The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a.k.a. the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) was signed by the ministers of twelve countries on October 4, 2015, including Australia, Brunei Darassalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, United States, and Vietnam (Office of the United States Trade Representative, 2015).
The treaty was summarized by former President Obama’s Office of the United States Trade Representative as follows:
The result is a high-standard, ambitious, comprehensive, and balanced agreement that will promote economic growth; support the creation and retention of jobs; enhance innovation, productivity and competitiveness; raise living standards; reduce poverty in our countries; and promote transparency, good governance, and enhanced labor and environmental protections. We envision conclusion of this agreement, with its new and high standards for trade and investment in the Asia Pacific, as an important step toward our ultimate goal of open trade and regional integration across the region. (Office of the United States Trade Representative, 2015)
The key features of the TPP are: comprehensive market access, regional approach to commitments, addressing new trade challenges, inclusive trade, and platform for regional integration (Office of the United States Trade Representative, 2015). The TPP was originally drafted on October 5, 2015, signed into law by former President Barack Obama on February 4, 2016 (Obama, 2016), and subsequently nullified by current President Donald Trump on January 23, 2017(Trump, 2017). The TPP is claimed by the Congressional Research Service to “…liberalize trade and investment and establish new rules and disciplines in the region beyond what exists in the World Trade Organization…” (Fergusson, McMinimy, & Williams, 2016). Even though the TPP is first and foremost a trade agreement, it also deals with other areas such as the environment, competition, human rights, intellectual property rights, telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, and investor-state arbitration (the right of investors to file lawsuits with other governments for violations of treaties) [Barnes & Graybard, 2016].
This multinational trade agreement of the Trans-Pacific Partnership will be analyzed within the world views of classical realism, and also through the lens of liberalism. Within those frameworks, the concepts of power, pseudo-power, and liberty will be explained, dissected, and applied to the TPP in order to obtain a less-opinionated understanding of the deal, and ultimately to reach a final policy decision. The terms of the TPP will be looked at from the position of the United States, and as to whether it will ultimately be beneficial to us (from the realist perspective) or to the world (from the liberal perspective). While the elements of the TPP will be viewed within the scope of just two frameworks, it becomes much more complicated when put into practice. Even though realist and liberal ideas may seem to each align more closely to their own political party, it is not so cut and dry. Throughout the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the TPP gained both the opposition to and support of major contenders from both parties. Bernie Sanders was very outspoken in his disdain for the TPP, and even went as far as to publish an official congressional document listing his objections (Sanders, 2016). Hillary Clinton was initially on board with the deal(Clinton, 2011), but eventually fell into alignment with Sanders. President Obama had been pushing for the deal for nearly the entirety of his administration, and even garnered the support of John Kasich, one of the Republican frontrunners (Rampton, 2016). Naturally, since he has since exited the deal, then-candidate Donald Trump was also in strong opposition to the TPP. With such intriguing circumstances and history, the TPP will be complicated, but rewarding to analyze.
Classical Realism
Classical realism is an ideology that almost entirely revolves around power. Every action and reaction, to a realist, involves either the acquiring, spending, or loosing of power. The discussion over whether to take a course of action or not would not involve subjectively irrelevant factors such as morality, kindness, or even evilness for that matter. A person who commits evil acts for the sole purpose of inducing pain, misery, terror, ect. would be evil, but not a realist; however, a person who commits evil acts for the sole purpose of gaining power would be a realist, though not necessarily evil. If a course of action would produce a net loss of any amount of power, a realist would be hard pressed to find a reason to move forward with that action (assuming that personal issues are not a factor). This is a stark difference from many other ideologies that usually have some sort of end goal or objective, and are usually willing to expend power to meet those goals.
Realists generally work on the surface level of things. They don’t fare well with hidden messages, implications, unspoken rules, ect. Simplicity is efficiency, and realists know that everything eventually boils down to either a net loss or a net gain of power, in or against their favor. Kenneth Waltz had an accurate and cut-and-dry way of viewing International Relations through realism:
We take states with whatever traditions, habits, objectives, desires, and forms of government they may have. We do not ask whether states are revolutionary or legitimate, authoritarian or democratic, ideological or pragmatic. We abstract from every attribute of states except their capabilities. Nor in thinking about structure do we ask about the relations of states, their feelings of friendships and hostility, their diplomatic exchanges, the alliances they form, and the extent of the contacts and exchanges among them. We ask what range of expectations arises merely from looking at the type of order that prevails among them and at the distribution of capabilities within that order. We abstract from any particular qualities of states and from all their concrete connections. What emerges is a positional picture, a general description of the ordered overall arrangement of a society written in terms of the placement of units rather than in terms of their quality. (Waltz, 1979)
The key term in the above quote is ‘capability’, for it shows the truly and totally realist outlook that Waltz had. Realists are not concerned with strengthening bonds, free trade, or institutions between countries like liberals are. Realists are solely focused on their power relative to that of other states. This mindset is effective at making gains towards self preservation because it puts all goals other than protection and maintaining an advantage to the side.
