Asia-Pacific region (APR)

According to Art. XXIV GATT exceptions to the most favored nation principle in favor of integration associations are considered legal if they meet a number of conditions: the rates of customs duties on goods of third countries are frozen at the time of creation of the integration association; duties are reduced and other restrictions in mutual trade are eliminated. The maximum period for forming an association is 10 years. Each association must be notified to the GATT and can then be granted an exception to the MFN principle. Such exceptions were officially granted only twice: for the ECSC in 1952 and the US-Canada Automobile Pact in 1965.

For integration associations consisting of developing countries, there are special rules for notification and the legal regime of associations. One of the conditions for this is to hold consultations with partners from third countries. As of 2010, 12 integration associations were notified within the WTO, which were created by developing countries, including Latin American, Arab, Asian, etc.

Asia-Pacific region (APR)– the third most important center of economic integration in the world (after the EU in Europe and NAFTA in North America). Here the intercivilizational contradictions and differences in interests between developed and developing countries are most strong and noticeable. Accordingly, doctrinal approaches to integration, foreign policy and legal positions of the interested states differ. So, in the first half of the 20th century. Japan tried to implement the concept of the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Zone in the Asia-Pacific region. The goal was to cover Japanese expansion and provide Asian natural resources to the Japanese economy. In 1965, Japan came up with the idea of ​​creating a Pacific Free Trade Area (PAFTA) and an economic cooperation organization similar to the OECD. The United States is active in the region, trying to maintain its influence. Malaysia since the early 1990s came up and continues to come up with the concept of creating an East Asian integration association, which would consist only of Asian states.

There are three main centers of integration in the Asia-Pacific region: 1) ASEAN - Association of Southeast Asian Nations; 2) Australia - New Zealand and the Pacific Islands Forum; 3) APEC – Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Organization.

ASEAN

In the 1960s Several large interstate integration associations have formed and are developing in the region, consisting of states - former colonies of Great Britain, France, the USA, and the Netherlands. The largest of them – Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)– notified, legalized under the GATT/WTO.

ASEAN was created in 1967 based on the Bangkok Declaration. The headquarters is located in Jakarta (Indonesia). Today ASEAN includes: Singapore, Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, Cambodia. Within ASEAN, a free trade zone has already been created for the six most developed developing member countries (Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, Brunei), and a zone for free movement of investments is being formed. The Bangkok Declaration set the task of creating a customs union.

The highest body of ASEAN is the Conference of Heads of State and Government. In the period between conferences, the governing bodies are the annual sessions (meetings) of the ministers of foreign affairs and other sectoral ministers. Ongoing work is carried out by the ASEAN Standing Committee; it includes: the Secretary General of ASEAN, the Secretaries General of national secretariats, headed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the country, who is the current Chairman of ASEAN (meets several times a year). To coordinate the activities of ASEAN, a Secretariat with relevant services (bureaus, committees) has been created. Each state has its own secretariat to coordinate ongoing work and prepare ASEAN decisions.

At regular conferences (meetings) of economic ministers, issues of mutual trade and preferences, the creation of stabilization stocks of goods, the construction of regional industrial facilities, etc. are discussed.

In 1976, the ASEAN Leaders' Summit adopted the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia and the ASEAN Declaration (a framework agreement on a program of action). In 1977, the Agreement on Mutual Trade Preferences (ASEAN Preferential Trade Agreement) was signed, on the basis of which a preferential trade zone was formed. The preferential tariff according to the Treaty on Mutual Trade Preferences of 1977 applies to food, liquid fuel, certain types of raw materials and industrial goods - goods in which the share of foreign components does not exceed 50%.

In 1992, at the ASEAN summit, a decision was made to create a free trade area and an agreement was signed (ASEAN Free Trade Agreement) - AFTA; in 1994 – ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services (AFAS); in 1998 – Agreement on the formation of the ASEAN Investment Area.

The movement towards a free trade zone and a customs union is taking place on the basis of the Common Effective Preferential Tariff. In order to unify product nomenclatures, states switched to the Harmonized System of Description and Coding of Goods. In 1998, a framework agreement was signed on the mutual recognition of standards for the production of goods. The harmonization of domestic legislation has begun across a wide range of relations.

As part of the creation of a common investment zone, the regime for mutual investments is being liberalized, primarily in industry, agriculture, fishing and mining. National treatment is provided in combination with MFN for direct investments and investors; by 2020, it is planned to extend the national regime to investors from third countries (with certain exceptions). The institutional structure of the Investment Space has been created: the Council of Ministers of the participating countries, the Coordinating Committee for Investments.

By liberalizing the investment regime for foreign investments and investors, ASEAN states are “cleaning up” domestic legislation and eliminating the restrictions imposed on the foreign element. Thus, Indonesia allowed the creation of enterprises with 100% foreign capital in the field of wholesale and retail trade and in the banking system; Malaysia - in industry; Brunei - in the field of high technology and export-oriented industries. Vietnam has made amendments to the legislation, according to which not only large foreign investors (with a project value of $5 million or more) can obtain the necessary licenses, but also smaller investors. Malaysia has legally lifted the ban on the purchase of land plots by foreign enterprises (legal entities).

At the same time, in the domestic law of many ASEAN countries there are rules that limit the freedom of admission of foreign investments and investors and the legal regime for them, namely:

• – direct bans on the admission of foreign direct investment in certain industries and sectors of the economy (in Thailand - more than 60 industries);
• – establishing the percentage share of a foreign investor in the authorized capital of a national enterprise (up to 30–50%);
• – a ban on the purchase of land by a foreign investor;
• – various kinds of restrictions (often of a procedural nature) on receiving investment benefits.

ASEAN states enter into bilateral and multilateral agreements on tariff preferences, which do not cover all members of the Association. Since 1980, ASEAN and the EU have signed Cooperation Agreements providing for the mutual provision of MFN in the trade and economic sphere. In November 2002, the Minister of Economy of Taiwan approached the governments of ASEAN countries with a request to create a free trade zone. South Korea made a proposal to Singapore to sign a bilateral agreement on the creation of a free trade zone. The idea of ​​creating a free trade area between ASEAN and China, ASEAN and Japan has been put forward and is being discussed.

