Iowa – Presidential candidate for the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton has expressed her disagreement with the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) which herself backed when she was secretary of state during Obama‘s first term.
She stated her concerns remained with the agreement not being enough to crack down on currency manipulation or protect consumers from excessively high drug prices. But her opinion is based on what she knew about the project back in Obama’s first period as the 30-chapter text of the agreement, concluded on Monday, has not been made public yet.
“As of today, I am not in favor of what I have learned about it […] I have said from the very beginning that we had to have a trade agreement that would create good American jobs, raise wages and advance our national security. I still believe that’s the high bar we have to meet. I’ve been trying to learn as much as I can about the agreement, but I’m worried.” Clinton said in an interview with PBS
This isn’t the first time Clinton brakes from her vocal support of several of Obama’s policies on several high-profile issues in recent weeks, many of which include immigration, Syria and the Keystone pipeline.
Some labor unions and some liberal groups have opposed the deal as a potential job killer, a though Clinton seems to share, even though while in office, Clinton had called the proposed deal the “gold standard” of modern trade pacts. The pact has been supported by the administration for its potential trade benefits and for its potential to knit together Southeast Asian and neighboring nations in an economic alliance.
“Based on what I know so far, I can’t support this agreement […] The risks are too high that, despite our best efforts, they will end up doing more harm than good for hard-working American families whose paychecks have barely budged in years.” she said, as reported by the Washington Post.
The presidential frontrunner has also joined Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, in criticizing the deal’s inclusion of a mechanism that allows companies to challenge whether countries’ laws and regulations live up to their international trade commitments or not.
Source: The Washington Post