That comment was definitely not directed at you. I have of course heard well reasoned, well founded critiques of TPP, and I wouldn't expect anything less than a bare-knuckler from you on that point. That said, I've heard a lot more that boil down to something slightly less coherent than Tim Robbins' monologue in Team America, and a lot of those have been directed at me. I'm ambivalent at best about American global hegemony. I'm far less than ambivalent about the prospect of Chinese global hegemony. America has an imperfect record when it comes to exporting the rule of law, but by and large we're pretty damn good at it at home. China, on the other hand, doesn't even have a tradition of pretending that there's a such thing as rule of law domestically, let alone internationally. Perhaps supporting a giant free trade zone is a sort of cynical and somewhat damaging way to contain China's global ambitions, but I haven't come across a better one.
It tires me whenever anyone starts from the basic assumption of zero sum international trade. TPP was totally and absolutely about encirclement. I would argue that if your philosophical position is one that democracy and free trade are best for everyone, you lead by example not by decree. Chinese imperialism has never extended beyond their frontier. American imperialism wants to be China's frontier. If we want China's frontier to align with us by choice instead of force, we should provide them a trade framework that shows them the benefits of our system of law, not one that fucking exempts us from theirs. there's "soft power" and there's vassalage.
Historically, maybe, but I think the Phillipines and Japan would disagree with that point. China, as you know, has been very aggressive in redrawing their maritime borders in recent years. But more to the point, China excludes outsiders far more than the US or EU excludes China. Possibly the only thing I think Trump had a point about during the election was that the asymmetrical trade relationship we share with them needs rebalancing (not talking trade imbalance, per se, but rather access to markets--e.g. any foreign company needs a China-based business partner to do business there, which just becomes a vehicle for them to steal trade secrets). I don't think I'm operating from anything like viewing trade as zero sum. I think on balance, freer trade is very beneficial (overall that is--how we choose to spread the wealth is a different issue that I think people conflate with trade). I think the world would welcome true Chinese participation in the global community, but unless they decide that's what they also want, they are always going to face encirclement.Chinese imperialism has never extended beyond their frontier.
The Philippines are the Chinese frontier. Japan is the Chinese frontier. The Pacific is an imperialist patchwork of 200-mile exclusive economic zones; the borders China is attempting to redraw were the ones redrawn by Japan in the 1930s. I don't disagree with economic rebalancing. I do think Chinese control of the Pacific would be worse for most ordinary citizens than American dominance. However, I believe strongly that the relationship needs to be opt-in and fair.