It can be seen that the Asia-Pacific countries are either striving to “switch” from the method of multilateral regulation of integration to bilateral, or to more effectively combine these two methods.

Introduction.

This paper examines the main features of the APR.

Based on information from educational literature, I examined the main countries of this region, the New Industrial Countries and the most important groupings of the Asia-Pacific region, and identified their problems.

The topic of the Asia-Pacific region seemed interesting to me in its content, but the countries of Southeast Asia were of particular interest in this region, since it was in this region that 4 Asian miracles of the “dragon” countries appeared to the world (Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea), and then the miracle of the “tiger” countries. These states were able to achieve enormous progress in the social and especially economic spheres in a relatively short period of time.

In the 1950s, the Asia-Pacific countries had only backward agriculture. By now, the Asia-Pacific countries have become one of the fastest growing countries in the world.

General characteristics of the Asia-Pacific region.

The Asia-Pacific region is an economic and political region that includes about 50 states: united and trade relations. These countries have access to the Pacific Ocean and use its waters for transport communications. Important industrial and trade centers within the Asia-Pacific region are developed industrial and agro-industrial countries. These are Russia, China, Japan, Canada, and the USA. The total population of the Asia-Pacific region reaches 3.5 billion. Human.

The high level of development of the leading Pacific countries is the main reason for the increasing role of this economic union in the world economy. The Asia-Pacific region occupies a leading position in international trade relations. It accounts for 40% of the volume of world trade and foreign economic transactions. Such a significant share of participation in international trade operations supports the intensity of industrial production in the Asia-Pacific countries, accounting for 60% of the world industry.

General characteristics of developed industrial and agro-industrial countries of the Asia-Pacific region.

Since important industrial centers in the Asia-Pacific region are countries such as Russia, the USA, Japan, China and Canada, I present brief information about some countries.

Japan is an island state with a total area of ​​372 thousand km2, located off the eastern coast of Eurasia. The EGP is characterized by its position at the crossroads of the sea routes of the Asia-Pacific region, its proximity to the largest countries of the world. This opens up great opportunities for participation in the international geographical division of labor.

The country's population is more than 125 million people, it is among the top ten largest countries by population. In recent decades, the first type of population reproduction has been established in the country and the natural increase is 3 people per 1000 per year. The national composition of the population is homogeneous: 99% of the population are Japanese. The average population density is one of the highest in the world, 330 people/1 km2.

The urbanization rate is 77%, one of the highest in the world. The largest cities are Tokyo, Osaka and Nagoya. The agglomerations formed around them together form the largest megalopolis of Tokaido with an average population density of 8,001,000 people/km2.

Japan is the second country in the world in terms of economic development. Mineral Natural resources for industrial development are practically absent. The country has generally favorable natural conditions and resources for the development of agriculture, is well supplied with water resources, and has favorable conditions for the development of maritime transport and fishing.

The main industries are modern mechanical engineering, energy, metallurgy, chemical industry. The leading branch of international specialization is mechanical engineering, especially electronics, robotics, and automotive manufacturing. It accounts for more than 50% of the country's total exports.

Agriculture provides the bulk of the country's food needs. Its main branch is crop production, and its main crop is rice. Recently, the main branches of livestock farming have also received great development. An important branch of the economy is fishing. Japan ranks 1st in the world in terms of fish catch.

The country is in 2nd place in the country in terms of foreign trade volume and is one of the largest exporters of capital.

The USA is the largest country located in North America. Territory 9.4 million km2 (4th place in the world). Territory composition: main territory, Alaska, Hawaiian Islands in the Pacific Ocean. EGP advantageous due to the presence of a wide front of sea boundaries, the position between two oceans. The natural and economic “transparency” of land borders with Canada and Mexico contributes to the development of trade and economic ties.

USA federal republic, capital Washington.

Population. It ranks 3rd in the world after China and India. The second type of reproduction is characteristic. Immigration has had and continues to have a great influence on the formation of the American nation. The population is distributed unevenly: the density in the coastal and lake states is 350,400 people/km2, in the mountainous states it is 23 people/km2. Currently, internal migration from the states of the North to the states of the South is typical. Main metropolitan areas: North-Eastern (Boston Washington), Lakeside (Chicago-Pittsburgh), Californian (San Francisco-Los Angeles). The rural population lives on forms and in compact settlements.

Farming. The United States is a leader in many old, new, and especially cutting-edge industries (aircraft, aerospace, electronic computing). All sectors and sub-sectors are represented in industry. In MGRT, the automotive, electronics, and aerospace industries are especially prominent, and the oil industry is of great importance. Agriculture is diversified. The transition to agribusiness has been completed. The main type of agricultural enterprises are highly specialized farms. The United States provides 50% of world grain exports; the United States ranks first in the world in the development of all types of transport. The sphere of intangible production and services has received great development (2/3 of all employees), which indicates that the country has entered the stage of post-industrial development.

The territorial structure of the economy is characterized by the concentration of economic life in the ocean and lake areas. Regional policy is aimed at mitigating territorial imbalances.

The dependence of the US economy on foreign trade is less than that of foreign Europe, but it is increasing. Most of the trade occurs with Canada and Japan, Western European countries, and 1 3 developing countries.

China is a great ancient state that arose long before the new era. It has made a huge contribution to the material and spiritual culture of mankind.

EGP. The People's Republic of China is the third largest country in the world, stretching in the central and eastern parts of Asia from east to west for 5.7 thousand km, and from north to south for 3.7 thousand km. The country's coastal location is extremely advantageous. Almost ice-free seas open wide access to the Pacific Ocean and enormous opportunities for the development of foreign economic relations.

China's natural resources are large and varied. In the north of the country there are huge tracts of Far Eastern forests, in the south the space is occupied by tropical forests. The country occupies one of the first places in the world in reserves of coal, iron and manganese ores, bauxite and zinc, tin, tungsten, molybdenum and other types of mineral raw materials. Huge water resources store large reserves of hydropower.

