The TPP agreement has never been about helping average Americans obtain jobs. Its overarching purpose has been to ensure US corporations gain enough power to dominate international trade markets. More specifically, it was designed to deter China’s expansionist ambitions.

As CNN noted in April:

Really, this is about China.

Remember Obama's infamous Asia pivot -- the one Hillary Clinton was spearheading as secretary of state? This deal is its economic underpinning.

China isn't involved in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. But it is working on its own trade deal in the region, with many of the same countries. And that deal won't include the labor and environmental language, or the crackdown on government-owned and operated businesses, or the Internet freedom language, that the United States is insisting on.

Proponents say the deal is the United States' chance to install itself as an economic force in the region, and to require some of the participating countries to play by its rules. The alternative is that those countries could fall increasingly into China's orbit.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/22/politics/trade-war-obama-congress-6-reasons/

Despite Hillary’s refusal to state her official position, her fingerprints are all over the TPP; and her track record serves as proof she is a free trader. But if journalists really wanted to understand her involvement in the mediations, they should be asking: Why was the Secretary of State involved in Top Secret trade negotiations that now seem destined to end in military conflict?

As Fareed Zacaria recently noted in the Washington Post:

The administration lobbied hard to get its closest allies to spurn China’s new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, only to be rebuffed by everyone — even Britain.

The stability of the world will not rest on whether the Houthis win or lose in Yemen. (Yemen has been in a state of almost constant conflict since 1962.) It will be shaped by how the world’s established superpower handles the rising one, China. As Harvard’s Graham Allison has noted, of the 15 cases since 1500 where this transition has taken place, 11 times the result was a war.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-forgotten-pivot-to-asia/2015/...

It’s easy to imagine a scenario where the TTP agreement contains a military element. It makes sense on many levels. It would explain the reason the TPP has merited a top-secret classification; and it would explain the reason Obama has been averse to declassifying the document for public consumption.

And yet, through all the years of negotiations, the mainstream media seemed unwilling or incapable of making this critical connection until the recent South China Sea confrontation captured world attention. Suddenly, light bulbs flipped on everywhere, and now the American public is playing catch up, trying to comprehend the significance of events occurring in that part of the world.

But to understand the true intent of the TPP and the TTIP, you need a basic understanding of the global economy, and for most Americans that presents a problem. Corporate owned media outlets have a vested interest in keeping voters in the dark; it is the most effective way of keeping the stock market stable, and it masks policies that sustain the incredible income inequality gap that currently exists.

And as in all things Wall Street: the greatest threat to corporate control of the US financial system is truth and accurate information. They prefer the US populace remain ignorant about their motivations for driving the transfer of wealth to the top earners.

For example: Most people in America seem unaware of how radically the international labor force will be altered during the next twenty years; and they do not understand how significantly those changes are reshaping the global environment. In most industrial countries, a labor imbalance is emerging due to an aging population that is dramatically reducing the number of healthy people left to fill manufacturing positions. In Japan, 69% of the adult population will turn 65 or older in 2035. In Germany, that number will reach 66%, while in the US, older Americans will constitute 44% of the adult population. That is the primary reason manufacturing companies are retooling assembly processes to include robots. It is the primary reason our national leaders are unwilling to support the labor sector.

Even China, the world’s largest exporter, has been lowering expectations for future manufacturing output because its aging population will affect a decrease in the number of qualified workers available to meet the global demand for cheap products. It is one of the reasons the country is restructuring its financial sector to promote a nationalized form of generating economic growth.

Many economists predict this coming reduction in the international laborer force will create a unique opportunity for people living in Southeast Asian and Africa, the two nations exhibiting the most robust increase in childbirths.

The future of the global economy is uncertain and volatile. And while the future of financial markets remains unclear, a consensus has emerged that new global alliances are pitting eastern expansionism against western hegemony, perilously increasing the potential for a military confrontation.

