> This graph indicates that the core overlap of negotiating positions currently includes New Zealand, Singapore, Chile, and Malaysia, although the direct connection between New Zealand and Singapore is weaker than the others.
Maybe that's because the 12-country TPP, initiated in 2010, is an expanded version of the 4-country TPSEP (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) agreement from 5 yrs earlier among Chile, New Zealand, Singapore, and Brunei. Their overlapping negotiating positions were cemented 5 years earlier than the other 8 countries.
> Counting up sole-country proposals, we might have expected the United States to take first place; in reality, it turns out to be Canada, with the United States and Japan following well behind. Of course, this chart doesn’t tell us what Canada is proposing or opposing on its own. It could well be that Canada is the sole party capable of opposing controversial provisions.
Maybe this is because the most recent countries to join the negotiations were Japan (March 2013), Canada, and Mexico (both October 2012).
The article doesn't mention this fact, instead speculates "It could well be that Canada is the sole party capable of opposing controversial provisions". I would expect better from the Washington Post.
Maybe that's because the 12-country TPP, initiated in 2010, is an expanded version of the 4-country TPSEP (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) agreement from 5 yrs earlier among Chile, New Zealand, Singapore, and Brunei. Their overlapping negotiating positions were cemented 5 years earlier than the other 8 countries.
> Counting up sole-country proposals, we might have expected the United States to take first place; in reality, it turns out to be Canada, with the United States and Japan following well behind. Of course, this chart doesn’t tell us what Canada is proposing or opposing on its own. It could well be that Canada is the sole party capable of opposing controversial provisions.
Maybe this is because the most recent countries to join the negotiations were Japan (March 2013), Canada, and Mexico (both October 2012).
The article doesn't mention this fact, instead speculates "It could well be that Canada is the sole party capable of opposing controversial provisions". I would expect better from the Washington Post.