Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga on Sunday said that so long as China had its current regime under President XI Jinping, it would not be able to join Trans-Pacific Partnership free-trade agreement. Suga was quoted by NHK World as he spoke with a commercial broadcaster's radio programme. Suga said he believed that countries, where businesses were run by the state, would find it difficult to join the TPP because its regulations are too high for such a business structure to follow.

The Japanese Prime Minister was responding to Xi Jinping's comments that suggested that China was "positive" about joining the TPP Pact.

Nikkei Asia Review had reported Xi as saying on November 20 that China is open to joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact, in a likely move to bolster the country`s presence in Asia while the US focuses on its presidential transition. China "will favourably consider joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership," the Chinese President added.

(With agency inputs)

Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga on Sunday said that so long as China had its current regime under President XI Jinping, it would not be able to join Trans-Pacific Partnership free-trade agreement.

Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga on Sunday said that so long as China had its current regime under President XI Jinping, it would not be able to join Trans-Pacific Partnership free-trade agreement. Suga was quoted by NHK World as he spoke with a commercial broadcaster's radio programme. Suga said he believed that countries, where businesses were run by the state, would find it difficult to join the TPP because its regulations are too high for such a business structure to follow. The Japanese Prime Minister was responding to Xi Jinping's comments that suggested that China was "positive" about joining the TPP Pact. Nikkei Asia Review had reported Xi as saying on November 20 that China is open to joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact, in a likely move to bolster the country`s presence in Asia while the US focuses on its presidential transition. China "will favourably consider joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership," the Chinese President added. (With agency inputs)

China won't be able to join TPP under Xi Jinping: Japanese PM

By:&nbspCharles Hankla*

The latest G-7 summit, held June 8 to 9 in Quebec, was one of the most contentious in years.

That's because Donald Trump and his counterparts from six other industrialised countries have been at loggerheads over the president's aggressive but unstable trade policy. Trump's renunciation of the Iran nuclear deal, his efforts to renegotiate NAFTA and his intransigent stance on climate change are not helping matters. Nor is his proposal to readmit Russia to the G-7 gathering.

But the ink on the G-7 communique wasn't dry before Trump darted to Singapore to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un for nuclear talks, another example of his unpredictable decision-making style. One moment he’s threatening war with the dictator, and the next he’s buttering him up for a summit.

One way to understand Trump's foreign policy decisions is to focus on their inconsistency rather than their content. Let's take trade policy as an example.

I have written a number of times about the economic dangers of the Trump administration's tilt toward protectionism. And I have pointed to the risk that Trump's use of trade policy as a unilateral weapon could undermine the rule-based international order.

I remain worried about these issues, but what has struck me much more deeply in recent days is the seeming inconsistency, indeed instability, of Trump's behavior on trade. It is worth considering its causes and consequences – which extend far beyond trade to his nuclear game of chess with North Korea and Iran.

Trouble in Trump trade land

First, let's review just a few of Trump's recent trade decisions.

At the G7, Trump's belligerent and unpredictable trade policy was the main reason the other leaders – which also include Germany's Angela Merkel, the U.K.'s Theresa May and France's Emmanuel Macron – are so perturbed. Some commentators are even beginning to term the meeting a "G6 plus one" to signify Trump's estrangement from his allies.

Recent events have inflamed tensions significantly. The White House said on May 31 that it would impose steel and aluminum tariffs on the European Union, Canada and Mexico. The three had previously received exemptions from the new tariffs, first imposed in March and justified with a little-used national security provision.

All are now planning retaliatory tariffs against the United States, along with legal action at the World Trade Organisation. Friends indeed.

It's the same story with China, which Trump has not only made subject to the same metals tariffs but has also threatened with US$50 billion of other sanctions if it doesn't meet a series of demands.

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross recently traveled to Beijing hoping to negotiate increased Chinese purchases of American goods and a reduction of its trade deficit with the U.S. He was forced to return empty-handed after the Chinese government declared itself unwilling to act without an American promise to drop its tariff threats. An earlier leak that China would purchase an additional $200 million of U.S. exports turned out to be wildly optimistic.

The United States now finds itself isolated, not only from China but from its strongest allies as well. Is this a temporary step in negotiations, or is it the new normal?

Shifting trade winds

Of course, Trump's proclivity for changing his mind is well-known, but all the same there is an understandable tendency among commentators to focus on the content of his policy choices.

