- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
“Anti-Trump”.
I’ll believe it when I see it. Not decrying the intervention in Iran, having officials state support for US energy dominance, refusing to ban ICE offices in Canada.
This man bends the knee and postures himself to be a mastermind, and I hate that the media eats this narrative up
Mark is not anti-Trump. I will say no more.
The combined CPTPP-EU may be 40 countries, but combine for less than 13% of the world population, nearly all from the Global North. What kind of alliance is this to pose as having say over world trade law?
Also, look across the countries in the CPTPP and the EU that have deep security, economic or leadership dependence on the US.
Meanwhile, countries like China and India, with 35% of the world’s population, aren’t even included.
China is building its own axis with China at its center, with ambition to rival and take over from the US as the world’s only super power. India is in the BRIC block very friendly with Russia, led by a right wing Hindu nationalist party. They got their own blocks.
I don’t have any issue with CPTPP-EU working on trade law for the CPTPP-EU as a bloc. It’s the framing of this group as fit to set world trade law I’m taking issue with.
I think you’re missing the tenet of the intent. China is building a China-centric trading eco system. They want what US has. The rest of the world subsidizing them while they control the world trade and financial system. This new block is trying to be counter-weight in negotiating a better WTO against China and the US. The picture you’re missing is that the post-WWII order established by non-communist countries are geared to favor the US and the West. But now that US is breaking the old understanding where that advantage was shared with junior partners, they are finding themselves at a disadvantage. That’s why Carney is smartly trying to organize the junior partners of US to form a block, to not only revive WTO, but to create a better one.
I’m not missing that. My point is contextualizing the group as they try to push for reform, or potentially move to build a new order. It makes sense for them to do, but in the context of the history of the WTO/GATT and Bretton Woods institutions and why we’ve reached this breakdown, it’s important to recognize what the group is: a contingent of Global North countries representing a very small percentage of the world population and with ongoing high levels of dependence on the US.
This is more about middle powers versus hegemons and hyperscalers. We don’t have the leverage as individual nations on our own, an alliance of middle powers does when it comes to international trade and security negotiation.
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.
when talking about world trade the size of ones population does not matter as much as i.e. the GDP because those are the relevant numbers when judging a economic topic.
Do you agree that laws governing finance should just be determined by those with the biggest investments? How about laws of war just being determined by those with the biggest armies? Or, market laws just determined by those with the highest revenues and valuations?
The two countries I mentioned that combine for 35% of the world’s population are also the world’s number 1 and number 3 largest economies. This group actually leaves out the top 4 and 6 of the top 10.
It has fundamental legitimacy problems when it comes to setting world trade law.
Everyone commenting on stuff like this seems to be philosophically disposed to some kind of monolith.
The whole point of a multilateral realignment means that a bunch of rules will be remade, some by this group and some by that group.
Are you referring to people quoted in the article, or people posting here? It’s definitely in the article, but I’m not sure I see that from the posts here.
Is late really better than never? We’re about to find out
