on ‘the rise of extraterritoriality’. Political Observer comments

One of the central powers of TTP was this very ‘ rise of extraterritoriality’ : For example, Corporations could bring suits against its signatories, via a claim of  ‘loss of profit’, for enforcing pollution laws against trucks, that didn’t meet existing laws, about pollution regulation.

The technocrats and scribblers  have a convenient memory lapse? Not to speak of the once enthusiastic members of the American Political Class? 
TTP was supposed to be the triumph of the now collapsed ‘Free Market’, a ‘vision’ for the Radiant Future, to borrow from Zinoviev! 
Predictably the villians , here, are the ‘Russians’ and ‘Chinese’ , although America does garner a mention : The New Cold War is the template, its political elasticity its virtue. Yet the question remains about the responsibility, of the technocrats and the scribblers, to think ‘holistically’?  Herman Kahn’s imperative was to ‘think the unthinkable’ while the men we are asked to pay our homage can’t even consider ‘the possible’

The closing paragraphs of Mr. Rachman’s essay are about the value of ‘common international rules’ ,and a quote from Thucydides steeped in political fatalism: 

The US, and perhaps China, have the power to enforce their laws around the world. For midsize powers that is not an option. Instead, smaller countries need to prop up international rules-making bodies, such as the World Trade Organization — which has ruled against both China and the US on occasion.

Without common international rules, third countries may increasingly find themselves torn between the competing extraterritorial demands of Washington and Beijing. In that situation, our world will look increasingly look like the one described by the Greek historian, Thucydides, in which — “The strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must.”

Political Observer




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 )

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.