This is especially true on trade, where Trump's protectionist rhetoric has been exuberant, to say the least.

And it is true that Trump's actions have been more anti-trade than those of his predecessors, beginning with his withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership during the first week of his presidency.

Nevertheless, over the last few months, Trump's trade policy has seemed increasingly erratic. He publicly discussed reentering the Pacific trade deal and just as quickly dismissed the idea. He imposed metal tariffs, immediately granted exemptions to most of America’s major exporters and then withdrew those exemptions three months later. He threatened China with new tariffs on $150 billion worth of exports, then suspended them and risked political capital to save the Chinese corporation ZTE. And after pushing for extraordinary trade concessions from China, he had to take a U-turn after it denied that it had agreed to the most important of those demands.

Two schools of thought

There are two schools of thought about what is driving this policy instability.

Supporters of the president tend to see it as a negotiating tactic, the "Art of the Deal" on a grander scale. Trump, they believe, is trying to throw world leaders off-balance so that he can extract more trade concessions from them.

Trump’s detractors, by contrast, see the president as hopelessly adrift, swayed this way and that by the varying opinions of his advisers. When globalists such as Steve Mnuchin and Wilbur Ross, secretaries of the treasury and commerce, respectively, have his ear, the president softens his stance on trade. But when U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and White House adviser Peter Navarro, economic nationalists both, are in the room, Trump doubles down on protection.

Master negotiator?

If U.S. observers accept that Trump's shifting policy is part of a broader negotiating strategy, Americans can perhaps hope for a better outcome than what they see now.

Indeed, there is some basis in game theory for "irrational" behavior as a negotiating technique. Nobel laureate Thomas Schelling, in his 1960 classic "The Strategy of Conflict," pointed out that negotiators with a reputation for overreacting when their demands aren't met can be in a stronger position to extract concessions.

If a country can convince its opponent of its willingness to follow through on threats even when they are self-destructive, the country can more effectively compel changes in behavior. Moreover, if an opponent doubts the ability of a country's leaders to understand or carefully consider the consequences of the opponent's threats, the country is, ironically, in a stronger negotiating position. This "irrationality" approach was famously termed the "madman strategy" by Richard Nixon and played a role in motivating his escalation of the Vietnam War during the Paris negotiations.

Perhaps, then, Americans are witnessing the early stages of a negotiating strategy that will ultimately bear fruit.

Or malleable amateur?

Even in this optimistic scenario, however, the president's approach seems too myopic.

After all, international trade negotiations do not play by the same rules as military diplomacy, where much of this theory was developed. Such techniques might have a greater chance of working with Iran and North Korea, but of course, the risks of escalation here are even more severe.

Trade is different because it is mutually beneficial and also because it requires cooperation that is sustained over time. A country's reputation for stable compliance with its agreements is thus put at a premium otherwise, the country risks being shunned by potential partners. To wrest trade concessions from America's partners may be satisfying, but if it is accomplished at the cost of weakening the world trading system, it is hardly worth the price.

The costs of instability

If, on the other hand, Trump's unstable policy is a symptom of indecision in the face of the competing agendas of his aides, the world economy may be in for a bumpy ride. Irrational behavior can be used selectively as a negotiating technique but has a high cost if not applied carefully and strategically. If a country's negotiating partners doubt its willingness or ability to follow through on its promises, cooperation becomes impossible.

In the final analysis, a stable and rule-based trading system is in the United States' long-term interest. Inconsistent and aggressive trade policies, whether produced by a master negotiator or a malleable amateur, risk poisoning the mutual trust necessary to make such a system function.

Some are now saying that President Trump is in the early stages of reconsidering America's membership in the WTO. Hopefully, the president will come to understand what is at stake soon, before it is too late.

(Charles Hankla is an Associate Professor of Political Science, Georgia State University.)

