Trump Foreign Policy

[TGHusker]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-declares-new-world-trade-order-1510300438

 

Trump and China at odds on trade philosophy  - multinational agreements (China) vs Trump's bilateral agreements. 

 

quote

The remarks by the U.S. leader and China’s Xi Jinping at a Pacific Rim summit laid out the battle positions in a rivalry between the two largest economies. Their strategies—and Mr. Trump’s pivot away from the multilateral pacts that have shaped U.S. engagement for decades—weigh on the future of trade in the world’s fastest-growing region. Asia has prospered from free markets—and racked up big trade surpluses, especially with the U.S.

The speeches also highlighted a contrast between rhetoric and reality, as Mr. Trump has yet to find willing partners for new bilateral deals, much of China’s market remains under government control, and the openings that emerged from a Trump-Xi summit in Beijing could prove smaller than they appear.

In his speech to business leaders at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, Mr. Trump repudiated the policy of predecessors from both parties, where Washington took the lead in shaping market-opening rules for the region.

But he said that the U.S. had no intention of retreating from Asia, seeking to allay the fears of allies in the region. “I will make bilateral trade agreements with any Indo-Pacific nation that wants to be our partner and will abide by the principles of fair and reciprocal trade,” Mr. Trump said.

He also disputed the notion that the U.S. itself had benefited from Asia’s growth and liberalization, saying “we are not going to let the United States be taken advantage of any more.”

Mr. Trump rejected the principle of stitching together the sprawling region through a common set of rules and agreements among multiple countries, a defining goal of the 21-member APEC, which was founded with U.S. guidance in 1989.

“What we will no longer do is enter into large agreements that will tie our hands, surrender our sovereignty and make meaningful enforcement practically impossible,” Mr. Trump said.

[Danny Bateman]

The best negotiator, eh? 

 

 

[zoogs]

A whole lot of people wanted to pull out of the TPP.

[Danny Bateman]

8 minutes ago, zoogs said:

A whole lot of people wanted to pull out of the TPP.

 

I think they had something else in mind. Presumably, people put their faith in Trump as some kind of master negotiator that would deliver unto us Americans an era of unparalleled economic growth & prosperity by instead crafting trade deals that actually benefit us instead of Mexico, Canada and the wealthy elites.

 

Instead we're sitting on the sidelines. Guess we'll take our ball, go home & settle for uber hostile economic nationalism & isolation instead.

[Guy Chamberlin]

A fairly measured observation from global trade analysts re: the Asia visit:

 

Trump is at once flattering China like no previous President, and pulling the U.S. out of a trade leadership role that China is more than happy to fill.

 

There might actually be some logic to the strategy, but there are so many mixed signals in this administration that no one can tell.

 

Only clear fact: had Obama taken that tack, Sean Hannity would have had an aneurysm.  

 

 

[RedDenver]

3 hours ago, zoogs said:

A whole lot of people wanted to pull out of the TPP.

I'm ok with this development. TPP had a lot of issues with it.

[zoogs]

I can't really get on board with being "OK" with the current developments. I concur with these people:

It's not a better, nicer, more promising world by any measure with a stronger China.

 

[RedDenver]

43 minutes ago, zoogs said:

I can't really get on board with being "OK" with the current developments. I concur with these people:

It's not a better, nicer, more promising world by any measure with a stronger China.

 

You're assuming that the TPP would somehow make China less strong and that the TPP wouldn't hurt the US.

 

We may someday look back and say those exact things, but there's no way to be sure right now that those conclusions are correct. I'd be REALLY surprised if the TPP was good for US workers.

[zoogs]

I don't know. I feel like those are reasonable assumptions -- the US could have been a party here but instead is ceding to China's expanding sphere of influence -- but maybe it's a simplistic view.

[RedDenver]

10 minutes ago, zoogs said:

I don't know. I feel like those are reasonable assumptions -- the US could have been a party here but instead is ceding to China's expanding sphere of influence -- but maybe it's a simplistic view.

They are reasonable assumptions, but they're still just assumptions and may or may not be true. Regardless of the effects of China's sphere of influence, the TPP's signing away of our sovereign power as a country to corporations and an arbiter were a bridge too far all by itself.

[zoogs]

Hm. I'd heard some criticisms of the TPP (a la 'it's too capitalist'), so the "international deal giving up sovereign power" angle is definitely not the kind of opposition I expected you to take. My disagreement is even firmer on these grounds. Do you feel the UK is taking back their sovereign power by exiting the EU?

[RedDenver]

38 minutes ago, zoogs said:

Hm. I'd heard some criticisms of the TPP (a la 'it's too capitalist'), so the "international deal giving up sovereign power" angle is definitely not the kind of opposition I expected you to take. My disagreement is even firmer on these grounds. Do you feel the UK is taking back their sovereign power by exiting the EU?

