At The Financial Times: Shawn Donnan on the TPP, advocates and antagonists. A comment by Political Reporter

Congratulations to Mr. Shawn Donnan for two well written but highly circumscribed reports on TPP, after all this is The Financial Times, one of the most respected publications of Capitalist Apologetics!

His first essay titled ‘Negotiators strike Pacific trade deal’ ::

He quotes at length  ‘Tim Groser, New Zealand’s trade minister and one of the architects of the TPP’:

Tim Groser, New Zealand’s trade minister and one of the architects of the TPP, said its “strategic” implications for global trade were enormous.

“All of this is being lost in these arcane battles over grams of butter and cheese,” he said.

“While people will no doubt laugh at the conservatism of some of the timetables of liberalisation of the most politically sensitive [products in the TPP], that will probably prove to be the wrong take,” he said. “Because the issue is to get the direction of travel right.”

No real need to comment on the partisan character of this essay, it seems obvious that the opponents of TPP, in this report, are mere bit players in this little melodrama.

Mr. Donnan then turns attention in this companion essay titled ‘And now the other TPP battles begin’, to the looming American domestic political battle over the TPP:

Again the antagonists remain in the very proscribed Financial Times/Donnan world view: Mr. Trump and Sen. Orrin Hatch. The fact that Bernie Sanders has made the defeat of TPP an integral part of his presidential campaign remains off stage, too politically inconvenient? Two TPP partisans: one a trade representative another a policy technocrat   are then added ‘Mike Froman, the US trade representative’ and ‘Philip Levy, a senior fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.’

One could observe that the Utopianism of Neo-Liberalism/Austerity is being supplanted by a version of TPP as it’s replacement.

Political Reporter

About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.'
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.