The Trans Pacific Partnership specifically and explicitly set the legal rights of foreign corporations over the legal rights of domestic citizens. It's bullshit law. That has nothing to do with Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton; it was an Obama push to advance the interests of American globalism. I, for one, am not a fan of American globalism. This is such rank bullshit I stopped reading. The United States, since WWII, has advocated the Home of the Free and the Land of the Brave and all other brown people hold onto your butts. We have destabilized nascent democracies because they threaten our corporations; we have sponsored the murder and assassination of humanitarians because they interfere with our business interests. Christopher Boyce sold KH-11 plans to the Soviet Union because he stumbled on a CIA plot to overthrow the government of Australia. That, of course, was shortly after we destabilized the Allende government which led to 27,000 people in jail and 3,000 people getting one-way helicopter flights over the Atlantic. The TPP was an attempt by the Obama administration to say "we're not going to sneak around legally fucking with your democracies; we're just gonna do it up front and legal-like through the WTO. Clinton, Sanders, whatever, the TPP was grossly unfair legislation that advanced the interests of corporate monopolies at the expense of ordinary human beings and I will totally fight you on this for insinuating that anybody who's against it is some unthinking Bernie-bro."Fuck you; you're evil for even suggesting Bernie Sanders isn't Jesus incarnate. Hillary Clinton is a corporatist pig and so are you for saying nice things about TPP." (Something like that, anyway.)
Ever since the Second World War, the United States has advocated an international order based on a free press and judiciary, human rights, free trade, and protection of the environment. It planted those ideas in the rebuilding of Germany and Japan, and spread them with alliances around the world. In March, 1959, President Eisenhower argued that America’s authority could not rest on military power alone.
That comment was definitely not directed at you. I have of course heard well reasoned, well founded critiques of TPP, and I wouldn't expect anything less than a bare-knuckler from you on that point. That said, I've heard a lot more that boil down to something slightly less coherent than Tim Robbins' monologue in Team America, and a lot of those have been directed at me. I'm ambivalent at best about American global hegemony. I'm far less than ambivalent about the prospect of Chinese global hegemony. America has an imperfect record when it comes to exporting the rule of law, but by and large we're pretty damn good at it at home. China, on the other hand, doesn't even have a tradition of pretending that there's a such thing as rule of law domestically, let alone internationally. Perhaps supporting a giant free trade zone is a sort of cynical and somewhat damaging way to contain China's global ambitions, but I haven't come across a better one.
It tires me whenever anyone starts from the basic assumption of zero sum international trade. TPP was totally and absolutely about encirclement. I would argue that if your philosophical position is one that democracy and free trade are best for everyone, you lead by example not by decree. Chinese imperialism has never extended beyond their frontier. American imperialism wants to be China's frontier. If we want China's frontier to align with us by choice instead of force, we should provide them a trade framework that shows them the benefits of our system of law, not one that fucking exempts us from theirs. there's "soft power" and there's vassalage.
Historically, maybe, but I think the Phillipines and Japan would disagree with that point. China, as you know, has been very aggressive in redrawing their maritime borders in recent years. But more to the point, China excludes outsiders far more than the US or EU excludes China. Possibly the only thing I think Trump had a point about during the election was that the asymmetrical trade relationship we share with them needs rebalancing (not talking trade imbalance, per se, but rather access to markets--e.g. any foreign company needs a China-based business partner to do business there, which just becomes a vehicle for them to steal trade secrets). I don't think I'm operating from anything like viewing trade as zero sum. I think on balance, freer trade is very beneficial (overall that is--how we choose to spread the wealth is a different issue that I think people conflate with trade). I think the world would welcome true Chinese participation in the global community, but unless they decide that's what they also want, they are always going to face encirclement.Chinese imperialism has never extended beyond their frontier.
The Philippines are the Chinese frontier. Japan is the Chinese frontier. The Pacific is an imperialist patchwork of 200-mile exclusive economic zones; the borders China is attempting to redraw were the ones redrawn by Japan in the 1930s. I don't disagree with economic rebalancing. I do think Chinese control of the Pacific would be worse for most ordinary citizens than American dominance. However, I believe strongly that the relationship needs to be opt-in and fair.