I understand the logic of trying to scale up via bloc negotiation, but the issues I’m alluding to are problems for viability of the successof that approach, not just a moral position. I’m pointing out that it will likely produce something unstable that runs into the same crisis as we’ve arrived at with the Bretton Woods institutions and the WTO, for largely the same reasons.
For one thing, the independence of the bloc is very questionable. Core members are still strategically dependent on the US security and financial system. So, it’s a group of junior partners who are trying to negotiate while still dependent on the senior partner and trying desperately to stay close with them.
That very much feeds into the legitimacy issue, which is why I raise the point about the history of these institutions and why we’ve arrived at a breakdown. The breakdown is a result of the institutions being set up with great privilege for the Global North when that was never going to be permanently sustainable. Now, the sustainability has run its course. The CPTPP-EU solves the problem of being too small economicallyto negotiate, but if 80% of the world looks at a bunch of US junior partners who have benefited from the massive privilege of their positions, and that still have dependence on the US that compromises their independence, and doesn’t see dramatic transformation of the system to make it more fair for everyone, it will just fail again for the same reasons as what led to the current breakdown.
So, not saying they shouldn’t do it. It makes sense as an immediate response, and could be built into something more. That said, if it’s going to avoid the legitimacy trap, it’s going to have to become a meaningfully wider coalition with more important economies beyond the current handful that aren’t US-dependent junior partners, and they need those economies (Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Africa or the AU, etc) to play a substantial part in the rule-making process to produce something that works for a much wider array of powers. As is, it looks to me like either a dead end or a path to another breakdown followed by the CPTPP-EU trying to be another rule-maker to weaker economies while being picked apart by the US via the dependencies that still exist. Gotta solve the legitimacy problem, or it’s just a bandaid.
I understand the logic of trying to scale up via bloc negotiation, but the issues I’m alluding to are problems for viability of the successof that approach, not just a moral position. I’m pointing out that it will likely produce something unstable that runs into the same crisis as we’ve arrived at with the Bretton Woods institutions and the WTO, for largely the same reasons.
For one thing, the independence of the bloc is very questionable. Core members are still strategically dependent on the US security and financial system. So, it’s a group of junior partners who are trying to negotiate while still dependent on the senior partner and trying desperately to stay close with them.
That very much feeds into the legitimacy issue, which is why I raise the point about the history of these institutions and why we’ve arrived at a breakdown. The breakdown is a result of the institutions being set up with great privilege for the Global North when that was never going to be permanently sustainable. Now, the sustainability has run its course. The CPTPP-EU solves the problem of being too small economicallyto negotiate, but if 80% of the world looks at a bunch of US junior partners who have benefited from the massive privilege of their positions, and that still have dependence on the US that compromises their independence, and doesn’t see dramatic transformation of the system to make it more fair for everyone, it will just fail again for the same reasons as what led to the current breakdown.
So, not saying they shouldn’t do it. It makes sense as an immediate response, and could be built into something more. That said, if it’s going to avoid the legitimacy trap, it’s going to have to become a meaningfully wider coalition with more important economies beyond the current handful that aren’t US-dependent junior partners, and they need those economies (Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Africa or the AU, etc) to play a substantial part in the rule-making process to produce something that works for a much wider array of powers. As is, it looks to me like either a dead end or a path to another breakdown followed by the CPTPP-EU trying to be another rule-maker to weaker economies while being picked apart by the US via the dependencies that still exist. Gotta solve the legitimacy problem, or it’s just a bandaid.