China is the most populous country in the world. According to the 1990 census, China's population was 1 billion 134 million people. Although China is pursuing an active demographic policy to reduce the rate of population growth, by 2000 it will amount to 1.3 billion people. On the one hand, such a large population predetermines huge labor resources (about 700 million people); on the other hand, it aggravates housing and food problems. The PRC is a multinational country, although more than 90% of its residents are Chinese. Most of the national minorities live in the interior of the country. China is characterized by large contrasts in settlement: almost 90% of the inhabitants are concentrated on 1/3 of the country's territory in the east. China is a poorly urbanized country; only every third resident of the country is a city dweller. At the same time, no other country in the world has such a number of “millionaire” cities (about 40).

Over the past decades, China, whose economy is based on public ownership, has become a large industrial state with the highest rates of development. The basis of China's fuel and energy complex is the coal industry. Oil and gas production is growing. Electricity production is based on thermal power plants (3/4 of electricity). China is implementing a hydropower development program: the main cascades of hydroelectric power stations are being built in the upper reaches of the Yangtze and Yellow River.

The machine-building complex is dominated not by specialized, but by universal enterprises. The main centers of mechanical engineering are Shanghai, Harbin, Beijing, Luoyang, etc.

The chemical complex is based on coke and petrochemical products, mining chemicals and plant raw materials. There are two groups of production: 1) mineral fertilizers; 2) household chemicals and pharmaceuticals.

The capital of the textile industry is Shanghai

China's agriculture industry employs 400 million people. In crop production, grains predominate, accounting for 80% of all crops. Rice remains the main cultivated crop.

Cotton predominates among industrial crops. In the north-west of China, intensive nomadic or semi-nomadic pastoralism predominates. They raise draft animals: horses, bulls, oxen.

Approximately half of the freight and passenger turnover is accounted for by rail transport. However, the share of road, sea and pipeline transport is growing.

Newly industrialized countries Asian

The entire globe is divided into several large economic and political zones, one of the most influential and largest of which is the Asia-Pacific region. The decoding of the abbreviation - Asia-Pacific region - indicates that this association includes states located along the perimeter and in the waters of the Pacific Ocean. Let's talk about how this zone differs and what countries are part of it.

Geographical location and composition of the Asia-Pacific region

One of the largest geographical associations on the planet is the Asia-Pacific Region (APR), it covers the entire Pacific coast, as well as a large number of Asian countries. Geographically, the region is divided into the American and Asian arcs, as well as Australia and Oceania. The Asia-Pacific region accounts for about 18.5% of all forests on Earth. The region covers several climatic zones and differs greatly in relief and mineral reserves. The Asia-Pacific region traditionally includes 46 countries; three more states (Myanmar, Nepal and Mongolia) are often included in this zone and periodically include India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh in the Asia-Pacific list. Since there is no single, approved list, the number of participants varies in different interpretations.

History of the APR countries (Asia-Pacific region)

The Asia-Pacific region is a part of the earth that has been inhabited for a long time, but the colonization of these territories began quite recently. Therefore, the developed countries of Europe treat this region as young and developing countries, as a kind of periphery of civilization. However, at the end of the 20th century, the balance of power on the world stage changed greatly. The Pacific Ocean was discovered in the 16th century, and the countries of the region became known to Europeans over the next 2 centuries. The discoverers of these lands were Portuguese and Spanish sailors. In the second half of the 16th century, the British paid attention to this zone and Russian pioneers began to develop the northern territories in the mid-17th century. Since the 18th century, all the major powers in the world began to fight for influence in this region, the British became the leaders, followed by the French and Russians. The British and French colonies greatly contributed to the development of the countries of the Pacific region. From the beginning of the 19th century, the United States began to strongly influence the fate of this geographical area. In the mid-19th century in Europe, there was a theory about the decline of civilization, and it was with the Asia-Pacific region that many thinkers pinned hopes for building a new world; this contributed to a significant increase in migrants to the countries of the region from European countries. Large colonies are created in Chile, Japan, the Philippines and other countries. The time of empires is gradually passing, but large European states are making a lot of efforts to maintain their influence on the states of the region. In the mid-19th century, new countries emerged in the region, created in the wake of liberation from colonization, as well as as a result of economic and social development. In the 20th century, the Asia-Pacific region becomes an important part

Composition dynamics

In the mid-20th century, countries belonging to the Asia-Pacific region became a powerful economic and political force in the world. The initial composition was formed in the 30s of the 20th century, when, as a result of the global financial crisis, the issue of geographical unifications in order to increase the stability and competitiveness of individual states became acute. Japan's aggressive policy became a catalyst that led to the fact that after World War II the first outlines of the zone began to take shape. Two global powers - the USA and the USSR - tried to recruit allies in the region. Japan, Taiwan, New Zealand, Australia and some other states side with America, while China, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos go over to the side of the Soviet Union. There is a constant redistribution of forces in the region, new states are created, regimes fall and rise. By the second half of the 20th century, the approximate outlines of the zone were taking shape. It distinguishes the coasts of the two Americas and Australia, the countries of Asia, not only coastal, but also those located inland, as well as countries located on islands in the Pacific Ocean. Today, 52 countries consider themselves firmly in the Asia-Pacific region; in addition, there are states that are considered to be part of this zone only by some researchers and activists. However, this is an ever-expanding zone, and it is impossible to answer the question of which countries are included in the Asia-Pacific region. This is also due to the fact that there is no formal agreement between the partner countries.

Leaders of the Asia-Pacific region

Some economists and political scientists call the 21st century the era of the Pacific Rim. This opinion is due to the fact that the Asia-Pacific region is the most actively developing. It is in the countries of this zone that the most dynamic economic growth is observed. The undoubted leaders of the region are the USA, Japan and China. Countries such as India and Hong Kong are rapidly approaching them in certain indicators. Smaller countries, of course, cannot compare with the leaders in terms of the volume of their trade operations, but at the same time, many of them show good development results within their scale. Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore are making significant progress.

