Chinese take on why the TPP is bad for China and why it is talking so long to negotiate:

[pampango]

The negotiation of Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement has entered its fourth year, but there still seems nowhere to go. Several reasons have lead to the stagnation of the negotiation.

Firstly, the negotiation is troubled by the mixed mode of bilateral and multilateral negotiations adopted by TPP on the issue of market access. The usual method of a free trade agreement negotiation is that all members negotiate to reach a uniform tariff reduction arrangement and finally form a free trade zone. However, The United States proposed in the TPP negotiation to retain the existing bilateral free trade agreements and only negotiate on market access with Vietnam and other three countries which have no free trade agreements with it. In this way, the United States attempts to maintain its vested interests on sensitive products and protect its domestic market at the same time.

Secondly, interests of the United States hidden behind "high standards" undermine the negotiation. The United States, by using "high standard" as a disguise and taking advantage of its technology and market edges, tries to maximize its interests through negotiations.

Thirdly, the TPP negotiation tries to cope with appeals of different countries with the "one size fits all" approach. Among the 11 members of the TPP, there are developed as well as developing countries and they often hold different stances toward the same issue. For instance, in terms of competition policies, the United States has put forward new requirements for state-owned enterprises, including canceling their subsidies and the tilting government procurement toward them. Nevertheless, these requirements are far beyond what most developing countries can bear.

Fourthly, the negotiation is subject to the U.S. domestic politics. At the very beginning of the negotiation, the United States reminded other members that the U.S. Congress would not accept a TPP without strong labor and environmental measures. Obviously, the United States aims to lower the comparative advantages of developing countries so as to create more job opportunities for itself.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/8113289.html

China seems to believe that the TPP will impose "strong labor and environmental measures", "high standards" along with "new requirements for state-owned enterprises" which China worries it cannot meet without fundamentally changing their political system.

China seems to hope that TPP negotiations fail.

[msongs]

1. maybe this failing would be a win-win for everyone nt

[dballance]

2. Yes it Would Be. We Don't Need Another Job-Sucking "Free-Trade" Agreement.

The only "free-trade" is large multinationals' freedom to trade good paying jobs here in the US for subsistence jobs in other countries.

[pampango]

3. You might be right. It does go against the "What's bad for China is good for the US" line of thought

that you sometimes come across.

China benefits by avoiding "strong labor and environmental measures", "high standards" along with "new requirements for state-owned enterprises". The US benefits from protecting our sovereign right to the "tough" labor and environmental standards that we currently enjoy.

The only way that the TPP would be good for anyone is if its really has "strong labor and environmental measures" - not just 'strong' in the eyes of the Chinese government (which has a really low standard for 'strong' in the areas of labor protection and environmental standards) - but 'strong' in our eyes too. Obama's strategy for dealing with a rising Chinese economy is to give them a choice. Either change your society to embrace "strong labor and environmental measures", "high standards" along with "new requirements for state-owned enterprises" or be excluded from large-scale trade agreements. The former, of course, would threaten the Communist party's (with its 'growth at all costs' philosophy) control over the country. The latter with harming its export-oriented economy.

If the Chinese government sees the failure of the TPP as good for the Party and for their society based on weak labor and environmental standards and government subsidies for state enterprises that compete with international companies, there may be something to say for it. Obviously the devil will be in the details. If the standards are 'high' enough to please the Canadians and Australians that is one thing. If they are 'high' only in the eyes of China and a few others that is another.

Personally I won't mind sacrificing some 'national sovereignty' for binding, enforceable "strong labor and environmental measures". It's what happens in Europe and I don't see many of them complaining that they want their national governments to have the right to lower Europe-wide labor and environmental standards set and enforced by the EU.