The UK had a sweetheart deal with the EU already that allowed them to keep their sovereign power (or more sovereign power than the other members). So while the UK is getting some sovereign power back by exiting the EU, they're giving up what was a really good deal for them. If the EU disintegrates or collapses, then the UK will have made a good move, but if the EU stays together and implements a real democratic process, then the UK should have stayed (although they might be able to get back in).

 

So I'd say, yes, the UK is taking back sovereign power, but I'm not sure that's worth giving up the deal they had. In the case of the TPP, the sovereign power lost by the US was to corporations, not a technocratic regime like the UK, so it's not quite apples to apples, and the UK's deal with the EU was much better than the deal the US was getting from the TPP.

[Danny Bateman]

2 hours ago, RedDenver said:

You're assuming that the TPP would somehow make China less strong and that the TPP wouldn't hurt the US.

 

We may someday look back and say those exact things, but there's no way to be sure right now that those conclusions are correct. I'd be REALLY surprised if the TPP was good for US workers.

 

Wasn't the top pretty much the major selling point for the TPP in the first place? It was supposed to be about opening up the Pacific Rim economies with us in the driver's seat, at the expense of China. The biggest positive that people used to sell it was we would largely be the ones dictating the rules, rather than letting China continue to proliferate, thus denying (or at least delaying) them market share with some of these economies.

 

That said, I agree with your rationale about the deal's flaws. I was pretty indifferent to whether it passed or not, but I think I hedged toward being glad we didn't do it, given what you mentioned about corporations having too much influence in its design & the copyright provisions it contained.

 

However in the end getting left out in the cold while the rest of the TPP countries form their own deal spearheaded by China may come at a pretty steep price, too. I'm seeing discussion in some circles about whether Trump's bumbling foreign policy and stance on trade could accelerate the U.S.'s descent away from being the world's strongest economy. Not immediately, but at some point in the not too distant future. I do believe he's doing lasting damage to our foreign policy at the very least, if not our economic future, but that's a different discussion.

I view Trump's stance on trade as somewhat inefficient. Opting for isolationism & bilateral trade agreements in lieu of multilateral trade agreements fits neatly within Trump's zero-sum worldview, but he's also expending more time to add comparatively less new juice to our economy. But, I also don't believe for a second his rhetoric striking "better deals" for the American worker, so I don't really see the advantage of going the bilateral route. I just think he views diplomacy as difficult and therefore a waste of time.

Edited November 12, 2017 by dudeguyy

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, dudeguyy said:

 

Wasn't the top pretty much the major selling point for the TPP in the first place? It was supposed to be about opening up the Pacific Rim economies with us in the driver's seat, at the expense of China. The biggest positive that people used to sell it was we would largely be the ones dictating the rules, rather than letting China continue to proliferate, thus denying (or at least delaying) them market share with some of these economies.

 

That said, I agree with your rationale about the deal's flaws. I was pretty indifferent to whether it passed or not, but I think I hedged toward being glad we didn't do it, given what you mentioned about corporations having too much influence in its design & the copyright provisions it contained.

 

However in the end getting left out in the cold while the rest of the TPP countries form their own deal spearheaded by China may come at a pretty steep price, too. I'm seeing discussion in some circles about whether Trump's bumbling foreign policy and stance on trade could accelerate the U.S.'s descent away from being the world's strongest economy. Not immediately, but at some point in the not too distant future. I do believe he's doing lasting damage to our foreign policy at the very least, if not our economic future, but that's a different discussion.

I view Trump's stance on trade as somewhat inefficient. Opting for isolationism & bilateral trade agreements in lieu of multilateral trade agreements fits neatly within Trump's zero-sum worldview, but he's also expending more time to add comparatively less new juice to our economy. But, I also don't believe for a second his rhetoric striking "better deals" for the American worker, so I don't really see the advantage of going the bilateral route. I just think he views diplomacy as difficult and therefore a waste of time.

It's hard to believe anything the creators of the TPP claim since they did the negotiations in secret without Congress or the American people involved, but 500+ corporations were involved from the start. However, that doesn't mean bilateral trade or isolationism are good ideas either. The TPP could have been a better agreement with it had been an open agreement between governments with workers and corporations involved.

 

Trump is a disaster for foreign policy and relations. Yea or nay on the TPP won't change that. Also, there's speculation that a lot of the more heinous parts of the TPP are being floated by the Trump admin as part of the renegotiation of NAFTA. So it's possible we could get the bad parts of the TPP and lose out in the Pacific region for a nice double negative that fits well with the Trump presidency so far.

[knapplc]

What the actual what.