The role of the region in international politics

Today, not a single state in the world can ignore the existence of the Asia-Pacific countries. Deciphering this concept includes not only geographical aspects, but also political and economic characteristics. The entry into this zone of such political giants as the United States, China and Russia and their struggle to increase their importance in the region is the most important phenomenon in the international sphere. But the role of the Asia-Pacific region is not only in the distribution of spheres of influence between the largest states. It lies in the fact that countries are rapidly growing and developing here, claiming a new place in international politics. States such as India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, and the DPRK are increasingly declaring their role in the global world. There is constant work in the region to regroup forces, alliances are being concluded here and associations are emerging, the tasks of which are to break through to the first positions in the world. Today it is impossible to imagine global politics without taking into account the interests of the ASEAN, SCO or APEC countries. These organizations set the tone not only in the region, but throughout the world; they promote the development of small and poor states, care about the security of the region for world politics and are primarily focused on economic cooperation.

Economy of the Asia-Pacific region

In the 21st century, the economies of the Asia-Pacific countries show the best results, despite several financial crises, growth and development continue here. In most countries in the region, since the beginning of the 21st century, GDP values ​​have increased, market predictability has increased, and indicators have improved in terms of investment levels and the stability of financial systems. Of course, the region has difficulties, but overall its development looks better than in other parts of the world. This zone is home to more than half the world's population and is experiencing significant annual growth, unlike other parts of the Earth. True, while many countries cannot be proud of a high standard of living, for example, in Bangladesh people still subsist on $1 a day. But the quality of life is gradually improving. A special feature of the Asia-Pacific region is that all its participants are aimed at developing internal and external trade and economic relations; this is a priority for these states. Manufacturing and service industries are growing rapidly in almost all countries, creating large numbers of jobs and attracting investment to the region. Also, the Asia-Pacific countries continue to play an important role in global agriculture and are the owners of a large amount of useful resources.

Relations with Russia

For Russia, the Asia-Pacific region is the most important region, for a role in which it has been fighting for many years. It is worth noting that at the end of the 20th century the country greatly lost its importance for this zone and today is trying to catch up. Russia is an active participant and source of many initiatives in organizations such as the SCO, APEC, EurAsEC, and the CIS. But she constantly has to experience pressure from countries such as China, Japan and the United States, which do not want to give up the role of leader of the Russian Federation. Therefore, cooperation with Asia-Pacific countries for Russia is one of the most important strategic tasks for the coming decades.

Main problems of the Asia-Pacific region

Of course, the Asia-Pacific region is a living and dynamically developing zone and it cannot but have problems. The main difficulty faced by countries in the region that are actively developing their economies is the environment. In the Asia-Pacific region, the number of forests is rapidly decreasing, water is being polluted, and soils are being depleted. And so far these problems have not found a real solution. This state of affairs poses a threat to the entire planet, since there are no separate zones in the ecological system. Another noticeable problem in the Asia-Pacific region is social development. In many countries, the population is growing rapidly, people are trying to move to live in cities that are not ready for such migration. The people of developing countries want to approach the quality of life of developed countries, but there is no opportunity for this. All this is fraught with social conflicts.

Development prospects

Despite the existing difficulties, no one can deny the enormous prospects of the Asia-Pacific countries. The deciphering of this already economic concept is receiving new interpretations today. A redistribution of forces is taking place and significant events can be expected from the region. The prospects for the development of this zone are associated with the growing role of China and India, which are increasingly entering into new interstate alliances and laying claim to the role of leader in the region.

Especially for the Perspectives portal

Petr Yakovlev

Yakovlev Petr Pavlovich – head of the Center for Iberian Studies at the Institute of Latin America (ILA) RAS, professor at the Russian Economic University named after G.V. Plekhanov, Doctor of Economics.

The development of the world economy and trade increasingly depends on the state of affairs in the Asia-Pacific region, where economic changes on a planetary scale have been taking place in recent years. Major changes await this region of the world due to the coming to power of the Donald Trump administration in the United States, whose policies are significantly transforming Washington’s foreign economic policy.

The process of globalization, which for decades determined the main vector of development of the world economy and trade, began to stall. For the first time, signs of inhibition made themselves felt during the crisis of 2008 - 2009, when dozens of states resorted to protectionist measures to protect their producers from external competition. The practice of protectionism came into conflict with the policy of multilateral liberalization of trade relations, pursued since the mid-20th century.

The fact that further liberalization of international trade (primarily in the interests of the main players of the global economy - transnational corporations) has stalled was perceived in Washington as a failure of the policy of “global multilateralism”. The United States decided to make “regional multilateralism” an alternative to it - the formation of integration associations capable of practically implementing liberal norms and rules of cross-border trade in individual regions. In this way, it was planned to give additional impetus to the fading globalization, to give life to the “new globalism”.

During the presidency of Barack Obama, the focus of US foreign economic policy was the formation of a new generation of trade and economic mega-blocks in the Atlantic and Pacific regions. In the first case, we were talking about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the states of the European Union, in the second - about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with a group of countries in the Asia-Pacific region (APR). According to Washington, these giant associations were supposed to become a kind of “gravitational center” of the global economy and strengthen the position of American corporations in the system of future world economic relations. However, the arrival of the Donald Trump administration in the White House made significant adjustments to Washington’s international trade and economic policy. In particular, the US strategy in the Asia-Pacific space, which is key for the fate of the global economy, was marked by a sharp turn. It was in relation to the Asia-Pacific countries that D. Trump made the first radical decisions that had far-reaching consequences for the whole world.

