Question map
With reference to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, consider the following statements : 1. It is an agreement among all the Pacific Rim countries except China and Russia. 2. It is a strategic alliance for the purpose of maritime security only. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Explanation
The correct answer is option D (Neither 1 nor 2) because both statements are incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the TPP was signed by only 12 specific Pacific Rim countries[2], not all Pacific Rim countries. The 12 TPP members were Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam[1]. This list notably excludes several Pacific Rim nations beyond just China and Russia, such as South Korea, Indonesia, the Philippines, and others.
Statement 2 is incorrect because the TPP was designed to eliminate and reduce trade barriers and covered multiple areas including trade in goods, rules of origin,[3] trade remedies, technical[4] barriers to trade, trade in services, intellectual property, government procurement, and competition policy. It was a comprehensive economic and trade agreement, not a strategic alliance limited to maritime security purposes.
Therefore, since both statements are incorrect, option D is the correct answer.
Sources- [1] https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/402861490788215893/pdf/113852-PUB-PUBLIC-PUBDATE-3-1-2017.pdf
- [2] https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/402861490788215893/pdf/113852-PUB-PUBLIC-PUBDATE-3-1-2017.pdf
- [4] https://belonging.berkeley.edu/TPP-report
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Full viewThis is a classic 'Headline Awareness' question. You didn't need to memorize all 12 members, just the fundamental nature (Trade vs Security) and the scope (Selective vs Universal). It rewards understanding the 'gist' of major geopolitical shifts over rote memorization.
This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.
- Explicitly lists all 12 economies that signed the TPP.
- Identifies the three Latin American members and the nine other members by name.
- Describes the TPP's roots in the earlier P4 agreement.
- Names Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, and Singaporeāconfirming these countries' involvement in the TPP negotiations.
Defines APEC as a 21-country 'Pacific Rim' forum ā indicates a common pool of AsiaāPacific countries that typically appear in regional trade pacts.
A student can compare TPP membership against the list of PacificāRim/APEC economies (using a map or APEC list) to identify likely TPP members from that geographic set.
Explains RCEP as built on ASEAN+1 FTAs and lists typical partners (China, Korea, Japan, India, Australia, New Zealand) ā showing the recurring set of East Asia / Pacific trade partners.
Use the repeated appearance of Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Korea, etc., as candidates to check against known TPP participants via a basic map or list of Pacific trade partners.
Lists members of the AsiaāPacific Trade Agreement (APTA) ā demonstrates another grouping of AsiaāPacific countries (Bangladesh, China, India, Korea, etc.) often considered in regional trade arrangements.
A student could crossāreference these AsiaāPacific countries with the Pacificāoriented TPP concept to eliminate inland/nonāPacific economies and narrow down plausible TPP members.
Gives the definition and mechanics of a Preferential Trade Area (PTA) where members lower barriers among themselves ā relevant because TPP is a preferential/regional trade agreement.
Knowing TPP is a PTAāstyle agreement, a student can look for Pacific economies that actively conclude PTAs and then verify which of those joined the TPP.
- Explicitly describes the TPP as a free trade agreement.
- States the TPP was designed to eliminate/reduce trade barriers and extend trade rules and disciplines among parties.
- Labels the TPP as a 'megaregional trade agreement', indicating its trade-focused purpose.
- Links the TPP to forming deeper trade ties among Pacific Rim economies.
- Describes the scope of the agreement covering trade in goods, services, intellectual property, and other trade-related areas.
- Shows the TPP aimed to comprehensively govern and liberalize trade and related rules among members.
Describes APEC as a Pacific Rim regional economic forum aimed to promote inclusive growth, greater prosperity and free trade in the AsiaāPacific region.
A student could infer that other PacificāRim agreements (like TPP) are likely aimed at promoting free trade and economic integration among Pacific countries and compare membership lists.
Explains GATT's main objective was to pursue free trade by removing barriers to encourage growth and development.
Use this rule (trade agreements seek to reduce tariffs/barriers) to test whether the TPP's primary purpose was tariff reduction and freer trade among members.
States RCEP's objective: a comprehensive, highāquality, mutually beneficial economic partnership covering trade in goods/services, investment, IP, dispute settlement, etc.
Compare the scope of RCEP (a Pacific/Asia trade pact) with what one would expect from TPP to judge if TPP similarly aimed at broad economic integration and trade liberalization.
Defines a Preferential Trade Area (PTA) as members lowering trade barriers among themselves to give preferential access to certain goods.
A student could use this pattern to classify TPPāif it provided preferential access/reduced barriers among Pacific members, its primary purpose aligns with PTAāstyle trade liberalization.
Identifies the TransāPacific route as an emerging major ocean trade route with 'excellent prospects' for bordering countries.
Combine the strategic importance of the TransāPacific trade route with tradeāagreement patterns to hypothesize that an agreement named 'TransāPacific' would target facilitation of trade across that route.
- [THE VERDICT]: Sitter. TPP was the biggest trade headline of 2015-16. The extreme phrasing ('all... except', 'only') makes it solvable via logic even with partial knowledge.
- [THE CONCEPTUAL TRIGGER]: Mega-Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) vs Multilateralism (WTO). The shift towards blocs like TPP, TTIP, and RCEP.
- [THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION]: Map the 'Big 3' current blocs: CPTPP (11 members, US out, UK joined in 2023), RCEP (ASEAN+5, India out, China in), and IPEF (14 partners, 4 pillars). Memorize the 'Giants' status: US is in IPEF but not CPTPP/RCEP; China is in RCEP but not IPEF/CPTPP.