(This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com/global">The Conversation</a>. Read the original <a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-could-be-using-advanced-game-theory-negotiating-techniques-or-hes-hopelessly-adrift-97836">article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Trump’s renunciation of the Iran nuclear deal, his efforts to renegotiate NAFTA and his intransigent stance on climate change are not helping matters. Nor is his proposal to readmit Russia to the G-7 gathering

By: Charles Hankla* The latest G-7 summit, held June 8 to 9 in Quebec, was one of the most contentious in years. That's because Donald Trump and his counterparts from six other industrialised countries have been at loggerheads over the president's aggressive but unstable trade policy. Trump's renunciation of the Iran nuclear deal, his efforts to renegotiate NAFTA and his intransigent stance on climate change are not helping matters. Nor is his proposal to readmit Russia to the G-7 gathering. But the ink on the G-7 communique wasn't dry before Trump darted to Singapore to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un for nuclear talks, another example of his unpredictable decision-making style. One moment he’s threatening war with the dictator, and the next he’s buttering him up for a summit. One way to understand Trump's foreign policy decisions is to focus on their inconsistency rather than their content. Let's take trade policy as an example. I have written a number of times about the economic dangers of the Trump administration's tilt toward protectionism. And I have pointed to the risk that Trump's use of trade policy as a unilateral weapon could undermine the rule-based international order. I remain worried about these issues, but what has struck me much more deeply in recent days is the seeming inconsistency, indeed instability, of Trump's behavior on trade. It is worth considering its causes and consequences – which extend far beyond trade to his nuclear game of chess with North Korea and Iran. Trouble in Trump trade land First, let's review just a few of Trump's recent trade decisions. At the G7, Trump's belligerent and unpredictable trade policy was the main reason the other leaders – which also include Germany's Angela Merkel, the U.K.'s Theresa May and France's Emmanuel Macron – are so perturbed. Some commentators are even beginning to term the meeting a "G6 plus one" to signify Trump's estrangement from his allies. Recent events have inflamed tensions significantly. The White House said on May 31 that it would impose steel and aluminum tariffs on the European Union, Canada and Mexico. The three had previously received exemptions from the new tariffs, first imposed in March and justified with a little-used national security provision. All are now planning retaliatory tariffs against the United States, along with legal action at the World Trade Organisation. Friends indeed. It's the same story with China, which Trump has not only made subject to the same metals tariffs but has also threatened with US$50 billion of other sanctions if it doesn't meet a series of demands. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross recently traveled to Beijing hoping to negotiate increased Chinese purchases of American goods and a reduction of its trade deficit with the U.S. He was forced to return empty-handed after the Chinese government declared itself unwilling to act without an American promise to drop its tariff threats. An earlier leak that China would purchase an additional $200 million of U.S. exports turned out to be wildly optimistic. The United States now finds itself isolated, not only from China but from its strongest allies as well. Is this a temporary step in negotiations, or is it the new normal? Shifting trade winds Of course, Trump's proclivity for changing his mind is well-known, but all the same there is an understandable tendency among commentators to focus on the content of his policy choices. This is especially true on trade, where Trump's protectionist rhetoric has been exuberant, to say the least. And it is true that Trump's actions have been more anti-trade than those of his predecessors, beginning with his withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership during the first week of his presidency. Nevertheless, over the last few months, Trump's trade policy has seemed increasingly erratic. He publicly discussed reentering the Pacific trade deal and just as quickly dismissed the idea. He imposed metal tariffs, immediately granted exemptions to most of America’s major exporters and then withdrew those exemptions three months later. He threatened China with new tariffs on $150 billion worth of exports, then suspended them and risked political capital to save the Chinese corporation ZTE. And after pushing for extraordinary trade concessions from China, he had to take a U-turn after it denied that it had agreed to the most important of those demands. Two schools of thought There are two schools of thought about what is driving this policy instability. Supporters of the president tend to see it as a negotiating tactic, the "Art of the Deal" on a grander scale. Trump, they believe, is trying to throw world leaders off-balance so that he can extract more trade concessions from them. Trump’s detractors, by contrast, see the president as hopelessly adrift, swayed this way and that by the varying opinions of his advisers. When globalists such as Steve Mnuchin and Wilbur Ross, secretaries of the treasury and commerce, respectively, have his ear, the president softens his stance on trade. But when U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and White House adviser Peter Navarro, economic nationalists both, are in the room, Trump doubles down on protection. Master negotiator? If U.S. observers accept that Trump's shifting policy is part of a broader negotiating strategy, Americans can perhaps hope for a better outcome than what they see now. Indeed, there is some basis in game theory for "irrational" behavior as a negotiating technique. Nobel laureate Thomas Schelling, in his 1960 classic "The Strategy of Conflict," pointed out that negotiators with a reputation for overreacting when their demands aren't met can be in a stronger position to extract concessions. If a country can convince its opponent of its willingness to follow through on threats even when they are self-destructive, the country can more effectively compel changes in behavior. Moreover, if an opponent doubts the ability of a country's leaders to understand or carefully consider the consequences of the opponent's threats, the country is, ironically, in a stronger negotiating position. This "irrationality" approach was famously termed the "madman strategy" by Richard Nixon and played a role in motivating his escalation of the Vietnam War during the Paris negotiations. Perhaps, then, Americans are witnessing the early stages of a negotiating strategy that will ultimately bear fruit. Or malleable amateur? Even in this optimistic scenario, however, the president's approach seems too myopic. After all, international trade negotiations do not play by the same rules as military diplomacy, where much of this theory was developed. Such techniques might have a greater chance of working with Iran and North Korea, but of course, the risks of escalation here are even more severe. Trade is different because it is mutually beneficial and also because it requires cooperation that is sustained over time. A country's reputation for stable compliance with its agreements is thus put at a premium otherwise, the country risks being shunned by potential partners. To wrest trade concessions from America's partners may be satisfying, but if it is accomplished at the cost of weakening the world trading system, it is hardly worth the price. The costs of instability If, on the other hand, Trump's unstable policy is a symptom of indecision in the face of the competing agendas of his aides, the world economy may be in for a bumpy ride. Irrational behavior can be used selectively as a negotiating technique but has a high cost if not applied carefully and strategically. If a country's negotiating partners doubt its willingness or ability to follow through on its promises, cooperation becomes impossible. In the final analysis, a stable and rule-based trading system is in the United States' long-term interest. Inconsistent and aggressive trade policies, whether produced by a master negotiator or a malleable amateur, risk poisoning the mutual trust necessary to make such a system function. Some are now saying that President Trump is in the early stages of reconsidering America's membership in the WTO. Hopefully, the president will come to understand what is at stake soon, before it is too late. (Charles Hankla is an Associate Professor of Political Science, Georgia State University.) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Understanding Trump's negotiating techniques ahead of meeting with Kim

Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak said on Friday, the 10th of November, that he was &quot;reasonably confident&quot; a deal on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) could be reached without the United States.

Trade ministers from the TPP countries met on Thursday, November 9th, but their meetings ended without making headway. It was unclear whether leaders of TPP countries would meet on Friday.

The TPP aims to eliminate tariffs on industrial and farm products across a bloc whose trade totalled $356 billion last year. It also has provisions for protecting everything from labour rights to the environment to intellectual property - one of the main sticking points.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership has provisions for protecting everything from labour rights to the environment to intellectual property - one of the main sticking points

Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak said on Friday, the 10th of November, that he was "reasonably confident" a deal on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) could be reached without the United States. Trade ministers from the TPP countries met on Thursday, November 9th, but their meetings ended without making headway. It was unclear whether leaders of TPP countries would meet on Friday. The TPP aims to eliminate tariffs on industrial and farm products across a bloc whose trade totalled $356 billion last year. It also has provisions for protecting everything from labour rights to the environment to intellectual property - one of the main sticking points.

TPP trade deal can be reached without US: Malaysia

President Donald Trump on Monday signed three orders on withdrawing the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, freezing the hiring of federal workers and hitting foreign NGOs that help with abortion, AFP reported.

&quot;We&#39;ve been talking about this for a long time,&quot; Trump said as he signed the executive order to withdraw from the TPP in the Oval Office. &quot;Great thing for the American worker what we just did.&quot;

The withdrawal from the trans Pacific free trade deal, which was drawn under former President Barack Obama but not ratified by the Congress, is in line with Trump&#39;s protectionist election campaign promise.&nbsp;&nbsp;TPP had yet to go into effect and US withdrawal is likely to sound its death knell, AFP reported.

Trump had earlier denounced the TPP a &quot;job killer&quot; and a &quot;rape&quot; of US interests.

The 12-nation FTA is&nbsp;aimed at containing growing Chinese economic clout. It was signed by US allies Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Brunei, which together account for 40 per cent of the world economy.

Trump has also vowed to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) -- between US, Mexico and Canada. He says the trade agreements have drained US jobs and destroyed its industrial heartlands.

The US president will also meet with union leaders and blue-collar workers several hours after signing the executive action, CNN reported.

Trump has frequently spoken out against free trade agreements and vowed to implement more protectionist trade policies and impose tariffs to revive American manufacturing.

Trump has already moved to curb Obama&#39;s health care reforms. More legal executive orders are expected on immigration and limiting environmental legislation. 
 
