Trade ministers from a dozen countries in the Americas and Asia Pacific are in Hawaii for talks that could see the landmark Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal agreed on or before Friday. The proposed treaty is one of the most important free trade agreements since the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994.

This is not just because the 12 markets – the United States, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam – encompass around 40 percent of world GDP. In addition, TPP has an important rules-setting component and Obama administration officials have asserted that the new treaty will enable Washington, rather than Beijing, to write the “rules of the road” for important 21st-century economic issues, including intellectual property in the digital economy.

The key development that has enabled potential breakthrough, after around five years of negotiations, in Hawaii this week was the passage in late June in the US Congress of so-called Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). Australia’s Trade Minister Andrew Robb went as far as to say that TPP negotiations could be concluded within a fortnight of passage of TPA, although that assessment was always likely to prove overoptimistic.

TPA is so important to the success of TPP and other pending US international trade agreements, such as the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the United States and the 28-member European Union, because it enables the White House to negotiate deals without significant Congressional interference after negotiations are complete. To be sure, the US House of Representatives and Senate must still approve or reject final agreements in straight “up or down” votes, but it cannot amend them.

Although some US free trade agreements have been passed without TPA, these included relatively small deals, such as a free trade agreement with Jordan. Given the complexity of TPP, renewal of TPA is widely seen as essential for a final agreement among the 12 countries as Washington’s partners in the venture do not want to see hard fought items potentially unraveled by the US federal legislature.

While a TPP deal now appears probable, there could yet be obstacles that delay, or just possibly derail, a deal. Examples include longstanding disputes between Tokyo and Washington over automotive parts and rice imports, and the Canadian government’s desire to secure significant protections for the country’s dairy farmers and wider agricultural products. Moreover, Ottawa is also aware that, some two decades after the agreement of NAFTA, TPP would potentially give the United States a chance to review that 1994 agreement, with Washington already pointing to a desire to push Canada on greater market access.

This underlines that TPP is a very controversial agreement with many domestic constituencies, including labor organizations in the United States itself, who are concerned about the impact upon wages and jobs for blue-collar workers in the country of the free trade deal. While the precise overall economic impact of the proposed deal is hard to forecast with precision, the Petersen Institute for International Economics has indicated that it will provide an approximately $300 billion boost to the dozen TPP countries (which might expand over time to include other countries, including China) by 2025.

However, far from being just a potential source of economic growth, TPP also is being promoted by the Obama administration to embed US influence internationally. For instance, the treaty will have a significant rule-setting component, perhaps more so than any other previous trade deal, in multiple areas including limiting subsidies to state-owned companies.

President Barack Obama made this explicit in May when he highlighted that “if we don’t write the [new] rules for free trade around the world, guess what, China will. And they’ll write those rules in a way that gives Chinese workers and Chinese businesses the upper hand.”

More broadly, there is also a significant geopolitical component too to TPP inasmuch as it will help reorient and lock in US international policy toward the Asia-Pacific region (the so-called “Asia pivot”) and other strategic high-growth markets. In this sense, passage of the treaty would be a multiple major win for Obama as he seeks to define his presidential legacy about a year and a half before his tenure in the White House formally comes to an end.

The White House recognizes that passage of TPP will serve the goal of reassuring Asia-Pacific allies about enduring US security and political, not just economic, commitments to them, and US Defense Secretary Ashton Carton has underscored this point by asserting that “passing TPP is as important to me as another aircraft carrier.” And, in turn, TPP will send a clear message to others, especially China, about US intent to continue to place greater strategic emphasis on the region, despite deep involvement in other regions of the world.

These are simple, but important messages at a time of significant geopolitical turbulence and tension – both in the region and beyond. This includes the once-in-a-generation transition of leadership in China in the last two and a half years, and the subsequent rise of a more assertive Beijing; plus the re-election last December of the conservative, nationalist Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

And supplementing potential passage of TPP is the military element of the US’s Asia-Pacific pivot. Here, the Pentagon is slowly but surely deploying additional forces and resources to the region at the same time it is protecting funding for programs seen as needed for operations there, even as overall US defense budgets are squeezed and overall personnel levels cut.

Taken overall, agreement on TPP could come as soon as this week after some five years of hard fought negotiations. The White House will press as hard as possible to see the agreement wrapped up before 2016 US presidential and congressional election-year pressures potentially make it harder to secure final agreement in Washington.

Andrew Hammond is an associate at LSE IDEAS (the Center for International Affairs, Diplomacy and Strategy) at the London School of Economics, and a former special adviser to the UK government.

The post Commentary: Trans-Pacific Partnership Breakthrough Could Come This Week appeared first on The Jakarta Globe.

In a remarkable turn of events, Greece reached a deal on Monday with Eurozone leaders on a new financial package, its third such bailout. The deal is extraordinary in several respects, not least because Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras has signed up to an agreement that is, in numerous ways, more stringent than that which both he, and the Greek populace at large in last week’s referendum, had previously roundly rejected.

