特朗普作為候任美國總統的第一個重磅炸彈無異於宣布退出TPP（跨太平洋夥伴關係協議），這在全球範圍內產生了一系列的連鎖反應。日本、澳大利亞、馬來西亞等國紛紛表示，失去美國的TPP已經沒有了實際意義。TPP是否已經宣告死亡，未來美國對外經濟政策又將走向何方，這的確是影響世界經濟變局的關鍵變量之一。

毋庸置疑，當前全球貿易格局正處於前所未有的新調整時期，在這個過程中發生的衝突與博弈正是這一變化的突出表現。根本而言，商品、資本和人員的自由流動是全球化繁榮的基礎，阻礙這種要素的自由流動無異於是對全球化的巨大挑戰。這也是人們認為競選時宣揚修築邊境牆、撕毀貿易條約、大幅提高關稅、高舉貿易保護主義大旗的特朗普上台給全球帶來的風險所在。

其實，特朗普對TPP的反對在西方國家確實有比較深厚的民意基礎和現實基礎。從發達經濟體和成熟工業化國家的角度看，比較有代表性的觀點認為，經濟全球化以來，在發達經濟體內部逐漸失去競爭優勢的產業不斷向國外轉移，造成本國產業空心化趨勢。這些都使得以傳統農業和傳統製造業為代表的舊經濟部門利益受損，部門內出現利潤下滑和失業率增加。

由此，在這輪去全球化甚至是反全球化思潮的影響下，全球貿易投資保護主義日漸增強。全球貿易預警組織（Global Trade Alert）的統計數據顯示，2010年來，發達國家實施貿易保護措施（包括反傾銷條例、原產地規則、進口配額制、出口配額制、進口許可證制、進口押金制、外匯管制、最低限價制和更嚴格的技術、衛生、檢驗標準等多種形式）數量激增，特別是美國，2015年實施貿易保護措施624項，為2009年的九倍。其中，2015年美國採取了90項貿易歧視措施，位居各國之首，成為限制貿易自由化最激進的國家，這對全球經濟也是一種非常大的傷害。

2008年國際金融危機以來，全球貿易增長基本上減少了一半，從每年6.7%降至3%左右。更重要的是，全球貿易增長持續滯後於全球GDP增長。這意味着增長中的貿易強度正在下降，因此，全球經濟正變得越來越背離全球化。

事實上，高調宣布退出TPP，不代表特朗普時代的美國會回到WTO框架內解決問題。本質而言，作為有可能成為史上最大地區貿易協議的TPP，它之於美國的意義在於如何在亞太地區展示領導地位，以及如何在未來全球貿易規則體系中確立新的主導權。因此，即便是持有極度保守主義思想的特朗普也不會輕易放棄對亞太乃至全球的領導權。

TPP未來走向到底如何仍是個未知命題，或許改頭換面，或許另起爐灶。正如特朗普所強調的，“關於貿易，我將簽發一項通告撤出TPP，取而代之的是，我將談判一些公平的雙邊貿易協定，把就業崗位和產業重新拉回美國本土”。可見，未來無論TPP的走向如何，可以肯定的是全球貿易保護主義都可能進入加快發展期，而美國未來不排除在追求本土利益最大化情況下以特朗普重新定義的方式實施另一種形式的區域貿易協定，或是尋求雙邊協定。

不過這些都並不妨礙區域全面經濟夥伴關係（RCEP）正在成為推動亞太區域合作的一個重要平台。RCEP由東盟10國發起，邀請中國、日本、韓國、澳大利亞、新西蘭、印度共同參加（“10+6”）。是旨在通過削減關稅及非關稅壁壘，建立16國統一市場的自由貿易協定。若RCEP談成，將涵蓋約35億人口，佔全球人口的49%，GDP總和將達23萬億美元，佔全球的28%，所涵蓋區域也將成為世界最大的自貿區。RCEP覆蓋的人口規模和外貿總額高於TPP，而TPP相關協議的要求要高於RCEP。

一直以來，在促進貿易全球化、自由化立場上，中國始終堅持以多邊貿易為主，區域貿易安排為輔的立場，尤其強調要支持多邊貿易體制，要把促進貿易和投資自由化、便利化放在更加突出的位置，重振貿易和投資活力。特別是中國積極推動亞太自貿區（FTAPP）作為推進亞太區域貿易整合的重要途徑，正受到越來越大範圍的認同。根據澳大利亞、中國、韓國、新西蘭四國學者的聯合研究報告，在貨物貿易自由化、貨物貿易自由化+貿易便利化、取消關稅+貿易便利化+服務貿易自由化三種情況下，FTAAP將使APEC經濟體的GDP分別增加0.55%、2.26%和2.33%。對中國而言，FTAAP所帶來的收益是RCEP的2.7倍。對美國而言，FTAAP所帶來的收益是TPP的2.5倍。因此，無論是對整個亞太，還是對國家，FTAPP都可能創造出更大的經濟和社會福利。

剛剛在秘魯結束的APEC部長和領導人會議也決定，APEC經濟體將在2020年底審議“目前的路徑”如何為幫助實現FTAAP作出貢獻。可見，在TPP、TTIP（跨大西洋貿易與投資夥伴協議）可能暫時擱置的情況下，向高標準貿易規則看齊，加快推進致力於建立國際貿易新規則和下一代貿易方式的FTAPP，將是未來努力和選擇的方向。

The first blockbuster by President-elect Donald Trump is his announcement of intent to withdraw from the TPP “from day one”, setting off a chain reaction across the world. Japan, Australia and Malaysia all indicated that a TPP without the U.S. would be insignificant. Whether the TPP is pronounced dead and where US foreign policy will go in the future are key variables affecting global economic change.

