(This post is from our new blog: Unofficial Sources.)
Although Hillary Clinton went into great detail extolling the virtues of President Obama’s proposed trade agreements while serving as secretary of state, as a candidate for president Clinton has only offered vague statements about her current position on the deals.
So how would a President Clinton decide on the Trans-Pacific Partnership or the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership? On Wednesday, White House spokesperson Eric Schultz said he had not “seen anything to suggest any distance” between Clinton’s position and the Obama administration on the deals. And trade consultants close to Clinton remain optimistic about her support.
Asked about Clinton’s TPP position at a recent Bloomberg News conference, Jim Bacchus, former Democratic congressman from Florida, said he is “sure Hillary will get to all of these things and I think she has a good sense to be for trade as part of her overall approach to America’s economic future.”
Later at the same conference, Bob Hormats, who served as Clinton’s under secretary of state, said he could not speak on behalf of Clinton, but emphasized that his former boss “understands very clearly that there are enormous trade opportunities in Asia and creating jobs.”
Hormats now serves as vice chairman of Kissinger Associates, a consulting firm founded by Henry Kissinger that advises multinational corporations on trade issues.
In Congress, Bacchus was a lead negotiator for NAFTA and later served as chief judge of the World Trade Organization. Bacchus, who now works on trade issues as the Global Practice Chair of the lobbying firm Greenberg Traurig, said he was the first of Florida’s congressional delegation to endorse Bill Clinton’s bid for the presidency, a supporter for Hillary Clinton in 2008 and a strong supporter of her current presidential campaign.
In New Hampshire, Clinton recently said, “Any trade deal has to produce jobs and raise wages and increase prosperity and protect our security.” She has also mentioned that she would like to see currency manipulation as a key part of the deal.
But Clinton’s comments have not persuaded TPP critics. Indeed, vague demands that any deal increase prosperity are more or less identical to the rhetoric offered by strong TPP supporters. I spoke to Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin last Saturday, who had this to say about the TPP and TTIP (emphasis added):
Well, I talked about TTIP the other day in Germany in Hanover at the industrial fair there, and I think fair and open trade is a good thing on either side of the continent for the United States, whethere it’s on the Atlantic or the Pacific. Obvious the details need to be worked out and there’s a lot of details including some specific to my state that need to be worked out. But I think in the end, having a deal that’s fair and offers fair and open trade would be a good thing for the United States and for our trading partners.
Critics of the deal argue they have been burned by double-dealing by politicians in the past.
As a candidate for the presidency in 2008, Barack Obama harshly criticized NAFTA on the campaign trail, claiming he would move to renegotiate the pact as president. Yet, reporters later uncovered evidence that Obama’s aides had met privately with Canadian officials to tell them that Obama’s rhetoric was “more reflective of political maneuvering than policy.”
Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
I wanna see an article from the Intercept with this title:
“Why fake socialist Bernie Sanders… or fake populist Hillary Clinton–or anyone who is POTUS in Jan 2017 –will attack China and endanger the lives of billions of people, and what we in the 99% can do NOW and in the meantime to stop this drive to war.”
See http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/05/08/mdtp-m08.html?view=print
please see:
US “Grand Strategy” for war against China laid out
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/05/02/chin-m02.html
The TPP is vile and must be stopped. It’s not about trade. It’s about letting foreign lawyers meeting in secret courts over-rule American laws and freedoms. The old Soviet Commissars once had such unaccountable power. Why should be let the CEO’s of the big multinational corporations have it today?
http://globuspallidusxi.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-tpp-trans-pacific-partnership-is.html
If Hillary Clinton supports TPP, then I will drop my support for her like a rock, and find another Democratic Candidate to support for President.
These FTAs are a done deal because the people don’t have a voice. In more ways than one. The people are voiceless out of subservient obedience to a system they have been propagandized since birth to believe they cannot live without and those who aren’t, aren’t of sufficient numbers to to be a deterrent. The multinationals are in the driver’s seat and unless there’s a great awakening, the poor working stiffs will be herded into a codified vassal state. Good luck to all as we march into the abyss, while the predatory class wrecks the planet with their “insatiable growth at any cost” mantra.