(WION with inputs from AFP)

Trump has also signed two more orders on freezing the hiring of federal workers and hitting foreign NGOs that help with abortion

President Donald Trump on Monday signed three orders on withdrawing the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, freezing the hiring of federal workers and hitting foreign NGOs that help with abortion, AFP reported. "We've been talking about this for a long time," Trump said as he signed the executive order to withdraw from the TPP in the Oval Office. "Great thing for the American worker what we just did." The withdrawal from the trans Pacific free trade deal, which was drawn under former President Barack Obama but not ratified by the Congress, is in line with Trump's protectionist election campaign promise. TPP had yet to go into effect and US withdrawal is likely to sound its death knell, AFP reported. Trump had earlier denounced the TPP a "job killer" and a "rape" of US interests. The 12-nation FTA is aimed at containing growing Chinese economic clout. It was signed by US allies Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Brunei, which together account for 40 per cent of the world economy. Trump has also vowed to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) -- between US, Mexico and Canada. He says the trade agreements have drained US jobs and destroyed its industrial heartlands. The US president will also meet with union leaders and blue-collar workers several hours after signing the executive action, CNN reported. Trump has frequently spoken out against free trade agreements and vowed to implement more protectionist trade policies and impose tariffs to revive American manufacturing. Trump has already moved to curb Obama's health care reforms. More legal executive orders are expected on immigration and limiting environmental legislation. (WION with inputs from AFP)

Trump orders US withdrawal from trans-Pacific trade deal

If the world is looking at Canada, it&rsquo;s because of Prime Minister Trudeau&rsquo;s heart and hair. He&rsquo;s photogenic, which critics take as proof he&#39;s a selfie-taking cerebral lightweight (as if Stephen Harper fended&nbsp;off Vanity Fair photographers). Critics&nbsp;also mock&nbsp;Trudeau&#39;s pathologically progressive PR (handshaking Syrian refugees at the airport, proclaiming himself a feminist, etc) as affected or&nbsp;mawkish. Yet&nbsp;however cultivated&nbsp;Trudeau&#39;s&nbsp;media image is, it does&nbsp;seem to accurately reflect him as a person. Probably nobody&nbsp;thinks&nbsp;Trudeau is secretly a woman-hating xenophobe.&nbsp; 
 
In an era where political campaigns are essentially advertising contests, should a serious person&nbsp;ignore a politician&#39;s chosen&nbsp;symbols? No. While it&#39;s&nbsp;definitely calculated, the symbolism&nbsp;a politician selects for mass appeal&nbsp;does reveal a lot, and does have intrinsic value. 
 
Internationally, Trudeau&rsquo;s aura is a meaningful breath of fresh air to millions of Indians tired of rancid patriarchy and caste oppression, or Modi speaking twee platitudes from one side of his mouth and strident <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/133014/new-face-india-anti-gandhi">hindutva</a> from the other. Or to anybody tired and terrified of Trump. As leaders around the world tack right by appealing to lizard-brain paranoia, it&rsquo;s understandable and meaningful that people are inspired by a symbolic counterbalance. 
 
Policy matters above all, not talk or imagery. But no doubt Canada&rsquo;s Muslims prefer that the Prime Minister doesn&rsquo;t dog whistle at them (<a href="https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/10/05/stephen-harpers-dog-whistle-populist-politics.html">like Canada&rsquo;s thrice-elected last Prime Minister</a>). The marginalised shouldn&rsquo;t be spat on by the person most capable of improving their lives. Politics of division from the top <a href="http://thetyee.ca/News/2015/11/23/Muslim-Assaults-Canada/">breeds</a>&nbsp;violence. If inclusive branding does absolutely nothing but ensure the absence of that, that&rsquo;s something.&nbsp; 
 
But there&rsquo;s a limit. Liberals believe in their ideals until they&rsquo;re faced with a choice, to embody them or make a lot of money.&nbsp; 
 
For all Trudeau&rsquo;s outsized display of heart he presides over a government selling $15-billion worth of armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia, the generous sponsor of&nbsp;terrorists and <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/wahhabism.html">radical Wahhabi madrassas</a> around the world. 
 
