The TPP Is A Vital Part Of The President Clinton Doctrine

Is anyone fooled by Hillary Clinton’s about-turn on the Trans Pacific Partnership?


Well don’t be. Clinton’s not only in favour of it, she absolutely dribbles with desire over it. Knowing that she’d never win over the Bernie Sanders supporters while backing the TPP, she conveniently changed her public view and made much of her pretend objections by stating that the final negotiation didn’t live up to her “high standards.”

Anyone who’s studied Clinton and her past indiscretions knows she doesn’t have any high standards. It’s just a ploy to win more votes. Prior to her Democratic nomination, while Secretary of State, she described the TPP as, “the gold standard in trade agreements.” A gold standard cannot be improved on.

In Australia in 2012 these were her words:

So it’s fair to say that our economies are entwined, and we need to keep upping our game both bilaterally and with partners across the region through agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP. Australia is a critical partner. This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world’s total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment. [Bold added][1]

And again in Singapore 2012:

“The so-called TPP will lower barriers, raise standards, and drive long-term growth across the region. It will cover 40 percent of the world’s total trade and establish strong protections for workers and the environment. Better jobs with higher wages and safer working conditions, including for women, migrant workers and others too often in the past excluded from the formal economy will help build Asia’s middle class and rebalance the global economy. Canada and Mexico have already joined the original TPP partners. We continue to consult with Japan. And we are offering to assist with capacity building, so that every country in ASEAN can eventually join. We welcome the interest of any nation willing to meet 21st century standards as embodied in the TPP, including China.” [1]

In 2012, some may have been fooled by that. Since then, thanks to Wikileaks, we know enough about the TPP to realise Clinton was spouting the biggest load of bullshit to emanate from an American politician in a long time.

Clinton’s not going to back out on the TPP now. She has too much of herself invested in it. Back in 2011, she authored, “America’s Pacific Century,” which was published in ‘Foreign Policy’. It’s a long, rambling piece, headlined:

The future of politics will be decided in Asia, not Afghanistan or Iraq, and the United States will be right at the center of the action.[2]

And continues:

As the war in Iraq winds down and America begins to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan, the United States stands at a pivot point. Over the last 10 years, we have allocated immense resources to those two theaters. In the next 10 years, we need to be smart and systematic about where we invest time and energy, so that we put ourselves in the best position to sustain our leadership, secure our interests, and advance our values. One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment — diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise — in the Asia-Pacific region.

Back in 2011 the war in Iraq certainly proved not to be ‘winding down’, and the forces withdrawn from Afghanistan ended up back there (albeit in smaller numbers) and are likely to remain so for a very long time.

The ‘Pivot’ as it’s known by the Obama administration is in reality a turnaround. Having been defeated in the Middle East, Obama’s aim is to switch tacks, let the Middle East foment in its own bloody juices, and pivot the focus of operations towards the Asia-Pacific region, in the hope that that area will prove easier to subjugate.

Later, in “America’s Pacific Century,” Clinton continues:

…our work will proceed along six key lines of action: strengthening bilateral security alliances; deepening our working relationships with emerging powers, including with China; engaging with regional multilateral institutions; expanding trade and investment; forging a broad-based military presence; and advancing democracy and human rights. [bold added]

Two things to note here: first, the “broad-based military presence.” The U.S. already has numerous military bases in the region, including in Japan, the Philippines (though possibly not for much longer if Duterte manages to swing things with China), South Korea, and many in Australia:


Click to enlarge

The conclusion to be drawn from Clinton’s comments is that military muscle is to be strengthened in the area, presumably as a ‘persuader’ to any nation not happy with the increased U.S. presence.

Second, there’s that good old standby excuse for any needed aggression: “advancing democracy and human rights.” America’s previous attempts at such worthwhile ideals could hardly be considered as actions overflowing with the milk of human kindness.

One interesting paragraph in, “America’s Pacific Century,” reads:

President Obama has led a multifaceted and persistent effort to embrace fully our irreplaceable role in the Pacific, spanning the entire U.S. government. It has often been a quiet effort. A lot of our work has not been on the front pages, both because of its nature — long-term investment is less exciting than immediate crises — and because of competing headlines in other parts of the world.

It’s a rather lacklustre attempt to offer reasons for the secrecy surrounding the TPP, but it’s now public knowledge that the reasons were way more nefarious. Deals involving a huge upward shift in corporate power over governments and the people they represent would not have gone down well as headlines. Now, again thanks to Wikileaks, we’re all aware of the truth. The above quote is just another of Clinton’s lies.

