In response to an FT article by Shawn Donnan on 2nd August 2016, entitled ‘Obama vows to make the case for Pacific trade deal’
‘President Barack Obama and a key Asian ally, Singapore’s Lee Hsien Loong, fought back on Tuesday against critics of a new Pacific Rim trade deal, presenting it as a vital tool to maintain Washington’s strategic role in Asia and counter the influence of a rising China.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership between the US, Japan and 10 other countries is in jeopardy as chances of US congressional approval shrink under the weight of political opposition. The deal had become a “political football”, Mr Obama said….
…Despite an upsurge in antitrade rhetoric on the campaign trail this year, the Obama administration is working hard to secure congressional approval for the TPP in the so-called “lame duck” session of Congress following the November 8 election and arguing that failure to do so would throw the agreement into a deep freeze for years’ – Shawn Donnan
If Hillary wins the election, President Obama will have no need of his lame ducks. She flip-flopped from pro-TPP to anti-TPP in order to prevent Bernie Sanders outflanking her from the left. If the 'Berners' are fooled by her 'conversion', they are naive in extremis.
Hillary will change a few commas and claim she's transformed it back into the deal she originally 'pioneered'. That will be a simple matter given the deal was written in 'shyster', and then locked up in a basement away from open scrutiny. When the Oval office prom comes round, Hillary will 'dance with the guys who brung her' - Wall Street.
If Trump wins Mr Obama will feed the ducks, as I'm sure will Goldman Sachs and a number of other grateful 'contributors'. This will start a fight that could go either way. The only thing predictable about that scenario is a lot of quacking noises and the sound of a few verbal shotguns.
As for TPP itself - it is not a free trade deal, and neither is TTIP. Both deals are better described as corporatism, AKA socialism for the rich.