While operating in such a straightforward manner can help, it can also lead to a conflict of mindsets for realists since their natural attitude is to be transparent with clear intentions, but at the same time they understand that they can gain a tactical advantage by hiding their intentions and capabilities. Too much transparency can lead to the destruction of a state in a world where everyone is trying to get a leg-up on another, so states learn to limit the expression of their natural framework. This is why it can be confusing for a realist to deal with the complicated language of the law, and especially with concern to international agreements. Being presented with a 4,500 page (Pike. 2016) trade agreement such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership beings with it an almost infinite amount of questions, but first and foremost to a realist: “Is this going to hurt or help me?”. In the world of global trading between countries, the United States (along with other, more developed countries) usually gets the short end of the stick. We have decades of civil rights and worker’s rights movements that have put into place countless rules and regulations that make work life much easier and more fair for our workers, but less so for the companies employing the workers. This makes it difficult to compete on a global scale when you have many other countries producing goods at dirt-cheap prices by not caring about the safety of the workplace environment, paying workers pennies on the dollar, or in some cases even slave labor. Flooding the global marketplace with cheap goods benefits customers and foreign companies, but kills domestic companies and their workers. This can become problematic on the domestic side, as it creates a vacuum sucking jobs out of the country and into the control of others.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership would be harmful to the United States as a whole if viewed through the framework of classical realism. Making large multinational agreements such as the TPP interferes with the sovereignty of states involved. By entering a nation into a binding agreement to only act and behave in pre-determined, designated, and approved ways will restrict the freedom of a country to operate as it sees fit, impeding on its sovereignty. A classical realist would reel at the thought of running a country under any restrictions that might limit its ability to prosper and grow. At the same time, that person could not look past the glaring issues in the TPP that would lead to an overall negative outcome for their own country.
Power
Power is not a physical object, nor something one can see or hold. Power is a force that is always acting on every person in one form or another, whether they realize it or not. A basic definition of power would be the ability to get someone, or something (entity, group, organization, government, ect) to do something that they otherwise would not have done. This takes place on a small scale constantly, a relatable example would be paying sales tax. If given the option, hardly anyone would volunteer to pay sales tax; but because the government holds power over its people, they comply. While power and authority both accomplish essentially the same thing, there is a difference between them in the methods they use to control people. Authority is drawn from respect of the people governing you, whereas power is drawn from fear of a credible threat of punishment.
Power and the struggle for power is an ever-present part of humanity. As Cozette inferred from Morgenthau:
“In the sphere of politics, the most powerful instinct that drives men to act is the lust for power. It is defined as a desire for domination over other men that can only be satisfied if man becomes omnipotent. This is why politics is in essence a never ending struggle for power. As power is defined as a relation where men always try to impose their will upon and dominate others, the political actor always considers others as means rather than ends.” (Cozette, 2008).
While it is only realists that willingly show an open and blatant love for power, all humans struggle with the insatiable urge for said power, even if they must express it through different means. Liberals purport to be focused on moral goals such as expanding trade and institutions wherever possible, and as a general rule they try to stay neutral when it comes to conflicts either on an international scale or a local scale. While from the outside looking in it may seem like liberals are focused on avoiding intrusion into the personal choices of others, Morgenthau saw things differently. He believed that American political actors had taken on a kind of pompous and self-righteous attitude about how progressive and reasonable they are. Cozette analyzes Morgenthau’s thoughts on American liberalism in relation to foreign policy thusly:
“Morgenthau felt that US foreign policy was dominated by a liberal faith in reason and progress, which had led the United States to think of itself as above power politics. More specifically, Morgenthau flayed liberals’ ill-placed optimism in the powers of reason, which led them to conceive of “international affairs as something essentially rational, where politics plays the role of a disease to be cured by means of reason”.” (Cozette, 2008)
In a lecture to an International Relations class on September 29, 2017, S. Walsh discussed how power can be defined as: “A psychological state of affairs granting the control of the minds of others.” or: “The ability to get ‘entity A’ to get ‘entity B’ to do what ‘entity B’ otherwise wouldn’t have done” (Walsh, 2017). He teaches that there are three separate methods of obtaining power over someone, the first of which being an expectation of benefits. If ‘entity B’ will be compensated for their efforts in assisting ‘entity A’, they're more likely to comply; thus, power has been given to ‘entity A’. The second method is to instill a fear of disadvantages in ‘entity B’ so that to avoid said disadvantages, they will adhere with ‘entity A’. The third and last method of holding power is through respect or love. Coercion is not necessary for this method, because ‘entity B’ already has a desire to conform with ‘entity A’ from their love/respect for that person.
