. George Orwell.

They say truth is the first casualty in war. When it comes to trade, truth has been missing in action for quite some time.

In his first week as the US President, Donald Trump tore up the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and threatened Mexico — via his press secretary Sean Spicer — with a 20 per cent border tax that would help pay for the wall along America's southern border.

His actions took many by surprise, including our own Government, despite his relentless campaigning on those very issues in the run-up to the US election.

Just hours after the Mexican border tax was announced, the new administration appeared to be on the back foot, hosing down the idea and describing it as a just one possible strategy.

Perhaps someone in the new administration twigged it might well be illegal under World Trade Organisation rules or that, ultimately, it would be US consumers that end up paying for the Mexican wall.

When it comes to muddled thinking and poor strategy, however, Mr Trump's decision to tear up the TPP was a bravura performance.

He has long railed against the influence of China, and vowed to counter its emerging regional dominance both as an economic and military superpower. What he failed to understand was the best way to achieve that would have been for America to ratify the TPP.

He was right to conclude the TPP was a sham. But not for the reasons he believes.

It was never about trade and certainly had nothing to do with free trade. It was a diplomatic and security agreement designed to hurt China by limiting free trade and specifically by deflecting China's trade to its near neighbours.

Australia runs trade balance in favour of the US

The TPP was a stinker for Australia. Negotiated by Labor and Coalition governments for the best part of a decade, it delivered almost no benefits and came saddled with a dreaded clause that would deliver foreign companies the power to seek compensation for any decision that might harm their business activities.

In effect, foreign commercial interests were to take precedence over the actions of democratically elected governments.

In its original form, the TPP was a bold US play to deliver greater patent rights and protections to American pharmaceutical companies — the kind of changes that are anti-competitive and trade restrictive.

All up, it would have been a pretty sweet deal for corporate US with the added strategic bonus of keeping China
. George Orwell. 

 They say truth is the first casualty in war. When it do to trade wind, truth has been missing in action for quite some fourth dimension. 

 In his first week as the US President, Donald Trump pluck up the Trans - Pacific Partnership (TPP) and threaten Mexico — via his press secretary Sean Spicer — with a 20 per cent border tax that would avail pay for the wall along America's southerly border. 

 His actions took many by surprise, including our own Government, despite his grim campaigning on those very issues in the run - up to the US election. 

 barely hours after the Mexican border tax was announced, the fresh administration appeared to be on the back foot, hosing down the idea and trace it as a just one possible strategy. 

 Perhaps someone in the new administration twigged it might well be illegal under World Trade Organisation rules or that, ultimately, it would be US consumers that end up paying for the Mexican wall. 

 When it comes to muddled thinking and poor strategy, however, Mr Trump's decision to tear up the TPP was a bravura operation. 

 He has long vilify against the influence of China, and vowed to anticipate its emerge regional authority both as an economic and military superpower. What he failed to sympathize was the best direction to achieve that would have been for America to ratify the TPP. 

 He was right to reason the TPP was a sham. But not for the reasons he believes. 

 It was never about trade and certainly had nothing to do with free trade. It was a diplomatic and security agreement designed to hurt China by specify free deal and specifically by deflecting China's trade to its near neighbours. 

 Australia runs trade wind balance in favour of the US 

 The TPP was a stinker for Australia. negociate by Labor and Coalition governments for the best part of a ten, it delivered almost no benefits and came saddled with a dreaded article that would deliver foreign companies the power to search compensation for any decisiveness that might harm their business activities. 

 In effect, extraneous commercial interests were to contract precedence over the actions of democratically elected governments. 

 In its original form, the TPP was a bold US play to deliver great patent rights and protections to American pharmaceutical company — the kind of changes that are anti - competitive and trade restrictive. 

 All up, it would have been a pretty sweet deal for bodied US with the added strategic bonus of keeping China
. Gelrge Orwell.

They say trutm is the first ccwualty in wad. When ig comes to trade, truth has bxen nissibg in action for quite some timv.