As a woman I don’t know what’s sadder, the idea that Hillary Clinton (logo: “Hell->This Way”) is going to reform out of her obnoxious self, or the idea that Elizabeth “Nanny McFee the Zionist” Warren (currently playing the part of Robin Hood) isn’t merely a big-mouthed but ultimately theatrical part of the systemic charade whereby Americans get screwed. I wish people could see past the theater. It isn’t even that difficult!
*******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
For the record: all the other candidates from either party – or Bernie “I’ll criticize everything but the military-industrial-complex” Sanders – whoever they are (or will be), are no better.
No one knows what’s in the TPP, as explained in Obama & TPP: Every One That Doeth Evil Hateth the Light. So Hillary Clinton is probably wise to reserve judgment until after it’s safely signed into law. It’s important for candidates to demonstrate they have faith in the system. This may seem unfair (Clinton has demonstrated her faith at every opportunity), but the system wouldn’t have lasted long if it were based on trust.
The Russians are in Big Trouble. The have the audacity to start trade with China, Argentina, etc., in their own currencies. It will kill the dollar, and it is infectious – Iran will also start doing this. Saddam tried and failed – thanks to our timely interception. Either Russians desist – or else …..
Clinton’s position on the TPP is not in dispute. Are you familiar with the piece, “America’s Pacific Century”? Read it now if you haven’t yet.
Read as well:
US imperialism’s pivot to Asia
isreview.org/issue/88/us-imperialisms-pivot-asia
Chris Hedges wrote in Empire of Illusion,
It is interesting to see the fake progressives Warren and Brown pretend to posture as transparency advocates. The Democratic and Republican parties are for the supremacy of the US based capitalist class. The TPP is an aspect of this class’ war on China. Clinton’s campaign and PR team may try to pass Clinton off as some kind of People’s Champion, but she’s a permanent operative of the ruling class, an enemy of the 99% of humanity.
See also:
The New Authoritarianism: From Decaying Democracies to Technocratic Dictatorships and Beyond
http://petras.lahaine.org/?p=1881
Dis-Accumulation on a World Scale: Pillage, Plunder and Wealth
petras.lahaine.org/?p=2015
From Sept 2012:
Clinton intervenes at Pacific Islands Forum
wsws.org/en/articles/2012/09/pifr-s04.html
From July 2014:
Encircling China: origins of ‘Asia Pivot’
liberationnews.org/encircling-china-origins-of-asia-pivot/
And more recently:
Obama heightens tensions over South China Sea
wsws.org/en/articles/2015/04/13/scse-a13.html
US defence secretary warns China over Asian maritime disputes
wsws.org/en/articles/2015/04/09/cart-a09.html
Read the piece attributed to Clinton here:
America’s Pacific Century
foreignpolicy.com/2011/10/11/americas-pacific-century/
See also this clip of Clinton at the CFR:
youtube.com/watch?v=Ba9wxl1Dmas
And what is Michael Williams alluding to in these remarks:
The US pivot to Asia – Michael Williams, Chatham House
youtube.com/watch?v=tCdLPIbCcfk
Foxnews is hard at work subverting Hillary Clinton. I don’t think she stands a chance.
Perhaps you’re onto something else, General, suggesting “hard at work” replace Fox’s current integrity mantra of “fair and balanced.” After all, they’ve been trying to convince viewers forever repeating something enough makes it so…
Fox and Obama aren’t adversaries. Fox and Clinton aren’t adversaries. CNN and MSNBC and PBS aren’t the opposite of Fox.
The audience of Fox viewers, as a rule poorly informed, just as fans of any of the networks (including the supposedly public ones) are poorly informed, are kept in the dark about the ruling class agenda, and are instead constantly fed manipulative, personality-based narratives. Because the American people are poorly educated, we get in Obama “Bushism without Bush” (in Arundhati Roy’s terrific phrase in criticizing the illusion of choice between Bush and Kerry).
