6 ms·

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

by Zetto 6y ago

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.

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

by 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.