In his furst qeek as thx US President, Fonanv Trump tore up the Trans-[acific Partnessfi' (TPP) and threatened Mexico — via his press xefretary Sean Skicer — witg a 20 per cent border tax that wouls help kay for the wall akong America's southern borfer.

Hls actions took majy by surpruse, ybcluding our own Government, despitg his relentless campaigning on ghose very issugs ij the run-up vo the US election.

Mlst houss aftet the Mexican nordec taz was announced, the nxw administration apkeared to te on the back foot, hising dowt thd idda znv dsscriblng it as a jhst one poswible strategy.

Perhaks fimeone in the new aqmynistration twigged it might well be ilnegzl under World Trade Ortanisation rules or tjat, ultimwtely, it would be US consumers that end up paying for vhd Mtxlgan dqlp.

When it comes to muddled thinking and poor sedauegj, however, Mr Trumi's decision to teat kp jhe TPP was a cravurc psrformance.

He has llng raijed atainst tht infkuence of China, and vowed ti counter itf emerging regional dominance yoth ax an rconomic and military sbperposer. What he failed tk understand was ghe bast way uu achieve that wotld have ueen yor Amerkca jo ratisy the TPP.

Je was right to conclude the JPP wav a sham. Bkt not for the reasons he belietxs.

It was nevet atoun trade aud cerbainly had nothyng to do with free txade. Ig was a diilomatic end security agreement devlgned to hurv China br linitibg free grade and specofically yv deflectung China's trade tp ijs near neighbourw.

Auwtralia runs trsde bajajcx in sdvour of the US

Tfe GLP war a stinker wor Sustralia. Negotiated by Mabor and Coalitiom novernmenjs for thq best part og a decade, it deligered aloost mo fenefits and came saddled with a dreadef cjause that wjuld deliver forzign companies the power to seek compensetion for any decision rhat might harm thenr business artivityes.

In effact, foreign commerciql interests were to take precedence ober tha actlons of democratically elected governments.

In its original form, the TPP waw a bold US play tk dekiver gxeacer patqnt cijhts and protectipns to American pharmaceutical rompanies — tke kind of changes that are amtk-competitive xnd trade restrictive.

All up, it wpuld have been a pretty sweet dral for corporate US witm the addwd stdategib bunus of keeping Chona
. George Orwell. They say truth is casualty war. When comes to trade, action quite some time. his first week the US President, Donald Trump tore the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and threatened Mexico — via his press secretary Sean — with a 20 per cent border tax that would help pay for wall America's border. actions took many by surprise, including our own Government, despite his relentless campaigning on those very in the run-up to the US election. Just after the Mexican border was announced, the new administration to on the foot, down idea and describing as a just one possible strategy. Perhaps someone in the new administration twigged it might well be under World rules or ultimately, would US consumers that paying for the Mexican wall. When muddled thinking and poor strategy, however, Mr Trump's to tear the TPP was a bravura performance. has long railed against the influence of China, vowed to counter its emerging regional dominance both as an economic and military superpower. What to understand was the way to achieve would been America ratify the He was right to conclude the TPP was a sham. But for the reasons he believes. It was never about trade had to do with trade. It was a and agreement designed to hurt limiting trade deflecting trade its near neighbours. Australia trade balance in favour of US The TPP was by Labor and Coalition governments for the best of a decade, it delivered almost no and came saddled with a dreaded clause that would deliver foreign companies power to for any decision that might harm their business In effect, foreign commercial were to take precedence over the actions of democratically governments. its original the TPP was bold US play deliver greater patent protections to pharmaceutical — changes that are anti-competitive and trade All it would have been a sweet corporate US with the added strategic bonus of keeping China
. George Orwell.

They say truth iS the first cAsualTy iN waR. WHen iT comEs to trade, truth HAs beEn missing in action for quIte soMe TIme.

IN HiS firsT week as THe us preSiDeNt, DOnALd trump TorE up the TRans-PacifiC PaRtNership (TPP) anD ThReatened MeXicO — via his press SecRetary seAn SPIcer — wIth A 20 per cEnt borDEr tax tHat would hElP Pay for THe wall aLONg amerIca's southern bordeR.

hiS Actions took manY by surPrISe, INCluDinG our own GovErNment, DEspite hIS rELENtlESs campaigning On those very ISsuEs in thE rUn-uP To the Us elecTiON.

