[CTC] Trade deal could undermine national security

[Arthur Stamoulis]

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/sdut-trade-national-security-20160914-story.html <http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/sdut-trade-national-security-20160914-story.html>
 
Trade deal could undermine national security
By John Adams

In his valedictory trip to Asia this month, President Obama <http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/topic/politics-government/government/barack-obama-PEPLT007408-topic.html> was as focused on domestic lobbying as he was on foreign diplomacy. While he discussed serious business with East Asian leaders, he also seized every opportunity to pitch wavering American lawmakers on the importance of passing the Trans-Pacific Partnership <http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/topic/business/macroeconomics/trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership-EVGAP00078-topic.html> (TPP) during the “lame duck” session after the election.

The Asia backdrop was important. As Americans from both parties have soured on the economic case for the 12-nation trade deal, backers including the White House and many Congressional Republicans <http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/topic/politics-government/republican-party-ORGOV0000004-topic.html> have fallen back on describing the TPP has a crucial component of the Asia foreign policy pivot, a strategy to contain China, and a requirement for upholding America’s global responsibilities. “Failure to move ahead with TPP would not just have economic consequences, but would call into question America’s leadership in the region,” Obama said.

As a retired brigadier general and 30-year veteran of the U.S. Army, I’m no stranger to these arguments, which have been made time and time again in defense of trade agreements. But in analyzing the potential impacts of the TPP, I’ve come to take a different view: This proposed trade deal could actually endanger our national security and foreign policy priorities.

As the Pentagon’s Defense Science Board has warned, we can’t separate our national security from the strength of our domestic manufacturing base. The loss of more than 5 million American manufacturing jobs in the last two decades — much of which can be tied to our failed trade policies with China, Mexico and Korea — hasn’t just hurt our wage standards but also compromised our supply chains and our technological advantages in many sectors. With so much less manufacturing happening at home, our military is increasingly dependent on foreign production. Our trade policy has made us seriously vulnerable to supply chain disruptions, including from poor manufacturing practices, disasters abroad, and even price gouging by foreign actors. We have also outsourced and offshored production enabling some of tomorrow’s potential adversaries, like China, with capabilities such as enhanced stealth technology, communications capabilities and other leading-edge defensive and offensive capacity.

There’s near-consensus that TPP would make our manufacturing situation — and, in turn, our supply chain problem — worse. Even this year’s official US government study on the TPP’s economic effects from the International Trade Commission said so much. Other studies indicate that the deal would lower wages for 90 percent of Americans, contributing to the growing income inequality that destabilizes us as a nation and diminishes our citizen’s desire for international engagement.

America can maintain its influence in East Asia without taking these risks.

As Clyde Prestowitz, a top Asia policy official during the Reagan years and a trade advisor during the Clinton administration, has argued, the combination of our existing military presence and allies’ reliance on it for their defense (we’ve had the Seventh Fleet and about 100,000 troops in the region for more than half a century) and persistent trade deficits with East Asian nations guarantees that the U.S. will remain engaged and highly influential in the region for the foreseeable future.

What’s more, the U.S. already has written the rules of commerce for the region. We have comprehensive free trade agreements with the six TPP countries that account for over 80 percent of the promised trade under TPP. And all the nations in the proposed deal are currently members of the World Trade Organization <http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/topic/business/economy/world-trade-organization-ORGOVV0000362-topic.html>. 

This isn’t a choice of integration versus isolationism. The U.S. already is economically integrated with the world and will continue to be so. Rather at issue with the TPP is whether the U.S. will demand that its allies provide special privileges for multinational corporations — like the rights at the heart of the TPP that allow global firms to sue governments before panels of corporate lawyers for cash compensation from taxpayers. This does not advance U.S. national interests or promote American values but could generate significant animosity against the U.S.

From China’s ambitions to North Korea’s instability, there are plenty of reasons why the Asia-Pacific region matters for American national security. We can stay engaged and support our allies without putting our workers, industrial base and laws at risk. American values require a smarter approach to trade.

Adams, a retired U.S. Army brigadier general, is president of Guardian Six Consulting LLC. His final military assignment before retiring in September 2007 was as deputy U.S. military representative to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Military Committee, the highest military authority of NATO.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.citizenstrade.org/pipermail/ctcfield-citizenstrade.org/attachments/20160915/fc009754/attachment.htm>