Current leaders of the industrialized nations know they face a growing dilemma: how do they stop Chinese aggression without starting WWIII? While many people in the west struggle to understand China’s decision to aggressively enforce maritime sovereignty claims, the people of India and Sri Lanka are desperately trying to deter Chinese intrusion into the Indian Ocean.

In a 2014 article, The Times of India described the problem this way:

And while China's recent push for dominance in the South China and East China seas get more attention, the quiet contest for influence in the Indian Ocean is being watched carefully from Tokyo to Washington, D.C. More than anything else, the worries are over energy.

The tankers that move through Indian Ocean carry 80 percent of China's oil, 65 percent of India's and 60 percent of Japan's, making those waters crucially important to three of Asia's great powers. A significant slowdown in tanker traffic — whether from diplomatic standoff, piracy or war — could cripple those countries and send shockwaves around the world.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-China-quietly-struggle-in...

The Chinese plan to end US hegemony and establish dominance over international trade activities is contingent on creating two interconnected trade routes designed to connect China with 20 eastern countries. The maritime plan is called the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road, while the land based plan, called the New Silk Road, will modernize the transportation infrastructure linking countries such as, Iraq, Turkey and Syria. In that context it’s easy to see why China is willing to risk a military confrontation with the US and its allies in the South China Sea. The 21st Century Maritime Silk Road parallels the current route favored by international oil tankers that facilitates the movement of petroleum from Middle Eastern ports to China and ASEAN countries. By gaining dominance over this trade route, China can effectively restrict western trade vessels from reaching eastern ports.

How does that impact the TPP?

Many knowledgeable pundits point out the TPP contains very little actionable items to expand free trade between America and the Asian member nations, but rather is focused on establishing a trade alliance that will exert enough pressure to counter China’s expansionist agenda. That is why Malaysia plays such an important role in the President’s plan; it is the reason he is willing to ignore slave and sex trade traffickers who make Malaysia’s involvement so offensive. If the west loses Malaysia to China’s 21st Century Maritime Silk Road plan, then the US will no longer be strategically placed to influence the free flow of shipments through the critical Strait of Malacca.

And here is the underlying danger: the US plan to thwart China’s ambitions and to secure US corporate dominance over the region is contingent on maintaining a huge military presence in close proximity to the Chinese coast. And that plan is making a lot of world leaders -- including some of the TPP member nations – very nervous (just imagine China maintaining a military presence off the California coast).

Even worse: we’ve entered this conflict with our hands tied behind our backs because the incredible income inequality that has mushroomed under Obama’s leadership has placed us in a precarious position.

While China has been busy investing in its own prosperity, our nation has been allowing corporations to offshore massive sums of tax dollars, robbing our nation of the critical capital needed to generate financial growth. And that loss of revenue will negatively impact any future efforts to counter China’s recent decision to boost its high-tech military capabilities.

Not only do we have an unsustainable level of income inequality, we are incurring massive trade deficits at a time when our indebtedness to other nations has climbed to $5 trillion, with $1.5 trillion of that being owed to China.

When you consider the military connection to the TPP, then you see it creates a dilemma for Hillary Clinton and the Democrats. As Secretary of State she was deeply involved in early negotiations of the agreement, and at some point, it will be difficult for her to separate her candidacy, or presidency, from any military conflicts it incurs. The TPP is now one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation in modern history, and Clinton was too deeply involved in negotiating its details to pretend she is anti-TPP. And because she has adopted a faux populist/liberal image, further revelations of her involvement in the development of the TPP will only reinforce the image that she is dishonest.

As the problems associated with Chinese expansionism move to center stage, and as voters become more aware of the global economy: revelations about the new east-west divide will cast a glaring light on neo-liberalism, which will further damage the Democratic brand, because – despite PR efforts to redefine their image -- Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have always been neo-liberals; and at some point, Democrats need to understand that free trade is a euphemism for neo-liberalism.