A Trade Deal with a Bonus for National Security

On the Big Island of Hawaii beginning Monday, U.S. officials will host trade negotiators from 11 nations spanning Asia and the Americas to work toward completing what could be the most significant trade deal in a generation. Five years in the making, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) would cover 40% of global gross domestic product and a third of world trade.

Any such deal ultimately will have to make it through the U.S. Congress. In order to prevent lawmakers from amending the agreement and undoing years of international negotiations, Congress will first have to provide President Obama with trade promotion authority, also known as “fast-track,” that allows a yes-or-no vote on the package.

This is the time for advocates on both sides to move beyond the usual economic arguments and consider the extraordinary geopolitical stakes involved. Not every trade agreement puts America’s prestige, influence and leadership on the line, but the TPP does.

Much of the history of the 21st century will be written in Asia, and no region will affect U.S. prosperity and security more in the coming decades. Few in the region doubt the foundations of American power—favorable geography, abundant energy and resources, healthy demographics, diversity and immigration, cutting-edge technology and education, and a penchant for innovation. But it’s less clear that Washington can govern effectively and sustain America’s traditional global role. Bipartisan congressional action on fast-track authority would provide a welcome counter to skeptics who question the U.S. commitment to the Asia-Pacific.

By opening new opportunities for trade and leveling the playing field for American businesses and workers, the TPP would further fuel America’s economic recovery and support long-term growth. A healthier fiscal environment would in turn help Washington reverse defense cuts that threaten to undermine the U.S. military’s readiness and technological edge when we need them more than ever.

Deeper economic engagement in Asia would also help strengthen America’s security ties, which are a unique and central feature of U.S. global power. These critical partnerships are at their strongest and most durable when military cooperation rests on a foundation of shared economic interests. Wealthier partners benefiting from a more open regional trading system would be able to devote greater resources to helping the U.S. address global and regional security challenges, from counterterrorism and maritime security to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.

The TPP also represents an unprecedented opportunity—and one that may not return for decades—to establish widespread trade rules in Asia that advance U.S. values and interests. The agreement would lock in stronger labor and environmental protections, while establishing new rules on intellectual property rights and curbing unfair government subsidies to state-owned enterprises.

Ensuring that countries like Japan, Malaysia and Vietnam elevate their practices to meet these higher standards would yield economic and social reforms that the U.S. has long sought to advance in Asia. This wave of reform would continue as other countries line up to join the pact in future rounds.

Critics of free trade in general, and the TPP in particular, claim these standards don't go far enough. Perhaps, but the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. Given the painstaking negotiations and the diversity of countries involved, disrupting the deal now would likely lead to no deal at all.

In that event the leadership vacuum left by the U.S. would quickly be filled by other powers, most likely China, which would be more than happy to set laxer rules and lower standards for global trade. How would the U.S. benefit from such a race to the bottom?

The good news is that this contest is Washington’s to lose. Polls show that more than two-thirds of Americans support increased trade ties overseas, and there remains a strong bipartisan consensus for U.S. engagement in Asia. Now it is up to lawmakers on Capitol Hill to ensure that the U.S. reaps the national security windfall of the TPP. To fail would be a historic strategic folly.

Ms. Flournoy was U.S. undersecretary of defense for policy from 2009 to 2012 and is now the chief executive and co-founder of the Center for a New American Security. Mr. Ratner is a senior fellow at CNAS.