8 ms·

As a citizen of a SEA nation, really excited with the trade agreement. However one thing that bug me is that a number of media/opinion tend to characterize the

by eunos 6y ago

As a citizen of a SEA nation, really excited with the trade agreement. However one thing that bug me is that a number of media/opinion tend to characterize the deal as some kind of China nefarious plot even though the initiative came from South East Asia. That also includes the discussion of some detail of the trade for example as explained in the article lack of focus on "environmental , labour standards, and rules for state-owned enterprises.". Again those commonly regarded as a poison pill from Beijing, instead of considering that maybe nations in the South East Asia preferred it that way irrespective of what Beijing thinks.

Zetto 6y ago
Japan, South Korea, Australia and NZ are also part of this pact.
- 5986043handy 6y ago
  In the absence of US leadership in the region it was only a matter of time before some other treaty came into being.
  - throwaway4good 6y ago
    Maybe the region doesn't need US leadership ... just a thought ...
    - 02020202 6y ago
      the entire world would benefit greatly if there would be NO USA involvement anywhere ever again.
    - jimbob45 6y ago
      Somehow, this has become a controversial opinion. Trump had a hands-off policy to foreign affairs except where America was directly involved (tariffs, etc). I couldn’t believe that his policies were voted down this month. I wouldn’t be surprised if Biden/Harris lands us in another Vietnam for some other moral mandate. We went to Vietnam under the pretense of stopping Communism. Just replace Communism with slavery, climate change, sexism, and it becomes plausible based on his rhetoric.
      - travisporter 6y ago
        Or oil in Kuwait or WMDs in Iraq, or ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. This comment runs too close to slippery slope. Involvement does not equal war. Besides, If you survey the country about the US role in the world I’m sure many people would say they would like the US to be world leader. I personally disagree but not everyone does.
        jimbob45 6y ago
        I don’t disagree with your implication though. Even if there had been WMDs in Iraq, it would still be a case of US interventionism, which I am opposed to as previously indicated.
  - mrjin 6y ago
    Actually US had just shown the world its leadership.
  - pydry 6y ago
    If the US had used the TPP to demonstrate some actual leadership in, for example, upholding environmental and labor Standards rather than trying to shoehorn ways for US corporations to sue foreign governments for lost profits it might still exist. As it was it was dictated by US corporations and negotiated in secret and killed by a dedicated lobbying effort by concerned citizens.
  - AtlasBarfed 6y ago
    Is Japan going to basically rearm and formally acquire nuclear deterrent soon?
- worik 6y ago
  I am from NZ. We know nothing about this. Done in secret.
  - canada2us 6y ago
    Something an individual doesn't know doesn't mean it's done in secret.
    - Mandatum 6y ago
      No it's quite literally done behind closed doors and we have no say in it. The last time a deal was proposed this way, it only came out when it was leaked - as it weakened our IP laws to that so they're comparable with the USA. If we're able to be sued by US patent trolls or Apple for round corners, there's not a single company in this country that could afford to fight it. Singing happy birthday was never an issue in this part of the world. No thanks.
      - canada2us 6y ago
        There has been many rounds of talks since 2014 when ASEAN countries proposed this. There must be some exposures during the past 6 years. The agreement now needs each country's domestic approval, so you can still have a say in it. The agreement is not in effect yet.
      - hcknwscommenter 6y ago
        > it weakened our IP laws to that so they're comparable with the USA. This statement literally makes no sense to me. Care to elaborate? As it stands, I have to admit that your statement suggests to me that you haven't the vaguest idea about U.S. versus NZ IP laws and perhaps have also gotten the idea of strong vs. weak IP laws entirely backwards. Enlighten me, please.
      - shajznnckfke 6y ago
        This is how negotiations work everywhere for any kind of deal. Think of some successful past legislation you support - I guarantee that it was negotiated behind closed doors. Negotiation requires fluidly proposing alternatives in a give-and-take that ultimately leads to an agreement. When the items being given or taken are policies supported or opposed by members of the public, it would be self-sabotage for one half of the negotiation to expose its deliberations to public debate. Imagine you’re a couple making an offer to buy a house. Do you think it would be smart to expose all your internal discussions about the purchase to the seller along with the offer? Do you think you’d ever succeed at buying a home at a good price if you always made such a disclosure? I think this argument that a treaty was secretly negotiated is better understood as a general-purpose process argument that can be applied against any treaty or law, not as a meaningful criticism of any in particular. It’s just how the sausage is made.
wolverine876 6y ago
China will of course use this treaty and every other tool to obtain their foreign policy goals, as do most countries (it's the goals and tools that vary). Among their current goals is to become the dominant power in East and Southeast Asia, displacing the U.S., and to become the dominant power in the world. Trade treaties have long been used by countries for those ends. China in particular has heavily used economic power and arrangements to expand political influence. For example, loans to many countries are used to create leverage and sometimes seize valuable strategic assets when the debtors, which most observers knew were not creditworthy, cannot pay them back. For example, China has acquired ports that way (IIRC, the one in Sri Lanka?). Also, regardless of the situation, China will have the most leverage in any negotiation of an economic treaty (as does the U.S., despite the disinformation that those treaties are to the U.S.'s disadvantage). The source of the initiative, if that's the case (do you have evidence?) doesn't restrain China or protect the other countries.
siraben 6y ago
Fellow citizen of another SEA nation here, also looking forward to this trade agreement. It seems to me that over the last four years the Trump administration's increased isolationist attitude further incentivized a free trade agreement between ASEAN nations and their partners. As the article says this should be viewed more as an economic unification of ASEAN and FTA partners, rather than China completely dominating Asia altogether.
- j8hn 6y ago
  What SEA countries has the Trump administration had a isolationist attitude towards?
odiroot 6y ago
> However one thing that bug me is that a number of media/opinion tend to characterize the deal as some kind of China nefarious plot even though the initiative came from South East Asia. I would guess it's a huge win for smaller SEA countries. China could dictate the rules before anyway (big = important) but now they're all supposedly going to play on a level field. And ASEAN being behind this project, it probably benefits Singapore greatly.

by eunos 6y ago

Zetto 6y ago

Japan, South Korea, Australia and NZ are also part of this pact.