Undoubtedly, the global trade pattern is now undergoing an unprecedented adjustment, featuring conflicts and games. Fundamentally, the free movement of commodities, capital and humans is the basis of global prosperity. Any barrier to the free movement of these elements is a huge challenge to globalization. Therefore, Trump's presidency is considered to be a source of global risk because he advocated building a wall along the southern U.S. border, tearing up the NAFTA, substantially increasing tariffs and holding high the banner of protectionism in his campaign.

Trump's opposition to the TPP reflects profound public opinion and the reality in the Western countries. The developed economies and the mature industrial countries hold a collective view that since globalization, the industries that gradually lost competitiveness in the developed economies have kept shifting to the outside world, causing a hollowing out of the domestic industries. All this hurts the interests of the “old economic sectors” based on traditional agriculture and manufacturing with their profits down and unemployment up.

So, in this round of de-globalization and even thoughts of anti-globalization, trade protectionism is getting stronger around the globe. According to Global Trade Alert statistics, since 2010 the number of trade protection measures implemented by the developed countries has surged (including anti-dumping regulations, rules of origin, import quota system, export quota system, import license system, import deposit system, exchange control, minimum price, tougher standards in technology, hygiene, inspection and so on). The US, in particular, put forward 624 trade protection measures in 2015, nine times as many as in 2009. Among them, 90 trade discrimination measures were taken in 2015, the highest number in the world, making the US the most radical country in restricting trade liberalization. It is also very harmful to the global economy.

Since the world financial crisis in 2008, world trade growth has basically declined by half----down from the annual 6.7% to around 3%. What's more, world trade growth continuously lags behind world GDP growth, indicating that the increased trade strength is weakening. Thus the global economy is getting away from “globalization”.

Actually, the high-profile announcement of abandoning the TPP does not mean that the US in the Trump era will return to the WTO to resolve issues within its framework. With the possibility of being the largest regional trade agreement in history, the TPP is significant to the US as it seeks to demonstrate its leadership in the Asia-Pacific region and renew its leading power in the future global trade rules. Therefore, even if he takes an extremely conservative position, Trump will not easily give up US leadership in the Asia-Pacific region and in the world.

Where the TPP will go in the future is still unknown. It may change or negotiations may start all over again. Just as Trump stressed:” I will issue a formal notification the United States is withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Instead, we will negotiate, fair, bilateral trade deals that bring jobs and industry back onto American shore." Evidently, no matter TPP's fate, global trade protectionism will surely enter a period of fast growth. It cannot be ruled out that in the future, the US would pursue another form of regional trade agreement redefined by Trump or seek bilateral agreements in pursuit of maximum domestic interests.

However, all this will not hinder the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) as an important platform to promote the regional cooperation. The RCEP was initiated by ASEAN which invited China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and India to join in(“10+6”). It would set up a trade liberalization agreement of a common market within 16 countries through cutting down tariffs and non-tariff barriers. Once the RCEP is reached, it will cover a population of 3.5 billion (49% of the world population), GDP will total $23 trillion (28% of the world GDP), and the covered region will become the world's largest free-trade area. The population and the total trade covered by the RCEP are higher than those by the TPP, thoughthe TPP agreement has a higher demand than the RCEP.

In promoting trade globalization and trade liberalization, China has always insisted on taking multilateral trade as the primary goal and the regional trade arrangement as the secondary. China has especially emphasized supporting multilateral trade system, has given higher priority to improving trade and investment liberalization and facilitation, and has revived the vitality of trade and investment. In particular, China's active promotion of the FTAAP as an important way to push forward Asia-Pacific regional trade integration has also gained support by more countries. Joint research by Australia, China, South Korea and New Zealand reports that under the three conditions of free trade in goods — free trade in goods plus in trade facilitation, tariff elimination plus trade facilitation and plus free trade in service — the FTAAP will raise the GDP of the APEC economies by 0.55%, 2.26% and 2.33% respectively. The benefit from the FTAAP will be 2.7 times as high as that from the RCEP for China and 2.5 times as high as that from the RCEP for the US. So, whether for the entire Asia-Pacific region or for each member country, the FTAAP can create greater economic and social welfare.

Ministers and leaders at the just concluded APEC conference in Peru decided that, at the end of 2020, the APEC economies would discuss how “the current path” could help the FTAAP make a contribution. Clearly, under the circumstance that the TPP and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) may be shelved for the time being, there is opportunity to accelerate the FTAAP, working in line with high-standard trade rules, committing to new international trade rules and basing the FTAAP on the next trade mode.