By Xinping
In his recent visit to Japan, U.S. President Joe Biden officially unveiled the "Indo-Pacific Economic Framework"(IPEF). If we were to compare America's engagement in Asia-Pacific economic cooperation to a TV drama, this latest episode might have been the climax of a heroic come-back epic. Yet the truth is that this episode would only be a let-down.
As a dropout of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) and a stranger to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) as well as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), the U.S., while claiming itself as the anchor of Asia-Pacific economic cooperation, suddenly realized that, "Hey! They are actually better off without me". Bouncing off from the sofa, Uncle Sam told himself that this should not be happening and there should be a scheme to ensure American dominance in the region. Then came the IPEF.
A Neo-colonial Approach
Although the U.S. has been trying hard to peddle IPEF to Asian countries, it cannot conceal the colonialist approach of the IPEF, which actually stands for an Inequitable, Prejudiced, Exclusive and Forced arrangement.
"I" is for "Inequitable". The IPEF does not include any arrangement for tariff exemption or market access, things expected by other countries in the region. Reciprocity, which is a core principle of almost all similar frameworks, has to give way to an America-first agenda. The imposition of the so-called "high standards" on other countries in fact represents a neo-colonial approach to re-establish a plantation-like economic order. Under the framework, developing countries must be obedient to the requirements listed by developed countries, who purportedly have already met these "high standards", only thanks to centuries of bloody exploitation and ruthless wealth accumulation.
"P" is for "Prejudiced". Among the 13 initial members of the framework, developed countries like the U.S. and Australia participated in the early stages and are thus early birds, whereas the newcomers are left with less space to bargain. In the meantime, the scheme was approved in the U.S. through a presidential executive order without the ratification of the Congress, which means that it would be somehow costless for the U.S. to quit again, like it did to the TPP. In contrast, those countries who ratified the framework through legal procedures would be tightly glued to it.
"E" is for "Exclusive". U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo said publicly that the IPEF marks an important turning point in restoring U.S. economic leadership in the region and presenting regional countries with an alternative to China’s approach. Ruling China out of the framework means that the participants will be heavily constrained when it comes to their cooperation with China or even forced to take sides between the two major countries.
"F" is for "Forced". The scheme emphasizes the establishment of an array of protocols and regulations. It enables developed countries to take advantage of their edge and forces developing countries to accept these demanding and even fastidious rules, which may stand as obstacles in their path towards prosperity. The invitation to join the game sounds more like a forcible demand than an invitation for negotiation.
We Have Been There Before
By oppressing emerging economies, splitting the existing regional cooperation framework and shattering global supply and industrial chains, the U.S. is depriving regional countries of their economic independence and forcibly restoring its position at the center of regional cooperation in a neo-colonial fashion. Just imagine how the U.S. sharpened scythe and reaped the fruits of economic development of Asian countries several decades ago.
In the 1980s, when the U.S. was trapped in an enormous foreign trade deficit, it kicked off the Plaza Accord with other four major economies to depreciate the U.S. dollar and promote American export. As a result, the Japanese yen appreciated by 50% in three years against the dollar, leading to the bursting of Japan's economic bubble and three lost decades of economic recession in that country. In 1997, massive speculative attacks from the U.S. drained the foreign exchange reserve of Thailand, resulting in the sweeping Asian financial crisis. More than ten years later in 2008, American government's mismanagement of the mortgage crisis evolved into a global financial crisis, in which the Asia-Pacific region was heavily impacted.
History tells us that when the U.S. sharpens its scythe, we'd all better stay vigilant. For developing countries, the seemingly beautiful promise the U.S. made in the IPEF may seem to be a blessing, but it only takes a revisit to history to remind us of the truth.
