A more subtle argument, and I thank my trade colleague Scott Miller for explaining this, is that plurilateral agreements prevent countries from making multilateral concessions. For example, if you`re in Vietnam and now have zero tariffs with Japan (and other partners) on a wide range of items due to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), you`re much less interested in a multilateral agreement that lowers tariffs for everyone because that`s the advantage you have with Japan. would be watered down. There are advantages to being in the tent, so to speak, but the more people you let into the tent, the more your particular advantage will be reduced. Finally, there is the argument that none of this makes a difference because in practice there is no real choice. The Doha Round has failed and there is no chance of it coming back. In addition, agreements are increasingly focused not only on tariffs and market access, but also on rules and standards. Plurilateral negotiations, in which participants may be more like-minded, offer a better opportunity to create “benchmark” agreements that go much further towards open and rules-based trade than multilateral agreements, which necessarily involve more compromise. An oft-cited example of this is the digital trade language in the United States-Japan Agreement and the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). .