Asia-Pacific countries in the global economy and trade

Global financial, economic and reproductive crisis of 2008 - 2009. gave additional dynamics to the economic processes developing in the Asia-Pacific economic space, accelerated its transformation into the largest center of the world economy and trade. This is not surprising, since this area of ​​the planet is adjacent to over 50 states and territories, including major economic powers: India, China, USA, Japan, Canada, Russia, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Indonesia, Mexico, Australia, Vietnam, Thailand etc. It is the Asia-Pacific region that confidently leads in terms of GDP growth and foreign trade turnover, is intensively increasing industrial production, demonstrating outstanding achievements in the effective commercial use of the results of scientific and technological progress, and is actively introducing innovations. The generally recognized economic successes of many Asia-Pacific countries are based on their competitive advantages, ensured by a high level of savings, relatively low (in most cases) labor costs, a course towards accelerated industrialization, and a clearly expressed export orientation of national economies.

According to the World Bank for 2015, among the 30 largest world economies (top 30) were 11 leading Asia-Pacific countries (APAC-11), which accounted for about 59% of world GDP (Table 1).

Table 1

Top 30 countries by GDP size in 2015 (current prices, billion dollars)

				Switzerland
	Japan			Saudi Arabia
	Germany			Argentina
	Great Britain
	India
	Brazil
	Canada			Thailand
	South Korea			Norway
	Australia
	Russia
			World GDP
	Mexico		GDP of top 30 countries
	Indonesia		Share of APR-11 in global GDP
	Netherlands		Share of Asia-Pacific-11 in GDP of the top 30

Source: (APAC countries are in italics).

Of course, the very different Asia-Pacific states have their leaders and outsiders. To a decisive extent, the Asia-Pacific region owes its geo-economic rise to China, which has become the second economy in the world and the world's largest exporter of goods, primarily industrial goods.

In 1980 - 2015, over three and a half decades, China's GDP in current prices grew from 191 billion to 11 trillion dollars (almost 58 times!), which is an unprecedented phenomenon in world economic history that changed the balance of forces in the world economic system. connections (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. China's GDP dynamics (billions of dollars)

Source:

But if in terms of GDP volume, calculated at the official exchange rate of national currencies, China is still inferior to the United States (although it is “treading on their heels”), then in terms of the size of commodity exports, the Celestial Empire has had no equal for a number of years and confidently ranks first in the global table of ranks, far ahead of all other exporting states, including the traditional “champions” of international trade: the USA, Germany and Japan. China's share in world merchandise exports increased from 1.2% in 1983 to 14% in 2015 (Fig. 2). There has never been such an export spurt.

Figure 2. China's share in world merchandise exports (%)

Source: .

As for other Asia-Pacific countries, they represent a significant diversity of national economic systems and natural resources. Including: high technologies of Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan and the west coast of the USA, industrial hubs of Mexico, Vietnam and Malaysia, energy raw materials of Russia, Canada and Indonesia, minerals of Australia, Peru, Chile and the Philippines, food of New Zealand, Colombia , Thailand, Ecuador and Central American countries, the inexhaustible human resources of India, etc. This kind of “unity in diversity” is a significant factor in further strengthening the competitive position of the Asia-Pacific region in the world economy and international trade.

In 2015, more than half of the list of top 30 leading exporting countries (ITC) was made up of Asia-Pacific countries (APR-16), and they accounted for over 60% of the total export volume of these countries and almost 51% of the global figure ( Table 2).

table 2

Top 30 exporting countries in 2015 (goods, billion dollars)

	China
				India
	Germany
	Japan			Thailand
	Netherlands			Saudi Arabia
	South Korea			Malaysia
	Hong Kong
				Brazil
	Great Britain			Australia
				Vietnam
	Canada			Czech Republic
	Mexico			Indonesia
	Singapore		World export
	Russia		Exports from top 30 countries
	Switzerland		Share of APR-16 in world exports
	Taiwan		Share of APR-16 in top 30 exports

Source: . (APAC countries are in italics).

Despite the impressive progress in economic development and increasing foreign trade turnover, the “blank slate phenomenon” remains an important geo-economic and geopolitical characteristic of this vast region. In other words, in the Asia-Pacific region (largely due to its gigantic scale), a network of sustainable strategic interests and strong mutual obligations of the leading world powers has not yet been created; there are no trade and economic associations of an integration type with the participation of, if not all, then at least , the main regional players. In fact, multilateral mechanisms of interaction are just being formed here, without which it is impossible to effectively use the entire total potential of the region. The experience of other regions of the world (primarily Europe) and life itself suggest that trade and economic cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region should be carried out along two tracks: international (bilateral contacts between countries) and supranational (multilateral), which plays a special role in the development and promotion of regional projects, development of unification processes.

The urgent need to create integration blocs has long been recognized by the political establishment and business communities of Asia-Pacific states. It cannot be said that nothing has been done in this direction to date. On the contrary, the countries of the Pacific Rim have made a considerable number of attempts at economic unification, the formation of integration groups and the creation of regional development banks. Here are the most famous of them:

APEC - Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (established in 1989 in Canberra, Australia, headquartered in Singapore, has 21 members);

ASEAN – Association of Southeast Asian Nations (established in 1967 in Bangkok, Thailand, the secretariat is located in Jakarta, Indonesia, unites 10 member countries);

Pacific Alliance - formed in 2012 by four Latin American countries: Mexico, Colombia, Peru and Chile. There are 49 observer states;

ADB – Asian Development Bank (founded in 1966, headquartered in Manila, Philippines. Includes 48 regional and 19 non-regional members);

AIIB – Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (formed in 2014 in Beijing, where representatives of 21 countries signed a Memorandum of Understanding. Subsequently, the number of member states increased to 57, headquartered in Beijing).

However, the level of integration in the Asia-Pacific region is clearly insufficient. The task of forming mega-regional associations of a new generation (“in-depth type”) is urgent. The Obama administration set out to solve it, lobbying for the creation of the TPP because it considered the consolidation and expansion of its positions in the Pacific region vital for the trade, economic and strategic interests of the United States.

The importance of business ties with Asia-Pacific countries for the American business community is convincingly illustrated by data on Washington's trade with APEC members. In recent years, their share has accounted for 64–66% of the total trade turnover of the United States (Table 3). In other words, we are talking about a region where the colossal interests of American TNCs are concentrated.