The breakthrough, which follows the longest ever (17-hour) meeting of leaders of the euro zone, may now cap off a remarkable five months of brinksmanship between the Syriza-led Government, elected in late January, and its creditors – the European Commission, International Monetary Fund, and the European Central Bank. The stakes in play have been huge, with European Council President Donald Tusk asserting last week that the crisis has been “the most critical time in our history,” both for the 19-member euro zone and wider 28 EU states.

The agreement sees Athens get a new 62 billion euro ($68 billion), three-year bailout package in return for significant austerity measures that Greek critics assert amount to a new “Versailles Treaty.” And it has also committed to placing some 50 billion euros of Greek assets into a new fund that will contribute toward recapitalization of the country’s banks and repaying debts.

With a new deal now agreed, but yet to be ratified by European parliaments, the prospects of the country leaving the euro zone (Grexit) have receded, in the immediate term at least. Nonetheless, the pressure on the Syriza government remains immense, on the political and economic fronts, and the country is still facing into its most critical period since at least 1974 following the collapse of military rule and the restoration of democracy.

Politically, the Greek government faces a turbulent political period ahead having compromised to such a large extent with its creditors. Several previous “red lines,” including significant pension reform, have now been crossed that were previously declared sacrosanct by Syriza, and it now needs to get the full legislative package through the Greek parliament.

There have already been significant recent tensions within Syriza, the first radical left party to win power in the EU in years, which was elected on an anti-austerity mandate. The party comprises a broad spectrum of political activists which includes socialists and communists, anti-fascists, and anti-globalization campaigners, and this loose grouping only came together in 2012 as a single political entity, rather than an alliance of multiple different groups.

These intra-Syriza disagreements were highlighted in the Greek parliament on Friday. Although the Greek government won the support of 251 out of 300 MPs for the proposals it took to Brussels last weekend, two Syriza MPs voted no, eight abstained and seven were absent.

Amongst the Syriza MPs not supporting the government were Energy Minister Panagiotis Lafazanis and Deputy Labor Minister Dimitris Stratoulis, plus the speaker of parliament, Zoe Constantopoulou, all of whom abstained. This points to the strong possibility that Tsipras may reshuffle the cabinet and wider ministerial ranks.

More broadly, following Monday’s agreement, there is potential for defections from the Syriza MP ranks and even the possibility of a party split. This would be immensely dangerous for a party which already relies on a coalition partner (the conservative Independent Greeks) for a parliamentary majority, and could indeed presage the formation of a government of national unity.

Many in the Syriza ranks have been taken aback by the government’s volte face with creditors. What makes this even more explicable for some is that the change of heart came only days after Greece voted so decisively “No” by a 61 percent to 39 percent majority on the package of measures proposed by its creditors last month which, in numerous respects, is less stringent than the one agreed to on Monday.

So at a time when the need for political stability is paramount to promote economic recovery, government infighting may prevent this happening. Indeed, given the scale of the challenge now facing the country, it is possible that the government may collapse and/or ultimately be forced to call a second general election in 2015, following the one in January, unless a government of national unity is formed.

This continued political uncertainty is problematic given the growing signs of financial turmoil and the fact that the economy may well be in deep recession again. The imposition of capital controls last month, which may need to remain in place for weeks to come, is placing new pressures on the financial system and it is still not clear when banks (which have been closed since June 29) will reopen.

Moreover, Greece’s financial reputation in international markets has also been heavily checkered by its default on June 30 on the 1.6 billion euro deposit that was due to the IMF.  In so doing, it became the first developed country ever to fall into arrears to the IMF or any indeed any other Bretton Woods institution.

And the money due to the IMF at the end of June marks just one of many debt deadlines for Greece in coming months. The next big repayment is 3.5 billion euros on July 20 to the ECB and, while it now appears this will be honored, this cannot completely be taken for granted in light of the brinksmanship of recent weeks.

Having now agreed a deal with its creditors, the Greek government will need to double down in its efforts to restore economic confidence and recovery. It is unclear if it has a clear and credible plan, however, and this will now be a key task for new Finance Minister Euclid Tsakalotos, who was sworn into office only last week.

Taken overall, while Europe has avoided Grexit, in the immediate term at least, the Greek economy remains in intensive care. Unless business confidence and recovery can be fostered in coming months, the country faces a continued highly uncertain economic and political outlook, even if the government secures parliamentary approval this week for the new bailout package.

Andrew Hammond is an associate at LSE IDEAS (the Center for International Affairs, Diplomacy and Strategy) at the London School of Economics, and a former UK special adviser.

The post Grexit Avoided, for Now, Following Breakthrough Deal appeared first on The Jakarta Globe.