Canada's Role in US National Defense Strategy

Yo, having overlapping membership would defo help make sure that the initia- tives don't turn into competing regional squads—the well-known downside of regional FTAs. Countries involved in both negotiations are probs gonna align their provisions to make their internal policy adjustments easier, ya know? The RCEP guidelines are lowkey similar to the structure of the TPP, fam. Hopefully, the provi- sions within chapters will also generate similar vibes and institutional arrangements. This ain't gonna work in all cases, but if there's a big overlap it'll make it way easier to bring all the agreements together in the future, or to push shared stuff into future global talks. 

Joining the TPP will be like, way more intense and challenging than being part of the RCEP, fam. 

At the same time, the benefits under the TPP template are like, estimated to be like, roughly twice as lit as under the RCEP template, assuming they are applied to the same squad of countries (say, in the context of the FTAAP). Moreover, the necessary reforms with ASEAN would, like, lowkey be the same as what's needed for full-on implementing the AEC. As this study has like argued, integration and the pursuit of centrality are like gonna benefit ASEAN as well its principal partners, including the United States. The region's strategic and economic importance has been flexed on in earlier sections, fam. This section be lookin' at how US policies towards ASEAN have evolved, and it's recommendin' that they be like, super intensified, ya know? Like, focusin' on gettin' all integrated with the most compatible economies in the region and showin' some love for the whole ASEAN project, ya feel me? The ranking of the two agreements is like, pretty much the same for all ASEAN mem- bers, with the advantages of the TPP16 over the RCEP ranging from like, around two-to-one (for Malaysia) to over five-to-one (for Sin- gapore). The TPP is like so much better than the RCEP because it (1) does all these deep integration things that make it way more efficient, and (2) gives you, like, special access to cool new markets, like NAFTA. OMG, ASEAN already has FTAs with all the RCEP economies, even before the RCEP was like, officially done. So lit!

For ASEAN members, the regionwide FTAAPX agreement would only bring in smol extra gains beyond the TPP. 

OMG, like, some ASEAN members, like Indonesia, the Philippines, and Thai- land, would totally gain more from the TPP than from the FTAAPX. Lit AF! This is because the FTAAPX would include China and India, and like, enable those countries to flex in the Americas on the same terms as ASEAN countries, like, eroding ASEAN’s preferences under the TPP. OMG, like, the simulations are lowkey surprising but, like, super important. They show that for ASEAN members, the RCEP would have to be hella ambitious to even stand a chance against the TPP.17 It would have to have way more lit provisions than your average ASEAN trade agreements, plus some sick innovations that generate mad utilization of agreements. A "biz as usual" FTA would add little to the agreements that already exist, tbh. Overall, the TPP is, like, hella lit for countries down to accept its challenging terms, and should have mad indirect effects that also The struggle for newbies is that the TPP template is probs gonna be way more intense and on point than the RCEP template, and will, like, lowkey represent the interests of advanced countries (Petri and Plummer 2012). It will probs include demanding stuff on services, intellectual property, and competition policy, and like, fewer exceptions for sensitive sectors. Even if other ASEAN countries can't join the current phase of negotiations, the agreement is probs gonna expect more countries to join later and give them a way to join. For countries down to commit to both agreements—and hopefully the terms will be lit for most—the strategy of dual membership is hella attractive.

ASEAN Centrality and the ASEAN-US Economic Relationship, y'all benefit ASEAN integration, fam. 

The regional debate often be like, totally dodging these issues, and instead, flexing on the perks of being flexible in making agreements. But like, the vibe of like, negotiating an agreement is usually like, low-key nega- correlated with the benefits that flow from it, fam. Flexibility may help negotiators make progress, but like, it's often at the cost of avoiding the hard decisions that lead to productive trade, ya know?The vibe of flexing a deal is usually lowkey inversely related to the lit gains that come with it and investment vibes. This trade-off is like totally recognized in China, where the Global Times recently noted that deep integration is like needed to advance reform (Liu 2013). The article was like, "The TPP has its challenges, but it's not about being 'surrounded,' it's about China needing to step up." The TPP and the RCEP are like totally talked about as alternatives, but that's not the tea. Yo, like, mad ASEAN economies are already in on those negotiations—Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore, and Vietnam—and there's legit no reason why other middle-income countries shouldn't join in too. (The immediate tea on participating in the TPP are less promising for the region’s least developed countries, but in time their involvement is also possible.)