5986043handy 6y ago
In the absence of US leadership in the region it was only a matter of time before some other treaty came into being.
- throwaway4good 6y ago
  Maybe the region doesn't need US leadership ... just a thought ...
  - 02020202 6y ago
    the entire world would benefit greatly if there would be NO USA involvement anywhere ever again.
  - jimbob45 6y ago
    Somehow, this has become a controversial opinion. Trump had a hands-off policy to foreign affairs except where America was directly involved (tariffs, etc). I couldn’t believe that his policies were voted down this month. I wouldn’t be surprised if Biden/Harris lands us in another Vietnam for some other moral mandate. We went to Vietnam under the pretense of stopping Communism. Just replace Communism with slavery, climate change, sexism, and it becomes plausible based on his rhetoric.
    - travisporter 6y ago
      Or oil in Kuwait or WMDs in Iraq, or ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. This comment runs too close to slippery slope. Involvement does not equal war. Besides, If you survey the country about the US role in the world I’m sure many people would say they would like the US to be world leader. I personally disagree but not everyone does.
      - jimbob45 6y ago
        I don’t disagree with your implication though. Even if there had been WMDs in Iraq, it would still be a case of US interventionism, which I am opposed to as previously indicated.
- mrjin 6y ago
  Actually US had just shown the world its leadership.
- pydry 6y ago
  If the US had used the TPP to demonstrate some actual leadership in, for example, upholding environmental and labor Standards rather than trying to shoehorn ways for US corporations to sue foreign governments for lost profits it might still exist. As it was it was dictated by US corporations and negotiated in secret and killed by a dedicated lobbying effort by concerned citizens.
- AtlasBarfed 6y ago
  Is Japan going to basically rearm and formally acquire nuclear deterrent soon?
worik 6y ago
I am from NZ. We know nothing about this. Done in secret.
- canada2us 6y ago
  Something an individual doesn't know doesn't mean it's done in secret.
  - Mandatum 6y ago
    No it's quite literally done behind closed doors and we have no say in it. The last time a deal was proposed this way, it only came out when it was leaked - as it weakened our IP laws to that so they're comparable with the USA. If we're able to be sued by US patent trolls or Apple for round corners, there's not a single company in this country that could afford to fight it. Singing happy birthday was never an issue in this part of the world. No thanks.
    - canada2us 6y ago
      There has been many rounds of talks since 2014 when ASEAN countries proposed this. There must be some exposures during the past 6 years. The agreement now needs each country's domestic approval, so you can still have a say in it. The agreement is not in effect yet.
    - hcknwscommenter 6y ago
      > it weakened our IP laws to that so they're comparable with the USA. This statement literally makes no sense to me. Care to elaborate? As it stands, I have to admit that your statement suggests to me that you haven't the vaguest idea about U.S. versus NZ IP laws and perhaps have also gotten the idea of strong vs. weak IP laws entirely backwards. Enlighten me, please.
    - shajznnckfke 6y ago
      This is how negotiations work everywhere for any kind of deal. Think of some successful past legislation you support - I guarantee that it was negotiated behind closed doors. Negotiation requires fluidly proposing alternatives in a give-and-take that ultimately leads to an agreement. When the items being given or taken are policies supported or opposed by members of the public, it would be self-sabotage for one half of the negotiation to expose its deliberations to public debate. Imagine you’re a couple making an offer to buy a house. Do you think it would be smart to expose all your internal discussions about the purchase to the seller along with the offer? Do you think you’d ever succeed at buying a home at a good price if you always made such a disclosure? I think this argument that a treaty was secretly negotiated is better understood as a general-purpose process argument that can be applied against any treaty or law, not as a meaningful criticism of any in particular. It’s just how the sausage is made.

wolverine876 6y ago

China will of course use this treaty and every other tool to obtain their foreign policy goals, as do most countries (it's the goals and tools that vary). Among their current goals is to become the dominant power in East and Southeast Asia, displacing the U.S., and to become the dominant power in the world. Trade treaties have long been used by countries for those ends. China in particular has heavily used economic power and arrangements to expand political influence. For example, loans to many countries are used to create leverage and sometimes seize valuable strategic assets when the debtors, which most observers knew were not creditworthy, cannot pay them back. For example, China has acquired ports that way (IIRC, the one in Sri Lanka?). Also, regardless of the situation, China will have the most leverage in any negotiation of an economic treaty (as does the U.S., despite the disinformation that those treaties are to the U.S.'s disadvantage). The source of the initiative, if that's the case (do you have evidence?) doesn't restrain China or protect the other countries.

siraben 6y ago

Fellow citizen of another SEA nation here, also looking forward to this trade agreement. It seems to me that over the last four years the Trump administration's increased isolationist attitude further incentivized a free trade agreement between ASEAN nations and their partners. As the article says this should be viewed more as an economic unification of ASEAN and FTA partners, rather than China completely dominating Asia altogether.

j8hn 6y ago
What SEA countries has the Trump administration had a isolationist attitude towards?

odiroot 6y ago

> However one thing that bug me is that a number of media/opinion tend to characterize the deal as some kind of China nefarious plot even though the initiative came from South East Asia. I would guess it's a huge win for smaller SEA countries. China could dictate the rules before anyway (big = important) but now they're all supposedly going to play on a level field. And ASEAN being behind this project, it probably benefits Singapore greatly.