Table 3

US trade with APEC members (goods, billion dollars)

Index
US trade turnover as a whole
Export in general
Import in general
Trade turnover with APEC
Export to APEC markets
Import from APEC countries
Trade balance with APEC
APEC share in US trade turnover (%)
APEC share in exports (%)
APEC share in imports (%)

Source:.

It was the Asia-Pacific region that Washington considered as the main geographic direction of trade and economic expansion. As the most effective strategy tool in this area of ​​the world, the Obama administration chose the formation of the TPP - an integration mega-bloc, the creation of which was proposed by New Zealand, Singapore and Chile back in 2003. After lengthy negotiations, 12 Asia-Pacific countries, led by the United States, but without the participation of China, managed to overcome countless differences and reach an agreement signed on February 4, 2016 in Auckland, New Zealand. The practical implementation of the agreement reached was supposed to open the way to the formation of a new type of interregional trade and economic association. The main feature of the TPP is the unprecedented expansion of business opportunities for transnational capital and the adoption of rules that protect the interests of TNCs in relations with sovereign states.

In trade with the vast majority of Asia-Pacific countries, the United States consistently experienced a significant deficit (in trade turnover with APEC in 2013 - 2016, it totaled over $2,382 billion). Trade with China was especially unfavorable for Washington: from 2010 to 2016. with a total trade turnover of $3,175 billion, the negative balance for the United States exceeded $2,390 billion, or more than 60% (Table 4). It was the colossal imbalance in US-China trade that served as one of the strongest arguments for D. Trump in advocating a policy of protectionism.

Table 4

US trade with China (goods, billion dollars)

Source: .

According to the current American president, the implementation of the TPP project could, on the one hand, lead to an accelerated growth in the export of industrial products of Asian and Latin American companies to the US market, and on the other, further stimulate American TNCs to export capital to those developing countries that provide foreign companies have the most favorable conditions for doing business (cheap raw materials, low labor costs, weak social protection of employees, flexible tax legislation, etc.). All this gave D. Trump a reason to categorically oppose the participation of the United States in the trans-Pacific partnership.

Results of the APEC summit in Lima

In the face of growing concern about the fate of the TPP, the regular XXIV APEC summit was held in the capital of Peru, Lima, in the second half of November 2016, which was attended by top officials of key states that are part of this largest interregional association: Australia, Canada, China, Mexico , USA, Russia, Japan, etc. The summit in Lima was held under the motto “Quality growth and development of human capital,” but in practice, the center of discussions were issues related to the crisis of the globalization process and the increasing instability of the existing system of world economic relations. Considerable attention was paid to finding new sources of economic growth, ensuring its inclusive nature, as well as the prospects for integration in the Asia-Pacific space.

The final declaration of the Lima Forum noted that the world economy is facing serious problems and challenges, and the situation in many countries is characterized by uneven economic growth, increasing social inequality, and environmental degradation. In this regard, it was concluded that globalization and the socio-economic processes associated with it are increasingly “called into question”, and “increasing uncertainty deprives confidence in the near future.” At the same time, the document warned against being carried away by criticizing globalization instead of correcting and improving it, and against total protectionism and economic isolationism.

In Lima, APEC participants agreed to maintain open national markets and “fight all forms of protectionism.” It was specifically emphasized that resorting to protectionist practices “weakens international trade” and “slows down progress in economic recovery.” Moreover, since the fate of the TPP in connection with the victory of Donald Trump was becoming unclear, the Lima Declaration included a clause on APEC members’ support for Beijing’s proposal to create a Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership or, as it appears in APEC documents, a Free Trade Area in the Asia-Pacific region (ZSTAT). Let us recall that the decision to begin work on the formation of the FTA was lobbied by the Chinese leadership at the XXII APEC summit in November 2014 in Beijing, where the development of a “road map” for a new regional integration association began.

Already at the very beginning, the FTA project was perceived in political and expert circles as a “Chinese response” to Washington’s plans to create the TPP. It is no coincidence that the US was not supposed to be included in the FTATA, and within the TPP there was no place for China (as well as for Russia). Beijing was closer to the formation of a FTA through the gradual expansion of the free trade zone that had already existed since 2010 between the PRC and the ASEAN countries.

Thus, in the mid-2010s, in the vast expanse of the Asia-Pacific region, competition arose between two geo-economic and geopolitical concepts for the further evolution of integration processes in this region of the world. The signing of the TPP agreement meant the transfer of the strategic initiative to the United States, but D. Trump’s victory mixed up all the cards and provided the Chinese leadership with the opportunity to push with renewed energy the idea of ​​​​expanding the ASEAN-PRC zone towards its transformation into a FTA. It is no coincidence that Chinese President Xi Jinping, speaking in Lima, emphasized that in the face of the protectionist plans of the new owner of the White House, China will pursue a policy of greater trade and economic openness and “participate in globalization” even more actively.

According to international observers, the Chinese leader has become the main character at the APEC summit. On the sidelines and on the sidelines of the forum, politicians and experts widely discussed options for moving forward in the development of integration processes in the Asia-Pacific region without the participation of the United States. A number of state leaders officially confirmed their commitment to the principles of regional economic cooperation and demonstrated interest in expanding free trade zones and forming mega-blocks. “If the United States does not want to participate in the TPP, we will seek to sign an agreement without them, but with China and Russia,” said the host of the forum, President of Peru Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, without mincing words.

The problem of integration megablocks and new free trade zones is closely related to the task of creating a transparent system of international movement of goods and services based on the rules and regulations of the WTO and special multilateral agreements. Russia, together with China, is in favor of such a system, which was confirmed during the discussions in Lima. But Moscow and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) are not yet ready for negotiations on participation in the future FTA. To do this, it is necessary to first solve a number of internal problems of the EAEU and give it greater international weight in order to more effectively defend its interests during the negotiation process.

The results of the APEC Lima summit recorded the beginning of a cooling in US international economic relations after D. Trump’s victory in the presidential election. Almost immediately after the inauguration, the new owner of the White House moved from words to deeds and withdrew the US signature on the TPP founding document.