<img alt="" class="img-responsive" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/19432753795_234e50aa59_b-20160915124053.jpg" />

<div class="media-description">
Trudeau enjoying a gay pride parade in Toronto, very much&nbsp;not in Riyadh.
</div>

 
Trudeau commendably supports the LGBT community whereas Saudi Arabia sometimes stones them to death, but rather than condemn the House of Saud he is weaponizing them. The Canadian-made &ldquo;jeeps&rdquo; will be mounted with machine guns, and possibly anti-tank missiles. The <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-saudi-arms-deal-what-weve-learned-so-far/article28180299/">well-founded fear</a> is they will be used against dissenting Saudi civilians. Saudi Arabia is currenly targeting civilian infrastructure in <a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/crimes-against-humanity-britains-complicity-in-saudi-arabias-terror-campaign-against-yemen/5545686">Yemen</a>, also. This makes arming Saudi Arabia not just unethical but likely illegal under Canada&rsquo;s weapons export laws. It&rsquo;s worth considering that a Saudi Arabian&nbsp;openly expressing Trudeau&#39;s views in&nbsp;may be at risk of the Canadian-made weapons Trudeau&#39;s party signed off on. (Or just a&nbsp;public <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/29/world/middleeast/raif-badawi-wife-saudi-arabia.html">lashing</a>, if he&#39;s lucky.) 
 
The deal was brokered by Canada&rsquo;s Conservative Party, who crowed about job creation (as if arming violent foes is honourable, if a Canadian is paid to do it). But Trudeau&rsquo;s Liberals opted not to cancel it. That they didn&rsquo;t initiate the deal gives the Liberals undeserved plausible deniability. Each party is blaming the other for a human right&rsquo;s travesty, and they&rsquo;re both right. 
 
The Canadian tradition of speaking from the left and governing from the right is on display in Trudeau&rsquo;s attitude to the Trans Pacific Partnership (TTP). The TPP, if ratified, would be the biggest &ldquo;free trade&rdquo; deal in history, but international trade is only a minor part of it. Corporations don&#39;t like being beholden to&nbsp;international law, so the TPP lets them rewrite it. Negotiations have been conducted in secret since 2010 (thankfully there have been <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/final-leaked-tpp-text-all-we-feared">leaks</a>). In addition to impacting 18,000 tariffs, the deal includes measures to punish corporate whistleblowers, needlessly restrict copyright and intellectual property laws, and enable companies to sue governments if their social spending cuts into their market. The TPP only exists so that the profits of major corporations will legally supersede the public interest in court. 
&nbsp;

<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Either ideological TPP proponents are naive and gullible enough to believe that CEOs and politicians secretly met for five years to discuss how best to uplift the middle class and impoverished.</h5>

<h5>Or, the people praising the TPP are the&nbsp;very people who stand to profit by it, and they&nbsp;know the game is rigged because they supervised or participated in the rigging.&nbsp;</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Either ideological TPP proponents are naive and gullible enough to believe that CEOs and politicians secretly met for five years to discuss how best to uplift the middle class and impoverished. Or, the TPP is praised?by the very people who stand to profit, and who know the game is rigged because they supervised or participated in the rigging.?" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

&nbsp;

During Canada&rsquo;s 2015 election Trudeau was officially non-committal to the TPP, unwilling to hastily sign an unknown thing. On becoming Prime Minister he hastily signed an unknown thing. Now he says he won&rsquo;t ratify it, that being hasty.&nbsp; 
 
Nobody, including Trudeau, has adequately explained why the onus is on the public to demonstrate what parts of the TPP are objectionable, rather than why it&rsquo;s being thrust on the people in the first place. To the extent leaders are talking about the TPP at all, their justifications are dubious; jobs and the economies of twelve countries can&rsquo;t all simultaneously grow. It&rsquo;s a zero-sum game, something has to give. In physics, every action has an opposite and equal reaction.&nbsp;Only in the junk science of free trade deals does everything constantly expand without an&nbsp;eventual correction. NAFTA promised the US 200,000 jobs, and ended up <a href="https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/05/trans-pacific-partnership-obama-fast-track-nafta/">costing over 600,000</a> in the manufacturing sector alone.&nbsp; 
 
Either ideological TPP proponents are naive and gullible enough to believe that CEOs and politicians secretly met for five years to discuss how best to uplift the middle class and impoverished. Or, the people praising the TPP are the&nbsp;very people who stand to profit by it, and they&nbsp;know the game is rigged because they supervised or participated in the rigging.&nbsp; 
 
<img alt="" class="img-responsive" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/trudeaunatives2-20160915013114.jpg" />