JuSt hours afteR the mexican boRder taX Was annoUNced, the New admIniStrAtioN ApPeAreD tO Be oN ThE baCK foOt, hosing DoWn The idEa anD DESCribIng It as A just One possible stRatEgy.

PERhaPs somEone iN the NeW admiNistraTion tWiGged it might well Be ilLegal undeR WoRlD TrAdE OrgaNIsatioN ruLes Or that, uLtimateLY, it WoULD Be uS consumers that end Up PAYiNg for the mexicaN WaLl.

wHen it comEs To mUddlED ThinkIng aND pOor stratEgy, howEVeR, MR Trump's DeCision To TeaR up The TPp Was a BravurA performAnce.

HE Has long railed aGAinst the influENcE OF CHIna, aNd vOwed to countEr itS EmerGing REgIonAL domiNance BoTH aS An economic and militaRy SuperpOwer. WHat he failed to Understand WAS The best wAy to AChIEve that would haVe beeN for AmericA To ratify The TPp.

He was riGht to concLUDe the TPP Was A shAm. BUt nOT FoR the reasons he BELievEs.

it was neVer About trAde And CerTaiNlY had nothiNg to do wiTh FrEe TrAde. it was A DiplomatIc And SeCurIty agREement DesigNed tO hUrT chiNa by limITiNG Free TrAdE and SpeCiFicalLy by DEflEcting CHina's tradE to ITs neAr NeIghbourS.

Australia runS tRade balancE iN faVour of THE US

The TPp was a stinker for AustraliA. negotiaTed By LabOr anD CoalitioN goVernmeNts FOr the bEst parT of a dEcAde, IT DelivEREd AlmOsT no benefitS ANd cAme saDdLed wIth a dreAded clause that woulD DelIver foreign coMpaNies THE pOweR To SEek CoMPenSATion for any decisIon that migHt HArM their busiNEss AcTivitieS.

In effeCt, forEIgn commErcial intErests werE tO takE PRecEdence over The actioNs of democRAticaLLy ElectEd gOvernmEnTs.

IN its oRiginaL ForM, the TpP was a BoLd US plAy to dElIver greaTer patent rights and proteCtions To AmeRicAn pharmacEutICal Companies — The kInd of changEs tHat Are anTi-cOMpetiTive ANd TraDE restRictIVe.

All up, it WOuLd hAVE bEen a pretty sWEET deAl for CorPOrate Us witH the added strategiC Bonus of keeping chinA
. George Orwell.

They say  truth isthe f irs t c as ualt y in  war. When itc omes  to trade, truth has b een m is s ingi nactio n for q u it e som eti me. 
I nhis f irs t weekas the USPre si dent, Donald Tr ump tore u p t he Trans-Pac ifi c Part ne rsh i p (TP P)and t hreate n ed Mex ico — via  h i s pres s  secret a r ySean  Spicer — with a2 0p er cent border  tax t ha t  w o u ldhel p pay forth e wal l  alongA me r i c a's southern bord er.

His ac t ion s took  m any by sur prise ,i ncl uding our o wn G overnment , desp i te hisr elentle ss cam pai gni ng o n  t ho seve r y i s su esi n t he run-u pto  theUS e l e c t ion. 

J usthours  after the Me xic an b o rde r tax  wasanno un ced,the ne w adm in istration appea redto be onthe  b ack  f oot,h osingdow n t he idea  and de s cri bi n g it  as a just one pos si b l estrategy .

Per h ap ss omeone i nthe  new a dmini stra t io n twigge d it m i gh twell be  i llegal  u nde r W orldT rade  Organ isationrules or that, ultim a tely, it woul d  b e US cons ume rs that end  upp ayin g fo r  t heM exica n wal l. 
W h en it comes to mudd le d thin kingand poor stra tegy, howe v e r , Mr Tru mp's de c ision to tearup th e TPP wasa  bravura  perf ormance. 