China in the Year of the Fire Rooster

Washington’s withdrawal from the trans-Pacific mega-block project caused disappointment in most Asia-Pacific countries, which oppose the policy of protectionism and consider it necessary to achieve breakthrough agreements in the integration field and create a strong institutional framework for Asia-Pacific economic cooperation. In the new conditions, the prerequisites for significant geopolitical changes have emerged: China has a good chance of ousting the United States and taking the place of a leader in the Asia-Pacific region, and Russia has a chance to find its rightful place in future regional structures.

Of course, Washington (whoever the American president is) is not going to cede to Beijing without a fight its role as the locomotive of Asia-Pacific integration and, therefore, the main player in the global economy and world trade. But if previously the main tool in the US arsenal was playing ahead - the priority formation of interregional mega-blocks in the interests of American TNCs - now Washington’s strategic course in the bicontinental space of the Asia-Pacific region appears in a modified geopolitical form. The United States will not so much initiate the creation of new mega-blocks as slow down the development of integration processes, compress the zones of multilateral trade and financial cooperation in this area of ​​the world, build relations with partners on a bilateral basis, achieving the most favorable conditions for itself.

The spearhead of this course is directed against China. Repeatedly accusing Beijing of “currency manipulation” and other sins, D. Trump made it clear during the election campaign that with his international financial and economic policy he intends to create problems for the development of the Celestial Empire, limit its global foreign trade expansion and stop the skating rink of Chinese economic growth. In particular, Washington may continue its attack on the Chinese currency, the yuan, so that its weakening will prompt foreign investors to massively export capital from China. In fact, this is already happening. In August 2015, the People's Bank of China (the country's central bank) was forced to weaken the yuan against the dollar by 3%, which shocked global stock markets. In 2016, the yuan fell in price by another 7%. As a result, according to available estimates, in 2015 - 2016. About $1.6 trillion “fled” from China. The Chinese authorities tried to stop this process by tightening foreign exchange controls, but as facts showed, the more restrictions there were, the more actively investors sought to withdraw their assets. At the same time, there was a reduction in China's foreign exchange reserves (in November 2016 - by almost $70 billion), and Beijing's attempts to limit the outflow of capital aroused criticism from many Western companies that had problems transferring dividends from China to their head offices abroad. As the EU Chamber of Commerce in China noted, such restrictive actions of the Chinese authorities “create obstacles to business operations” [China's...].

Beijing’s response to the accusations from D. Trump did not take long to arrive and was quite predictable. At the World Economic Forum in Davos in mid-January 2017, Xi Jinping (he became the first top Chinese leader to attend this landmark annual event) not only confirmed the Chinese position voiced at the APEC summit in Lima, but also issued a warning about the possible devastating consequences policies of unleashing trade and currency wars. At the same time, the Chinese leader rejected D. Trump’s claims about “manipulation” of the yuan exchange rate. Xi Jinping's assessment of the globalization process and its effects has attracted increased interest in the world media. “Many of the problems facing the global economy are not caused by globalization,” the Chinese President emphasized and explained that the main reason for the crisis is the lack of adequate international financial and economic regulation, as well as the desire of banks and industrial companies to make profits “at any cost.” ".

At the end of January 2017, an article by Chinese Prime Minister Li Keqiang appeared in the authoritative business magazine Bloomberg Businessweek, the leitmotif of which was that “economic globalization has made possible the creation and distribution of unprecedented wealth,” and existing problems can and must be solved joint efforts of all countries. “In a world full of uncertainties,” the prime minister emphasized, “China is a symbol of stability and growth through its constant commitment to reform, economic openness and free trade principles.” Thus, the idea of ​​a new international mission of the PRC - to become an “anchor of stabilization” of the global economy - was thrown into the world information space by Chinese leaders.

Washington’s break with the TPP project and Beijing’s firm position in favor of preserving the process of globalization and continuing integration efforts in the Asia-Pacific region caused a flurry of comments around the world, the common denominator of which was the thesis that, due to the position of the White House in the trans-Pacific trade and economic space, drastic changes are inevitable transformation. It seems that in 2017 - the year of the Fire Rooster according to the eastern calendar - China made a bid for a leading role in a key region of the world.

TPP is dead, long live post-TPP!

The new geo-economic situation has forced the Asia-Pacific countries to pay close attention to China's leadership capabilities. In particular, Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull admitted the possibility that China would take the US place in the TPP. On the other hand, the leadership of Japan (the country that was the first to ratify the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement) believes that the withdrawal of the United States from the project “makes senseless” its implementation, and the invitation of the PRC to join the TPP is fraught with “strategic risks.”

For the government of Shinzo Abe, D. Trump's decision to withdraw from the TPP project, designed to become one of the pillars of the new liberal international economic order, was a particularly painful blow. The fact is that for industrial corporations in Japan it is the American market that is a priority due to its volume and significant surplus in commodity exchange. Suffice it to say that in 2010 - 2016. the total negative balance of the United States in trade with Japan exceeded $500 billion (Table 5). Relatively free access to the American market was the main prize that export-oriented Japanese companies hoped to receive after the TPP agreement came into force.

Table 5

US trade with Japan (goods, billion dollars)

Source: .

The US withdrawal from the TPP process most likely means that in the foreseeable future the Washington administration is not going to reconsider its negative position regarding multilateral efforts to coordinate national trade and investment regimes. In other words, the final closure of the trans-Pacific project will give rise to new negotiations, but on a bilateral basis. Under these conditions, the countries that signed the TPP agreement will have to make additional efforts to maintain the balance achieved in the multilateral format between the benefits received and forced concessions at the intercountry level. Apparently, Japan has already taken this path, as evidenced by S. Abe’s visit to Washington in the first half of February 2017. Following the results of the US-Japanese negotiations, it was emphasized that in the field of trade and economic relations, both countries will strive for “mutual benefit "(a common euphemism that hides the firm intention of the owner of the White House to achieve a more balanced exchange of goods with both the Land of the Rising Sun and other Asia-Pacific countries).

