General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe national security case against TPP
The Republican and Democratic conventions showcased an extraordinarily rare point of bipartisan consensus: stopping the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Yet, in the dog days of summer, Americans have received a rude awakening that the unpopular 12-nation trade deal is still on the table. This past Friday, President Obama put Congress on notice that a vote on TPP is coming in the lame duck period after the election.
While the President recently conceded that TPP critics are coming from a sincere concern about the position of workers and wages in this country, he's also been hammering home a familiar and often-unchallenged fallback case for trade agreements: that TPP is essential for foreign policy and national security priorities.
As a retired Brigadier General and 30-year veteran of the U.S. Army, Ive long considered arguments for trade deals as national security strategies, including arguments for the TPP specifically as a way to keep the peace in the Pacific and counter China as it flexes its economic and military muscle. While I respect President Obama and the pacts military backers, I believe these arguments miss a crucial point: By facilitating the further offshoring of Americas manufacturing base, the trade pact would actually undermine Americas military readiness and global economic standing. TPP would hurt our national security interests more than it would help.
In 2013, the Pentagons Defense Science Board put forward a remarkable report describing one of the most significant but little-recognized threats to US security: deindustrialization. The report argued that the loss of domestic U.S. manufacturing facilities has not only reduced U.S. living standards but also compromised U.S. technology leadership by enabling new players to learn a technology and then gain the capability to improve on it. The report explained that the offshoring of U.S. manufacturing presents a particularly dangerous threat to U.S. military readiness through the compromise of the supply chain for key weapons systems components.
<snip>
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/291725-the-national-security-case-against-tpp
True Dough
(17,390 posts)I can't make up my mind. I just read Yallerdawg's thread "Why President Obama is pushing the TPP," and I felt like the TPP could make sense if there are proper provisions. But reading the op-ed you posted, Cali, I'm now leaning the other way again.
If what the author writes is accurate, it's significant to consider:
So that blunts a lot of what the TPP would supposedly accomplish.
Then there's this damning statement:
And, finally, this reiteration of the growing power of multinational corporations does give on pause:
I don't know if I'll ultimately come out in favor of the TPP or not. I'm striving to find out whether the bad overshadows the good, and this link of yours makes it sound like that's the case.
cali
(114,904 posts)first the leaked chapters on I/P, Investment and the environment, and then the full document released last November- which I'm still slogging through. I've made it a point to read both pro and con, but the pro comes largely from the government and organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Big Ag, etc.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026654926
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026417822
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3210314
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023734647
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027428139
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023401331
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023401331
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024386544
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4591513