And then there’s Russia. America’s land grab of eastern European nations following the fall of the U.S.S.R. – now stuffed to the gills with U.S. military bases and missile sites (all pointing at their next-door-neighbour) – did nothing for the security of Russia, or its citizens. Western media tends to overlook Russian citizens. They’re convinced there’s no-one in Russia but Vladimir Putin and his horse.

A quick glance at any map of the world illustrates the Asia-Pacific nations nicely butting up against Russia’s southern borders. Any military man worth an M4A1 will point out that this, coupled with the U.S. military presence in eastern Europe, forms a classic ‘pincer-movement’ with Mister Putin and his horse positioned in the jaws. Hopefully, it won’t make his nuclear trigger-finger too itchy.


Map showing general definition of Asia-Pacific. Dark green refers to the core Asia-Pacific countries, light green refers to regions that may be included.

In 2000 we were presented with the “Project for the New American Century.” It set out a neat plan for the United States of America to conquer the world, both economically and militarily via “a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity.”

The PNAC was founded by Messrs William Kristol and Robert Kagan. They, and other members, were responsible for planning the invasion of Iraq. Ten of the PNAC’s members wheedled their way into the Bush administration.

Iraq was intended to be a short, sharp, engagement that would rid the country of Saddam Hussein, have the populace bowing in reverence, forever grateful to their bounteous benefactor, America, and serve as a warning to Iran, or any other Middle Eastern nation that might dare to not toe the American line in future.

It was a policy of military invasion, to be followed by a period of forced diplomacy. It failed miserably, and the PNAC was disbanded in 2006.

Five years later in ‘FP’ Hillary Clinton wrote, “America’s Pacific Century,” which might just as well have been entitled, “Hillary’s Project for the New American Century.” It has the hallmarks of the original, merely placing forced diplomacy as a prelude to any ‘necessary’ military aggression. The TPP is vital to the success of the ‘Pivot’. Persuading as many nations as possible to sign up for it will strengthen America’s hand when its military is required for, “advancing democracy and human rights” in those nations who are not prepared to sign – Russia? China? North Korea? The Philippines?

Hillary Clinton has based her whole doctrine as a future president on the ‘Pivot’. The TPP is vital to its success. For her to stand up and say differently is a blatant and downright lie, a manipulation of the electorate to further her own ends, and a flagrant disregard for the “democracy and human rights” to which she pretends to aspire.

“What Hillary Clinton really said about TPP and the ‘gold standard'” Politifact, October 13th 2015

[2] “America’s Pacific Century” FP, October 11th 2011

4 Replies to “The TPP Is A Vital Part Of The President Clinton Doctrine”

  1. Scary prospects, RJ! Thank you for this nice succinct run-down on the situation. I don’t trust Clinton on any issue…none at all. It looks as though we’re in for at least 4 years of her, made so easy by the candidate she’s “up against” . Dang but what a gift Trump as an opponent has been for her.

    Bernie and Liz Warren in the Senate are the only points of light I can see in the darkness ahead. 🙁

  2. Twilight – Almost anyone but Trump could have trounced Clinton in this election. Yogi Bear could have walked it!
    Any faith I had in Bernie Sanders or Liz Warren has been shattered after they caved to Hillary (Warren and Clinton in matching blue suits was the last straw!).
    I believe this presidency will see a virtual amalgamation of both parties on issues. One-party politics in all but name. Unless I’m very wrong Clinton will prove as great a gift to the Republicans as was George W Bush. Of course, they’ll argue as usual when the media’s present.

  3. I understand your feelings about Bernie and Elizabeth Warren, RJ, I was annoyed when Warren didn’t endorse Bernie Sanders early on – that could have made a difference. Bernie, on temporarily becoming a Democrat (as against his usual Independent label) for the election, had to pledge to support the primary winner, the Dem nominee. He stood by his pledge. The alternative could have been losing what clout he has in the Senate – DNC could have made certain he paid for any back-sliding. Look what happened to Dennis Kucinich – they made sure he went on to lose his House seat via gerrymandering. 🙁
    I trust Bernie’s judgment – he knows better than anyone what goes on in the dark corridors of US politics, and is playing the game in the most honest and practical way he can, with a view to doing his best for ordinary people. He’d never be allowed to beat the Clinton machine. Even had he continued to “run Independent or as a Green” after losing the primary, the Clinton machine, allied with DNC and corporate media would almost certainly have found a way to run over him and his followers.

  4. Twilight – I do believe Bernie Sanders is sincere in his words and beliefs, I just doubt his ability to achieve anything in Congress as a lone voice. Warren is now a complete unknown regarding her position. Let’s hope she and Bernie will work together behind the scenes, but given the landslide Hillary’s likely to achieve, that seems more and more unlikely to be effective. Don’t forget, on all major foreign policy issues she’ll probably have not just Democrat support, but Republican as well.

Comments are closed.