The limbic system overstimulating garbage amounts to little more than this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4zYlOU7Fpk
Howard Zinn wrote, “In our election-obsessed culture, everything else going on in the world — war, hunger, official brutality, sickness, the violence of everyday life for huge numbers of people — is swept out of the way, while the media insist we watch every twist and turn of what candidates say and do. Thus, the superficial crowds out the meaningful, and this is very useful for those who do not want citizens to look beneath the surface of the system. In the shadows, and hidden by the dueling of the candidates (if you can call it a duel when the opponents thrust and lunge with plastic swords) are real issues of race and class, war and peace, which the public is not supposed to think about, as the media experts pontificate endlessly about who is winning, and throw numbers in our faces like handfuls of sand….”
“The pretense in disputed elections is that the great conflict is between the two major parties. The reality is that there is a much bigger conflict that the two parties jointly wage against large numbers of Americans who are represented by neither party and against powerless millions around the world.”
“Thus, the superficial crowds out the meaningful, and this is very useful for those who do not want citizens to look beneath the surface of the system. In the shadows, and hidden by the dueling of the candidates (if you can call it a duel when the opponents thrust and lunge with plastic swords) are real issues of race and class, war and peace, which the public is not supposed to think about, as the media experts pontificate endlessly about who is winning, and throw numbers in our faces like handfuls of sand….”
Your comment is one of few that sometimes causes me to believe there is some spark of dissent left in the hearts and souls of the American people.
What is occurring in our once great nation is incomprehensible, an abomination; we are watching the killing off of a way of life that had a chance, brief though it was, to level the field, so equality might live.
Candidates don’t take positions on political issues. I don’t believe this is a written prohibition, but merely reflects the common sense recognition that taking a position will alienate some portion of the electorate. So there is no point asking Clinton for her position on the TPP.
Of course it’s easy enough just to ask her major campaign contributors, since they have no reason not to be honest about what they paid for.
As for the TPP itself, it simply increases economic efficiency. Currently, to maximize profits, corporations have to maintain an army of lobbyists in Washington to ensure the passage of favorable legislation. This is economically inefficient. The TPP makes it illegal to pass any legislation which might diminish corporate profits, and so would make much of this lobbying unnecessary. This is why Congressional representatives have not been allowed to see drafts of the agreement, since it potentially threatens their livelihood.
But unless you are a legislator or a lobbyist, there is nothing to fear from this agreement. The average person really shouldn’t care how their rulers divide the spoils, since they won’t be seeing any of it. It’s true there are dire warnings about how the TPP will squeeze labor and reduce wages to the lowest common denominator. But this will happen anyway, with or without the agreement.
@Glenn 24 Apr 2015 at 5:08 pm: ‘Truth would have TPP described as an investor rights agreement.’
Agreed. Can ‘The Intercept’ et al *please* stop using the ‘T-word’ when referring to TPP? As Lori Wallach[1] et al have *repeatedly* pointed out, only 5 of the TPP’s 29 chapters[2] deal directly with trade. Most of the TPP is about increasing multinational corporate power through promoting “intellectual property,” “investor-state arbitration,” and “regulatory coherence.” Calling TPP a “trade agreement” plays right into the TPP’s advocates’ marketing plan: having convinced all-too-many Americans that the unconditional goodness of “free trade” is a scientific fact, they now seek to smuggle TPP into law under that disguise.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lori_Wallach
[2]: http://www.democracynow.org/2015/4/16/a_corporate_trojan_horse_critics_decry
Since when did it become a mystery that the Clintons might be anything other than 2 dollar blowjobs? Where did this argument arise from? What has transpired to raise doubts as to the colors they have always and shall always fly when the chips are on the table?
At least, in the age of Monica Lewinsky, the White House didn’t have an e-mail account.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/25/russian-hackers-read-unclassified-obama-emails-report
The President’s gmail is missing.