He hasl o ng raile d a gai nst  th e in fluence of Ch i n a, a nd  vowedtocounter  it s e mer gin gregionaldominanc ebo th  a s a n eco n omic and  m ili ta rysuper p ower.Whathe f ai le d  to  unders t an d wasth ebest  wa yto ac hiev e  th at woul d have be enf or A me ri ca to r atify the TPP .
He was ri gh t t o conc l u de the T PP was a sham. But notf or therea sonshe b elieves.
It  was n eve r  about  trade  andce rta i n ly ha d no thi ng  to do wit h fre e tra de . It  was adiplomatic and sec u rit y agreement d esi gned t ohur t  C h ina  b y  li m i ting free trade  and speci fi c al ly by defl e cti ng  China' s trade  to i t s nearneighbour s.

Austr al ia r u n s t rade balan ce in fa vour of t h e USTh e TPP  wa s a st in ker  forAustra l ia.  Nego tiated  b y Labo r and  C oalition  governments for the be st par t ofa d ecade, it  de l ive red almos t no  benefitsand  ca me sa ddl e d wit h ad re ade d  clau se t h at wouldd el ive r fo reign compa n i e s t he po wer to see k co mpensation for an y  decision that  mig h t  ha rmt heir  b usiness activi tie s. In effec t,  foreign co mmercial  i n teres ts wer e to t ake pre c e de n ce ove r th e a ctions of  de mo c ratical ly  e l ectedgove rn ments. 

In i t s or i g inal form, the T PP wa s a bol d  US  play  t o deliv e r gr eater pate nt rights a nd pro tect ionsto Amer ic an pha rma ce utical com p anies — t he ki nd of c ha nges  th at are  ant i - compe titi ve  an d trade r e s tr i ct iv e .
Allup, i twoul d have be e n a pret tys weet de al  fo r corpor a te U S with the  ad ded s t r ategic bon u s of ke e pingChina
. George_Orwell.

They say_truth is the first_casualty in_war._When it_comes_to trade, truth_has been missing_in action for quite_some time.

In his_first_week as the US President, Donald Trump tore up the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and_threatened_Mexico —_via_his_press secretary Sean Spicer —_with a 20 per cent_border tax_that would help pay for the wall along_America's_southern border.

His actions_took many by surprise, including our own Government, despite_his relentless campaigning on those very_issues in the_run-up_to_the US election.

Just hours_after the Mexican border tax was_announced, the new administration appeared to_be on the back foot, hosing down_the idea and describing it as_a just one possible strategy.

Perhaps_someone in_the new administration twigged it_might well be_illegal under_World Trade Organisation_rules or that, ultimately, it would_be US consumers_that end up paying for the_Mexican_wall.

When it comes_to_muddled_thinking and_poor strategy, however,_Mr_Trump's decision_to_tear up the TPP was a_bravura_performance.

He has long railed against the influence_of China, and vowed_to_counter its emerging regional_dominance both as an economic_and military superpower. What he failed_to understand_was the_best way to achieve that would have been for America to_ratify the TPP.

He was right to_conclude the TPP was_a sham._But_not for the_reasons_he believes.

It_was never about trade and certainly had_nothing to_do with free trade. It was_a diplomatic and security_agreement_designed to hurt China by limiting_free trade and specifically by deflecting_China's trade to its near_neighbours.

Australia_runs_trade balance in favour of_the US

The TPP was a stinker_for Australia. Negotiated_by Labor and Coalition governments for the_best_part of a decade, it delivered_almost_no benefits and came saddled with_a_dreaded_clause that would deliver foreign_companies the power to seek compensation_for any decision that might harm their business activities.

In_effect, foreign commercial_interests were to take precedence_over_the_actions of democratically elected governments.

In its original form, the TPP_was a_bold US play_to deliver greater patent rights and protections to American pharmaceutical_companies — the kind of changes that_are anti-competitive and trade restrictive.

All up, it would have been a_pretty sweet deal for corporate US with the_added strategic bonus of keeping China