnership-competition-tpp-vs-rcep/ (Accessed on 14 February, 2016)
19. Thomson, M., (2013), “Trade partnership competition: TPP vs RCEP”, The Strategist. URL: http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/trade-partnership-competition-tpp-vs-rcep/ (Accessed on 14 February, 2016)
20. Stuenkel, O., (2015), “TPP vs. RCEP: Trade and the tussle for regional influence in Asia”, Post-Western World. URL: http://www.postwesternworld.com/2015/08/21/tussle-regional-influence/ (Accessed on 14 February, 2016)
21. Refer to Annexure II
22. The Nation, (2016), “It’s not too late for Thailand to join TTP, says PM”, The Nation Multimedia. URL: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Its-not-to-late-for-Thailand-to-join-TTP-says-PM-30271498.html (Accessed on 8 February, 2016).
23. The Nation, (2015), “Thailand’s tough choice: TPP or RCEP”, The Nation Multimedia. URL: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Thailands-tough-choice-TPP-or-RCEP-30271652.html (Accessed on 18 February, 2016).
24. Bangkok Post (2015), “Trade Pacts: Torn Between two giants”. URL: http://www.bangkokpost.com/print/773560/ (Accessed on 19 February, 2016).
25. Food Industry Asia, (2015), “TPP vs RCEP: What Does It Mean For Businesses in Asia?” URL: http://foodindustry.asia/tpp-vs-rcep-what-does-it-mean-for-businesses-in-asia (Accessed on 19 February, 2016).
26. Refer to Annexure III
27. Bangkok Post (2015), “Trade Pacts: Torn Between two giants”. URL: http://www.bangkokpost.com/print/773560/ (Accessed on 19 February, 2016).
28. The Nation, (2015), “Thailand needs to join TPP, RCEP and fine right balance”, The Nation Multimedia. URL: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Thailand-needs-to-join-TPP-RCEP-and-fine-right-bal-30272205.htmlhttp://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Thailand-needs-to-join-TPP-RCEP-and-fine-right-bal-30272205.html (Accessed on 19 February, 2016).
29. Marwah, R., (2016), “Thailand’s Increasing Closeness To China: What It Implies For ASEAN – Analysis”, Eurasia New Analysis. URL: http://www.eurasiareview.com/05012016-thailands-increasing-closeness-to-china-what-it-implies-for-asean-analysis/ (accessed on 4 March, 2016)
30. Aisa Sentinel, (2011), “China comes to Thailand”, Asian Correspondent. URL: http://asiancorrespondent.com/2011/07/china-comes-to-thailand/ (accessed on 5 March 2016)
31. Parameswaran, P., (2015), “Exclusive: Managing the Strained US-Thailand Alliance”, The Diplomat. URL: http://thediplomat.com/2015/12/exclusive-managing-the-strained-us-thailand-alliance/ (accessed on 5 March 2016)
32. Embassy of US in Thailand (2015), “U.S. Relations with Thailand – Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs – Fact Sheet”. URL: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2814.htm (accessed on 6 March 2016)


Enjoy the article? Then please consider donating today to ensure that Eurasia Review can continue to be able to provide similar content.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

CLOSE
CLOSE