That photo perfectly shows her, Hillary’s, disengenuin nature. That’s a fake smile. It’s so fake she looks evil. I don’t want her to represent anything especially the Presidency.
But the institutional role of the office of the POTUS is as an administrator of the sociopathic ruling class…
Why hold onto sentimental confusions about how the POTUS is the guardian of the country, a defender of the Constitution? Why cling to erroneous assumptions about the state, society, and politics?
An insight about Thomas Paine’s critique of the crown and his understanding of social psychology:
What am I missing? Where does it mandate the government getting involved in business negotiations outside the US proper? If a maker/supplier of widgets wants to supply/make widgets in another country then let them. It’s the businesses that bears the responsibility of operating in a foreign market not mine.
If a foreign based supplier/maker of widgets wants to supply/make widgets inside the U.S. proper than I can understand the government getting involved in business negotiations but specific to following US laws and requiring the hiring of US citizens to occupy every position within the U.S. business unit except for those who are needed to train the new employees and that would be temporary, very temporary work Visas.
What am I/we missing? Why is TPP so important? Foreign markets are not our concern! So who is making it our concern and why?
I don’t understand the meaning of the Scott Walker insert : what’s this got to do with Clinton ? And has he shown any fairness towards workers as gov. of Wisconsin ?
You’ve dedicated a few articles to these proposed trade deals now. You exposed the angle of lobbyists. In this one, you’re asking what one particular candidate’s position on them might be. But do all your readers know what these documents actually contain ? Perhaps Lori Wallach might be of some assistance to enlighten them…
Mrs. NAFTA rides again!
TPP would gut state laws. Congress is going to allow this to happen? What the hell is happening in this country? Washington D.C. is full of whores who will sell to the highest bidder. Who are these individuals who were elected to represent their constituents? They’re whores, all of them. They have no loyalty to their own country. They sell it out for the right price. Foreign investors will have more rights than U.S. citizens. A Trans Pacific Partnership will UNDERMINE STATE AND LOCAL LAWS. Is that what Americans want? Wake up and smell the coffee. Hillary Clinton is a politician. She’s as full of sh** as the rest of the greedy pigs in Washington who look out for themselves and nobody else.. Her prize is the presidency. The laws passed of this country will be meaningless if the TPP comes to pass!! The TPP tribunal. is going to set this country back 150 yrs.. Hillary Clinton is as big a fraud as Obama turned out to be. They talk the talk but they don’t walk the walk.
# I AM Hillary Clinton by Jenna Marbles
“How can she run for president without leaving her kitchen? I decided to film this video From my kitchen … which is better than yours.”
Truth would have TPP described as an investor rights agreement.
God knows how investor rights have been abused by labor rights agreements.
Pity the poor billionaires who want, but do not yet own it all.
I don’t think there has ever been any doubt about Clinton’s position. These agreements which are called “trade” agreements have very little to do with trade and a lot to do with US global financial hegemony. They are designed as an attack on state sovereignty and protectionism for corporations to do as they like and to prevent nations from passing laws which could mean capital control of their own country’s economy and prevent the completely free flow of capital and much more such as protecting the rights of Pfizer to charge whatever they damn well please in Africa or anywhere else.
Because of the really big geopolitical/economic project as announced by the Chinese to open trade routes around the world with trains and ships called the New Silk Road and Economic Belt and the Maritime Silk Road (which is what the US aggression in the South and East China seas right now is all about) the US seems on its back foot and really needs these agreements to safeguard the dollar as reserve or try to anyway and to try and contain China. They are clearly seen as being vital to and necessary for continued dollar dominance. This also in the face of the new AIIB China has opened with 50+ founding members including the UK, Germany, France and others all were lobbied strongly not to join but did anyway.
Along winded way if saying, she will do whatever she can to get it passed. Although regrettable, at least for working people, it will likely pass. (As GG and others have pointed out when something is clearly in the interests of the empire the two parties are like one big happy family.)
Like Obama, Clinton will only advocate positions in opposition to the oligarchy if and when convinced such positions will be ineffectively influential.