On Friday, Nov. 10, negotiations concerning the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement that involved 11 Pacific Rim economies finally concluded in the coastal city of Danang, Vietnam. The agreement was resurrected under the new name Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership after being temporarily scuttled by the United States leaving. The deal opened a new, promising, yet unpredictable prospect for Vietnam, the Pact’s poorest member.

The CPTPP is arguably the most controversial trade deal since the beginning of the 21st century. Initially discussed by 12 countries bordering the Pacific Ocean, including Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and, formerly, the United States, the TPP was expected to eliminate import tariffs on 18,000 products and to put in place more stringent rules on the protection of intellectual property, labor rights and the environment.

However, the seemingly positive aspects of the agreement did not prevent the eruption of mass public protests in most of its member economies. The public discontent stemmed from the fear of unfair competition, job loss, extended monopoly on crucial drugs – including medicines that are used for HIV and cancer treatments – and the more involved participation of multinational corporations in the member countries’ policies. Since the first official draft of the TPP was released in January 2016, thousands of people across the Pacific Rim have marched in the streets to demand the repeal of the deal. Responding to the U.S. American public outcry, Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out from the deal as soon as he took office in January 2017.

Under the CPTPP, the availability of low-skilled jobs will likely surge in Vietnam once multinational firms take advantage of the country’s young and cheap labor resources. Foreign direct investment will lift the country’s 200 billion U.S. dollar GDP at least by 10 percent by 2030. On the other hand, the long-term changes CPTPP enforces may be more problematic than they initially appear. Even in its new rule, the CPTPP keeps the controversial investor-state dispute settlement almost intact, granting multinational firms the right to sue any member governments if future enactments may harm their potential profit. According to this rule, the Vietnamese government could no longer automatically protect in favor of its locally-owned businesses, most of which are small and medium enterprises.

Even if the TPP allows for a transitional period for the Vietnamese government to support its domestic businesses, the impact is minimal to prepare for the fierce competition from abroad. Unless there is a revolutionary solution to boost some Vietnamese-owned corporations to compete with top economies such as those in Japan and Canada, the mass bankruptcy of locally-owned businesses is a plausible scenario.

Putting this into perspective, Vietnam may enjoy an influx of investment and staggering growth fundamentally based on its cheap labor until the start of the next decade. But in the long run, the improvement in the standard of living will also uplift the wage rate, forcing foreign firms to leave the country. South Korea survived this stage by wholeheartedly supporting its conglomerates such as Samsung, Hyundai and Lotte. China is using its partial protectionist policy to consolidate its business empires such as Alibaba and Sina Corp to prepare for the impending transition. Nevertheless, it is unclear if there will be a domestic force that fuels Vietnam’s economy in the long run.

Although the negative impact of the TPP on Vietnam’s general population is just as detrimental as it is in other countries, anti-TPP sentiment among the public is nearly non-existent. The lack of upheaval in Vietnam in response to the TPP is mainly due to the Vietnamese media influence. The suspicion of the communist government’s and external sources’ manipulation was clear: the two main news sources in Vietnam that usually oppose each other have agreed on the benefits of the TPP.

As a Vietnamese citizen, I strongly support the Vietnamese government’s direction to integrate into the global economy. I also understand the reason why Vietnamese-language media from both ends refused to cover TPP’s controversial clauses – to avoid public outcry against the deal. Free trade deals like the TPP offer a promising opportunity for Vietnam to develop.

Although there are detrimental ramifications in the long run, an aspiring economy like Vietnam is left with no choice but to follow the stream of globalization dictated by the world’s powerful economies and multinational corporations. The path to globalization is not only covered by rose petals but also filled with thorns. If a country does prudent policy, it may have to pay with an uncertain — potentially dubious — future.

The story of Vietnam is not a unique problem but rather a challenge for small countries across the world that are trying to graduate from the low- and middle-income economy status.