Legitimate power, while vastly more relevant, is not the only variation of power. Pseudo-power is such that is not tangible, credible, or able to be used. Bluffing is the use of pseudo-power by pretending to have the credible threat of punishment in hopes that others are deterred by the threat alone and not needing to use the power that doesn’t exist. Having too much real power of the unusable variety can be an issue as well, because (particularly in international relations) if one has not demonstrated that they actually wield the power they claim to have, their strength may be underestimated or doubted. When dealing with countries and their own respective power, physical military force is not the only source of strength. Analyzing the leaders of a country can give you insight into a different area of power itself, the legitimacy of a credible threat. If a weak leader leaves office to give way to a bold, strong, and outwardly powerful leader, the amount of actual tangible power held by the country has not changed; however the credible threat of punishment has grown, and therefore the country holds more power.
Obviously power is not the only thing that matters to a country’s success; Morgenthau believed that: “While military strength and political power are the preconditions for lasting international greatness, the substance of that greatness springs from the hidden sources of intellect and morale, from ideas and values, which we call civilization.” (Morgenthau 1969). Through this, Morgenthau is making the point that pure military force may be the only outwardly visible and seemingly pertinent indicator of power, but power alone does not bring prosperity. For a country to be prosperous in terms of economic success and quality of life for its citizens, the freedom to grow and spread new ideas is essential. This theory interestingly brings together two seemingly polarized ideological frameworks: classical realism and liberalism. Operating a country through realist principles will contribute to the acquiring of power, which can be converted into security for its citizens. Once enough power is obtained to protect citizens from outside threats to their individual liberties, only then can they begin to explore other areas of their humanity such as the arts, philosophy, religion, ect. Once the fear of one’s neighbor is relieved then communities can begin to be created; economies can form, and with the ability to combine labor from multiple sources to work toward the same goal.
Liberalism
Liberalism will be the second framework used to analyze the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which should be a very good fit. Liberalism is not to be confused with the modern definition of a liberal (associating with the United States’ left wing of politics). Liberalism seeks to expand free trade (being relevant to the TPP), and individual liberties as a whole. A classical liberal’s ideal world would have all state actors behaving according to rational thought and acting in their own self interest, while not interfering with others’ individual liberties and ability to pursue their goals. This can often result in liberals being quite naive. Schwarzchild explains this premise in his work Liberalism Liberal and Illiberal by pointing out that: “If anything, a standard objection to liberalism is that it is weak or empty: in the bon mot attributed to Robert Frost, a liberal is a man so broadminded that he won’t take his own side in a quarrel.” (Schwarzchild, 2017). A true practitioner of liberalism would be so concerned with protecting others’ liberties, that they themselves would be hesitant to push their own belief systems even if they believe it to be completely correct and in one’s best interest.
By taking such a passive stance in the world and assuming every entity is solely trying to coexist to make their own circumstances better, liberals can often be blind to evils in the world. As Kenneth Waltz stated in Man, the State, and War: “Each man does seek his own interest, but, unfortunately, not according to the dictates of reason.” (Waltz, 1959). This quote perfectly illustrates the fundamental differences between realism and liberalism. Liberals believe in greatly expanding freedoms for all peaceable citizens, allowing them to do whatever they like a long as such actions does not infringe on other’s freedoms. They are content in believing that given the freedom, every person left to their own will act justly and morally to improve their own conditions without interfering with others’. Unfortunately, pure liberalism does not take into account the fact that anyone not concerned with the law is able to improve his/her own conditions much more quickly by robbing the work and labor of others, rather than producing for themselves. What we have today in America may closely resemble liberalism, but for a civilized society to survive it must give up some liberties in exchange for physical and economic security, as well as the security to freely articulate and express thoughts and ideas. A central governing entity, along with a police force and justice system is necessary to protect individual liberties, but ironically can often restrict them at the same time.
Thomas Hobbes produced a plethora of work on the very subject of human nature and its relationship to authority. Hobbes believed that all humans naturally exist in a state of nature, or anarchy. With no central governing authority to maintain peace and fairness, life was no more than the survival of the fittest. Humans lived in a constant state of fear, and were consumed by the need to survive through maintaining nutrition and shelter. In addition to those concerns, humans also had the constant the need to protect themselves from outside threats which, before the social contract, were just about everything. On the concept of the state of nature and the social contract, according to the University of Tennessee at Martin, Hobbes asserted that:
Because men are reasonable, they can see their way out of such a state by recognizing the laws of nature, which show them the means by which to escape the State of Nature and create a civil society. The first and most important law of nature commands that each man be willing to pursue peace when others are willing to do the same, all the while retaining the right to continue to pursue war when others do not pursue peace. Being reasonable, and recognizing the rationality of this basic precept of reason, men can be expected to construct a Social Contract that will afford them a life other than that available to them in the State of Nature…. In other words, to ensure their escape from the State of Nature, they must both agree to live together under common laws, and create an enforcement mechanism for the social contract and the laws that constitute it.(Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Social Construct Theory 2.a.)