It seems clear that for a number of large industrialized Pacific countries interested in promoting their goods in the American market, the stakes in bilateral negotiations are extremely high and the difficulties are extremely great. There is no doubt that the United States will take a tough position, putting pressure on its partners and negotiating the most favorable terms for itself.

And one more circumstance of a strategic nature, in light of US efforts to contain China and reduce the potential for its geo-economic rise. The possible relative economic weakening of China (regardless of whether it occurs under the influence of the policies of the Trump administration or as a result of a critical accumulation of internal imbalances) will not mean a frontal retreat of the Asia-Pacific region. This region already has such significant potential for economic, demographic and civilizational development that it is capable of promoting new growth leaders. They could be India, Vietnam, Indonesia, Latin American members of the Pacific Alliance, and other countries with significant demographic, natural and industrial resources. States that have already achieved a high level of socio-economic and technical and technological development (Canada, Australia, South Korea, etc.) are not going to give up their positions either. If the United States wants to maintain its role as a leading global power, it will need an effective strategy for its presence in the Asia-Pacific region, which will inevitably exacerbate geoeconomic and geopolitical rivalry in the Asia-Pacific space.

In March 2017, the government of Chile, a country pursuing an open liberal trade and economic policy and consistently advocating for the creation of the largest possible free trade area in the Asia-Pacific region, came up with an important and timely diplomatic initiative. Chilean authorities invited the ministers of foreign affairs and trade of the signatories to the TPP agreement (excluding the United States), as well as China, South Korea and Colombia, which are currently expressing interest in participating in Pacific integration. Thus, on the ruins of the trans-Pacific partnership project, buried by the Trump administration, negotiations on the creation of a new mega-regional association - post-TPP - can be launched.

Two leaders face to face

On April 6 - 7, US President Donald Trump held talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Mar-a-Lago private club in Florida. This summit was seen by many American and Chinese experts as a chance to establish personal contact between two world political heavyweights and reduce the risks of economic and geopolitical conflicts.

Behind the negotiations, along with strategic objectives, were the specific interests of Chinese and American enterprises. If Chinese entrepreneurs were primarily concerned about D. Trump’s announced intention to introduce prohibitive customs duties on goods from the PRC, the wishes of American businessmen were more varied. In particular, the US business community is not satisfied with the legal conditions for foreign companies’ access to the Chinese market (especially in the most promising industries), as well as the practice of “unfair” government support in China for national exporters who have “flooded the world market with subsidized products.” During consultations with presidential aides preparing a meeting with Xi Jinping, representatives of the US business community, on the one hand, demonstrated interest in participating in the implementation of large-scale infrastructure projects in China, and on the other, cited various examples of imbalances in US-China relations. So, if in the United States imported Chinese cars are subject to a customs duty of 2.5%, then in China the same tax on American cars is 10 times higher - 25%. US high-tech companies have raised concerns that China's new cybersecurity law (passed on November 7, 2016 and set to take effect June 2017) could discriminate against US firms.

Giving a general assessment of the real trade and economic results of the first US-China summit, we can apply the formula “the first pancake is lumpy.” Many international media described the results of the meeting in Florida in a similar way, documenting the continuing “gap between the positions of the two world leaders.” D. Trump himself spoke in the same spirit, who before the gala dinner in honor of the Chinese guests remarked, as if jokingly: “We (with Xi Jinping. - P. I.) there was a long conversation, which still has not yielded any result, absolutely nothing.”

One way or another, the US abandonment of plans to create a Pacific integration mega-union will inevitably lead to increased US-Chinese rivalry and will have an impact on the future of the global economy.

Literature: Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation. 2016 Leaders' Declaration. Lima, Peru 20 Nov 2016. – Mode of access: apec.org (date of access: 12/10/2016).

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation. Free Trade Agreements / Regional Agreements. – Mode of access: apec.org/Groups/Other-Groups/FTA_RTA.aspx (date of access: 01/12/2017).

Asia-Pacífico se moviliza ante el proteccionismo de Trump // Cinco Días. Madrid. November 20, 2016.

China GDP (current US$). – Mode of access: data.worldbank.org/country/china (date of access: 03/11/2017).

China Premier Li Keqiang: ‘Economic Openness Serves Everyone Better’. – Mode of access: bloomberg.com/news/articles/27-01-26/ (date of access: 02.12.2017).

China’s forex reserves drop $70bn as outflow accelerates // Financial Times. London. 07.12.2016.

WITHué C.E. Las grandes potencias económicas amenazan con unirse para aislar a Trump // El País. Madrid. 11/19/2016.

Financial policy 2017 outlook. December 1, 2016. – Mode of access: bloomberg.com/ (date of access: November 5, 2016).

Gonzalez A. Xi advierte en Davos de que no hay vencedores en una guerra comercial // El País. 01/17/2017.

ITC. Trade Map. Trade Statistics for International Business Development. – Mode of access: trademap.org/Bilateral_TS.aspx (date of access: 02/24/2017).

Larrouy D., Bayon A. El proteccionismo de Trump abre la puerta a un nuevo orden comercial // Cinco Días. 01/25/2017.

Mars A., Vidal Liy M. Un abismo separa a Trump y Xi en su primera reunión // El País. Madrid. 04/07/2017.

Office of the United States Trade Representative. TPP Full Text. – Mode of access: ustr.gov/trade-agreements/ (date of access: 09/05/2016).

Países del Pacífico propondrán caminos para nuevo acuerdo post TPP en próxima cumbre. 9 marzo, 2017. – Mode of access: infolatam.com/ (date of access: 03/11/2017).

Presidente chino insta a la cooperación comercial en su primera reunión con Trump. 04/07/2017. – Mode of access: americaeconomia.com/ (accessed: 04/15/2017).

¿ Qué le piden los empresarios a Donald Trump para su reunión con el presidente chino? 4 December 2017. – Mode of access: americaeconomia.com/ (date of access: 03/23/2017).