TPP felt to me one of the issues that really defined the Trump campaign and the voters it appealed to. I think Clinton eventually [0] took a public stance against the TPP, but ignoring the public's perception of her relation to the truth, she clearly did not prioritize the dismantling of TPP in the way that Trump did. In fact, it's really hard to imagine her undoing President Obama's work were she in office.<p>If someone believes international free trade is the cause of the gutting of American manufacturing and by proxy, local/regional economies, it's hard to argue that Clinton presented little more than nominal lip service to the cause, at least compared to the way that Trump and Sanders made it a core priority of their campaign and stump speeches.<p>[0] <a href="http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trade-tpp-20160926-snap-story.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trade-tpp-20160926...</a>
Interestingly at today's White House Press Briefing, a reporter asked the Press Secretary whether the Trump Administration thought that it could surround/contain China with bilateral trade agreements the way that the TPP had intended to do on a multilateral basis.<p>China has a couple of free trade deals in the region. It has a multilateral effort (RCEP) which is somewhat stalled and primarily pursued bilateral trade agreements.<p>This may put American and China toe-to-toe in reaching agreements with Asian Pacific states. There’s a question about the quality of the trade deals that can be reached, if the target nations are clever enough to play Beijing and Washington off against one another.<p>The Trump Administration has suggested that bilateral agreements are better because they don’t devolve into “least common denominator” the way multilateral deals do; and that they also allow the deals to be quickly withdrawn from or renegotiated to account for new realities.
The TPP was about something other then money and trade. It was about soft power. It was about containing China. It was about influence.<p>By cancelling it, Trump has handed 1/3 of the worlds GDP to China. Because I suspect China will step in and seal the deal.<p>I know Trump railed about the TPP. But I'm sad no one stood up to defend it. Clinton just flipped flopped. I suppose it's easier for the average American to understand "China is taking you job away" (and that's not the whole truth anyway) then to explain the nuances of soft power.<p>With TPP gone. We now really only have one form of leverage over China. The military. And I damn glad I'm retired from the Army.
One of the TPP sections that concerned me the most was where corporations could sue nations for passing legislation that detrimentally affected their business (think countries passing environmental restrictions on companies). My concern was greatest that US companies would do this to other nations, like Australia where I am.<p>I'm assuming now that US companies won't be able to do this, but is the TPP still binding between the rest of the ratified countries?
I'm not that into the TPP from what I've read of it, but doesn't bailing on it just open the door for China to take the leadership role and dictate commerce norms for those still involved?
This was a key policy bit of the Trump stumping. Agree or disagree; this is (or should be) an expected outcome of Trump's win.<p><i>disclaimer</i>: I have no stance on the TPP, deferring to experts who have the time and expertise to correctly evaluate it.