The social contract is essential to modern human life, as any substantial and meaningful progress cannot be obtained without cooperation between peoples. We see this demonstrated to an extreme in almost every aspect of our day-to-day lives. A simple way to look at this concept would be to pick any object you own and no matter how simple or ordinary that object is, chances are you would not be able to reproduce it on your own. Almost everything humans purchase, use, consume, waste, or otherwise interact with are the product of anywhere from tens to millions of individual laborers’ work. This global cooperation of peoples and governments allow us to research, develop, and produce items that are infinitesimally more intricate, precise, useful, and affordable than anything our past ancestors had the resources to make.
The social contract as described by Hobbes has single-handedly taken humanity out of the daily fight for survival and thrown us into the new struggle for creative, intellectual, and technological advancement. As was once said by Cornelius Tacitus: “Modern times are indeed happy as few others have been, for we can think as we please, and speak as we think.” (Tacitus, c. 110). People have always had goals to achieve throughout their lives, but the penalty for failing to meet your goal before the social contract (example: finding food, staying warm) was often death, whereas the penalty for failing to meet a modern day goal (example: finishing a report for your boss) might be a lost job and receiving welfare/unemployment benefits. After the social contract, humans were given more freedom than ever before to expand fields of knowledge that weren’t directly necessary for survival. Even Morgenthau, a staunch realist, recognized the importance and necessity for making gains in fields not directly related to power: “While military strength and political power are the preconditions for lasting international greatness, the substance of that greatness springs from the hidden sources of intellect and morale, from ideas and values, which we call civilization” (Morgenthau, 1969)
Trans-Pacific-Partnership Final Recommendation
The TPP has plenty of flaws that both a classical realist and a liberal can easily see. While liberals may want to expand the practice of free trade to wherever possible, the fact that this agreement would benefit countries that in some cases still greatly restrict their own population’s freedom, especially when it comes to worker’s rights. Several countries in the TPP have lax labor laws, minimal workplace-safety regulations, and supporting this trade deal helps break down barriers for these less developed countries to succeed; however, due to lacking those important implementations, the success doesn’t distribute out to the people putting in the work, but to the already rich and powerful leaders of the country or corporations. Cohen goes to incredible lengths in detailing why this is a problem in the aptly named Falling Short for Labor: Why the Trans-Pacific Partnership Does Not Do Enough for Worker’s Rights, and Evaluating Better Options. For Cohen, the three main problem countries in terms of labor in this deal are Vietnam, Brunei, and Malaysia (Cohen, 2017). With these things in mind, a liberal would likely not agree to the TPP.
After learning that liberalism would reject the grounds of the TPP, one might assume that a realist would be in favor of such a deal; however, that person would be wrong. There is little evidence that the TPP would ultimately benefit the United States at all, were it to be implemented. In addition, there is substantial evidence that such a deal would greatly harm the United States. David Moberg goes into great detail on some of the ways the TPP would harm us, here are some pull-quotes of the more shocking realities that Moberg explains:
“It gives 9,200 foreign firms the right to circumvent our courts and attack the laws we rely on…”
“We’d lose millions of manufacturing jobs.”
“It does nothing to fix our enormous trade deficit.”
A realist would run at the sight of any of those three statements, as it would most certainly result in a net-loss of power, rather than the desired outcome of a net-gain. Reading through the gritty details of the agreement brought me to no other conclusion than that a true realist would never enter into a deal such as this. It is first and foremost, unnecessary; the United States is more than capable of maintaining its own economic affairs without striking a deal that would siphon millions of jobs out of our work force. Dropping trade barriers and tariffs with other countries would not only reduce state income, but it would contribute to much lower prices of overseas goods, reducing incentive for consumers to buy domestically, and ultimately leading to more job loss for our economy.
From this research, it is clear that both realists and liberals alike would have strong objections to the TPP, however each side’s dissent is derived from different sets of values. As realism is more focused on fostering prosperity for itself, it is certainly the framework of choice for anyone who would rather make gains globally and not setbacks. My final recommendation to the President of the United States would undeniably be to exit the Trans-Pacific Partnership, as it presents few benefits that are quickly outweighed by the multitude of substantial harming factors.
Those who still believe that the TPP is a rational and beneficial deal should refer to Morgenthau on what reason always boils down to:
“Reason is like a light which by its own inner force can move nowhere… It is carried by the irrational forces of interests and emotion to where those forces want it to move, regardless of what the inner logic of abstract reason would require” (Morgenthau, 1946).
Liberals may believe they act reasonably, based on fairness and justice to all, but humanity will likely never be able to fully escape from the ever-tempting allure that is power