It is true that the existing P4 agreement between Singapore, New Zealand, Chile and Brunei is path-breaking in many respects. For example, it is the only agreement in the region to include a necessity test to discipline domestic regulation in each country (it must not be more burdensome etc etc).
But to suggest that this move is a precursor to a Free Trade Agreement of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP) is preposterous. If the US and other major trading partners cannot persuade each other to come to the party in Geneva, what hope do they have in a FTAAP?
Nor does this move do anything to address the ‘noodle bowl’ problem of overlapping, inconsistent rules of origin, reservations and exceptions in preferential agreements. Instead to trying to stitch together its existing agreements (including existing bilaterals with Chile and Singapore), the US is adding to the fragmentation.
US Trade Representative Susan Schwab should take a long hard look at the list of scalps on her belt (such as Oman, Jordan and Morocco) and declare competitive liberalisation to be intellectually bankrupt. Then, she should be trying seriously to stitch together the existing deals she has. We already have at least one nice triangle of bilaterals, namely, US-Singapore, US-Australia and Australia-Singapore. Why not start with that.
Australia, along with Peru and Vietnam, will probably join the US and existing P4 members, Singapore, Chile, New Zealand and Brunei, in exploring P4 as a basis for further Asia-Pacific integration.