- [THE STRATEGIC METACOGNITION]: When a new grouping appears, answer 3 basics: 1. Purpose (Trade, Security, or Climate?), 2. The 'Big Boss' (US-led or China-led?), 3. The 'Notable Absentee' (Why isn't India/China there?).
Understanding the difference between preferential trade areas and fuller free-trade arrangements (and modern regional pacts like RCEP) helps frame what membership lists look like and why some countries join different kinds of agreements.
High-yield for UPSC: questions often ask differences between PTA, FTA and larger regional agreements or to identify members of such pacts. It connects to trade policy, negotiations and regional diplomacy. Master by comparing definitions, member obligations, and examples (use PTA definition and RCEP description in the references). Enables elimination-based MCQ strategies and short-answer explanations.
- Indian Economy, Nitin Singhania .(ed 2nd 2021-22) > Chapter 17: Indiaās Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade > Preferential Trade Area (PTA) > p. 504
- Indian Economy, Vivek Singh (7th ed. 2023-24) > Chapter 13: International Organizations > Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) > p. 394
The TPP is an AsiaāPacificācentred plurilateral deal; knowing the landscape of AsiaāPacific institutions (APEC, ASEAN and ASEAN+1 FTAs) helps locate which countries typically participate in such agreements.
Often tested: identifying member countries across overlapping regional forums and their policy priorities. Learning APEC's scope and ASEAN+1 FTAs helps predict likely members and contrasts multilateral vs plurilateral membership. Prepare via lists of members and mapping overlaps among forums.
- Indian Economy, Nitin Singhania .(ed 2nd 2021-22) > Chapter 18: International Economic Institutions > Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) > p. 550
- Indian Economy, Vivek Singh (7th ed. 2023-24) > Chapter 13: International Organizations > Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) > p. 394
Distinguishing broad universal organisations (WTO/GATT) from narrower regional/plurilateral pacts clarifies why some country sets are large/global while others (like TPP) are selective ā important when identifying specific member lists.
UPSC often tests scale and scope of international economic institutions. Knowing global membership norms (WTO/GATT) versus regional membership patterns helps answer membership identification questions and reason about exceptions. Study by comparing membership counts and examples in the references.
- Indian Economy, Nitin Singhania .(ed 2nd 2021-22) > Chapter 18: International Economic Institutions > GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) > p. 535
- FUNDAMENTALS OF HUMAN GEOGRAPHY, CLASS XII (NCERT 2025 ed.) > Chapter 8: International Trade > International Trade > p. 74
RCEP and APEC references describe aims like promoting trade in goods/services, investment and free trade ā the same conceptual aims that underlie agreements such as the TPP.
High-yield: UPSC often asks about purposes and differences of regional trade pacts. Mastering the typical objectives (trade liberalisation, economic cooperation, market access) helps answer questions on RCEP/TPP/APEC and policy implications. Learn by comparing stated aims across sample agreements and linking to Indiaās positions.
- Indian Economy, Vivek Singh (7th ed. 2023-24) > Chapter 13: International Organizations > Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) > p. 394
- Indian Economy, Nitin Singhania .(ed 2nd 2021-22) > Chapter 18: International Economic Institutions > Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) > p. 550
- Indian Economy, Vivek Singh (7th ed. 2023-24) > Chapter 13: International Organizations > The following are some of the important features regarding WTO > p. 378
The PTA reference explains lowering (not eliminating) barriers and preferential access ā useful to contrast with deeper agreements like TPP which aim for broader liberalisation.
Medium-high: Questions test distinctions among PTA, FTA, customs unions and comprehensive partnerships. Knowing the technical difference clarifies what constitutes the 'primary purpose' of a pact (preferential access vs comprehensive liberalisation). Compare definitions and examples to build quick-tab answers.
- Indian Economy, Nitin Singhania .(ed 2nd 2021-22) > Chapter 17: Indiaās Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade > Preferential Trade Area (PTA) > p. 504
- Indian Economy, Vivek Singh (7th ed. 2023-24) > Chapter 13: International Organizations > Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) > p. 394
WTO/GATT references state the overriding purpose is freer trade and predictable rules ā a baseline for understanding why regional agreements like the TPP are negotiated.
High: UPSC often frames regional trade agreements in the context of multilateral trade rules. Grasping WTO/GATT goals helps evaluate whether a pact aligns with global trade principles and the policy trade-offs involved. Study WTO objectives alongside regional pact aims.
- Indian Economy, Vivek Singh (7th ed. 2023-24) > Chapter 13: International Organizations > The following are some of the important features regarding WTO > p. 378
- Geography of India ,Majid Husain, (McGrawHill 9th ed.) > Chapter 12: Transport, Communications and Trade > General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT) > p. 50
The TPP evolved into the CPTPP (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership). The 'Shadow Trap' for the future: The UK is the first non-Pacific nation to accede to CPTPP (July 2023), breaking the geographic rule implied by the name.
Apply the 'Totalization Filter': Statement 1 says 'All Pacific Rim countries.' The Pacific Rim includes North Korea, Colombia, Ecuador, etc. A single trade deal covering *all* such diverse economies is geopolitically impossible. Statement 2 uses 'only' for 'maritime security.' 'Partnership' usually implies economics. 'Only' is an extreme limiter. Eliminate both.
Mains GS2 (IR) & GS3 (Economy): Use TPP/RCEP as case studies for 'The Crisis of Multilateralism.' Argue how the failure of the WTO Doha Round forced nations into these exclusionary 'Mega-Regionals,' threatening India's export competitiveness in textiles and services.