<div class="media-description">
Trudeau has worked to repair relationships with Canada&#39;s Natives. How he reconciles&nbsp;their interests and environmental stewardship&nbsp;with proposed pipelines&nbsp;will be watched closely.
</div>

 
To be sure, even if Trudeau resolved to stop selling the Saudis arms and halt the TPP, he&rsquo;s a small cog international politics. All national leaders&nbsp;are surrounded by vulture lobbyists and purchased bureaucrats, who collectively decide things. For example, how Trudeau will reconcile the competing pressure to build pipelines with his pledge to protect the environment and improve relations with aboriginal people remains to be seen, but <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/tough-calls-ahead-for-trudeau-on-aboriginal-issues/article31913955/">early signs</a> lean towards big oil.&nbsp;Nobody should expect Trudeau to singlehandedly shape Canada, let alone the world.

In late September his cabinet approved the construction of a $11.4 billion (Canadian Dollars) terminal to <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/pacific-northwest-lng-decision/article32092033/">export liquefied natural gas</a>&nbsp;that has angered environmentalists&nbsp;and Canadian Aboriginal groups. The project has certain&nbsp;environmental conditions attached, to be named in time, but&nbsp;what they are and&nbsp;whether they&#39;re actually upheld remains to be seen. His image will take a beating if his base thinks his&nbsp;environmental, energy and economic juggling&nbsp;errs&nbsp;too much on the side of business. 
 
But it isn&rsquo;t that his sunshiney&nbsp;symbols are meaningless, just they have limits. Assuming any politician is authentically fond of&nbsp;the environment&nbsp;and opposed to militarisation or&nbsp;obscene concentrations of wealth,&nbsp;they&#39;re still pretty powerless against Big Business. Trudeau fits in here.

So while critics find&nbsp;his ostentatious shows of&nbsp;pluralism&nbsp;corny,&nbsp;at least they&#39;re not&nbsp;just&nbsp;fashionable masks for bigotry.&nbsp;The world needs more leaders who aren&rsquo;t preprogrammed to whip up and then appeal to caveman instincts.&nbsp;Just nobody should think his theater for social, environmental or&nbsp;economic justice will translate into policy that adequately addresses, let alone fixes, the biggest problems facing the world. 
 
(WION)

His sincere and heartening political messaging can be meaningful, but it doesn't stand up to military contracts or Big Business

If the world is looking at Canada, it’s because of Prime Minister Trudeau’s heart and hair. He’s photogenic, which critics take as proof he's a selfie-taking cerebral lightweight (as if Stephen Harper fended off Vanity Fair photographers). Critics also mock Trudeau's pathologically progressive PR (handshaking Syrian refugees at the airport, proclaiming himself a feminist, etc) as affected or mawkish. Yet however cultivated Trudeau's media image is, it does seem to accurately reflect him as a person. Probably nobody thinks Trudeau is secretly a woman-hating xenophobe. In an era where political campaigns are essentially advertising contests, should a serious person ignore a politician's chosen symbols? No. While it's definitely calculated, the symbolism a politician selects for mass appeal does reveal a lot, and does have intrinsic value. Internationally, Trudeau’s aura is a meaningful breath of fresh air to millions of Indians tired of rancid patriarchy and caste oppression, or Modi speaking twee platitudes from one side of his mouth and strident hindutva from the other. Or to anybody tired and terrified of Trump. As leaders around the world tack right by appealing to lizard-brain paranoia, it’s understandable and meaningful that people are inspired by a symbolic counterbalance. Policy matters above all, not talk or imagery. But no doubt Canada’s Muslims prefer that the Prime Minister doesn’t dog whistle at them (like Canada’s thrice-elected last Prime Minister). The marginalised shouldn’t be spat on by the person most capable of improving their lives. Politics of division from the top breeds violence. If inclusive branding does absolutely nothing but ensure the absence of that, that’s something. But there’s a limit. Liberals believe in their ideals until they’re faced with a choice, to embody them or make a lot of money. For all Trudeau’s outsized display of heart he presides over a government selling $15-billion worth of armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia, the generous sponsor of terrorists and radical Wahhabi madrassas around the world. Trudeau enjoying a gay pride parade in Toronto, very much not in Riyadh. Trudeau commendably supports the LGBT community whereas Saudi Arabia sometimes stones them to death, but rather than condemn the House of Saud he is weaponizing them. The Canadian-made “jeeps” will be mounted with machine guns, and possibly anti-tank missiles. The well-founded fear is they will be used against dissenting Saudi civilians. Saudi Arabia is currenly targeting civilian infrastructure in Yemen, also. This makes arming Saudi Arabia not just unethical but likely illegal under Canada’s weapons export laws. It’s worth considering that a Saudi Arabian openly expressing Trudeau's views in may be at risk of the Canadian-made weapons Trudeau's party signed off on. (Or just a public lashing, if he's lucky.) The deal was brokered by Canada’s Conservative Party, who crowed about job creation (as if arming violent foes is honourable, if a Canadian is paid to do it). But Trudeau’s Liberals opted not to cancel it. That they didn’t initiate the deal gives the Liberals undeserved plausible deniability. Each party is blaming the other for a human right’s travesty, and they’re both right. The Canadian tradition of speaking from the left and governing from the right is on display in Trudeau’s attitude to the Trans Pacific Partnership (TTP). The TPP, if ratified, would be the biggest “free trade” deal in history, but international trade is only a minor part of it. Corporations don't like being beholden to international law, so the TPP lets them rewrite it. Negotiations have been conducted in secret since 2010 (thankfully there have been leaks). In addition to impacting 18,000 tariffs, the deal includes measures to punish corporate whistleblowers, needlessly restrict copyright and intellectual property laws, and enable companies to sue governments if their social spending cuts into their market. The TPP only exists so that the profits of major corporations will legally supersede the public interest in court. Either ideological TPP proponents are naive and gullible enough to believe that CEOs and politicians secretly met for five years to discuss how best to uplift the middle class and impoverished. Or, the people praising the TPP are the very people who stand to profit by it, and they know the game is rigged because they supervised or participated in the rigging. During Canada’s 2015 election Trudeau was officially non-committal to the TPP, unwilling to hastily sign an unknown thing. On becoming Prime Minister he hastily signed an unknown thing. Now he says he won’t ratify it, that being hasty. Nobody, including Trudeau, has adequately explained why the onus is on the public to demonstrate what parts of the TPP are objectionable, rather than why it’s being thrust on the people in the first place. To the extent leaders are talking about the TPP at all, their justifications are dubious; jobs and the economies of twelve countries can’t all simultaneously grow. It’s a zero-sum game, something has to give. In physics, every action has an opposite and equal reaction. Only in the junk science of free trade deals does everything constantly expand without an eventual correction. NAFTA promised the US 200,000 jobs, and ended up costing over 600,000 in the manufacturing sector alone. Either ideological TPP proponents are naive and gullible enough to believe that CEOs and politicians secretly met for five years to discuss how best to uplift the middle class and impoverished. Or, the people praising the TPP are the very people who stand to profit by it, and they know the game is rigged because they supervised or participated in the rigging. Trudeau has worked to repair relationships with Canada's Natives. How he reconciles their interests and environmental stewardship with proposed pipelines will be watched closely. To be sure, even if Trudeau resolved to stop selling the Saudis arms and halt the TPP, he’s a small cog international politics. All national leaders are surrounded by vulture lobbyists and purchased bureaucrats, who collectively decide things. For example, how Trudeau will reconcile the competing pressure to build pipelines with his pledge to protect the environment and improve relations with aboriginal people remains to be seen, but early signs lean towards big oil. Nobody should expect Trudeau to singlehandedly shape Canada, let alone the world. In late September his cabinet approved the construction of a $11.4 billion (Canadian Dollars) terminal to export liquefied natural gas that has angered environmentalists and Canadian Aboriginal groups. The project has certain environmental conditions attached, to be named in time, but what they are and whether they're actually upheld remains to be seen. His image will take a beating if his base thinks his environmental, energy and economic juggling errs too much on the side of business. But it isn’t that his sunshiney symbols are meaningless, just they have limits. Assuming any politician is authentically fond of the environment and opposed to militarisation or obscene concentrations of wealth, they're still pretty powerless against Big Business. Trudeau fits in here. So while critics find his ostentatious shows of pluralism corny, at least they're not just fashionable masks for bigotry. The world needs more leaders who aren’t preprogrammed to whip up and then appeal to caveman instincts. Just nobody should think his theater for social, environmental or economic justice will translate into policy that adequately addresses, let alone fixes, the biggest problems facing the world. (WION)

Canada's Justin Trudeau: Liberal signs and symbols

Tpp, News on Tpp, stories on Tpp, articles on Tpp, Tpp stories at Wion, Tpp news, Tpp latest news