Slashdot Mirror
WikiLeaks Publishes Secret International Trade Agreement
schwit1 (797399) writes "The text of a 19-page, international trade agreement being drafted in secret was published by WikiLeaks as the transparency group's editor commemorated his two-year anniversary confined to the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Fifty countries around the globe have already signed on to the Trade in Service Agreement, or TISA, including the United States, Australia and the European Union. Despite vast international ties, however, details about the deal have been negotiated behind closed-doors and largely ignored by the press. In a statement published by the group alongside the leaked draft this week, WikiLeaks said "proponents of TISA aim to further deregulate global financial services markets," and have participated in "a significant anti-transparency maneuver" by working secretly on a deal that covers more than 68 percent of world trade in services, according to the Swiss National Center for Competence in Research.
we can fix this.
Anybody with me???
Hello?
Is this thing on?
|(T)he US is particularly keen on boosting cross-border data flow, which would allow uninhibited exchange of personal and financial data.|
Perhaps the traffic between nodes will give the NSA some useful information about people's transactions to "Keep us safe." Or the US IRS about offshore deposits?
The events of the last five or six years have proven that financial markets and institutions have been over regulated.
This thing is bad. It completely bypasses all the traditional controls of democracy. The people will have no say in it even tho its their money and lives. We need to keep the heat on this kind of thing just like SOPA only much, much more.... some good analysis and commentary over at Naked Capitalism these guys tell it like it is. Basically its looking like a global corporatocracy.
C|N>K
So, this agreement is about "Financial Services". In the section called "Transparency", it says:
"The Parties recognize that transparent regulations and policies governing the activities of financial service suppliers are important in facilitating their ability to gain access to and operate in each other’s market. Each Party commits to promote regulatory transparency in trade in financial services."
But then the whole agreement is secret. Great transparency there! It's kind of difficult to take this crap seriously.
All treaties are negotiated in secret. Furthermore, at least in the US, no treaty is in effect until it is ratified by the Senate, at which point all the elements of the treaty will be public and heavily debated down to the last comma.
It's great that Wikileaks is giving the world a heads-up view into what is being negotiated, but I don't understand why every Slashdot story about international treaties harps on "negotiated in secret" like that's unusual, or that a treaty can somehow take effect silently and invisibly.
"95% of all Slashdot
When it comes to corporate ownership, the parties are really no different. Just ask, when did you last see any politician of significent position advocate for less restrictive copyright law, or criticise the high subsidies granted to the agricultural industry?
There seems to be an informal agreement between the parties as to which issues are designated the 'subjects of debate' - ideally things which get the public's emotions running high, but don't actually have a significent impact on those in charge or corporate profits. Gay marriage, abortion, that sort of thing.
This is yet another salacious post to garner attention. Here are a few things wrong with the post.
1. It is impossible to sign on to an agreement that is still in negotiation.
2. It is not a secret agreement as it's existence is posted in many places and some governments are asking for public consultation. The final text will be made available a debated when, and if, the countries involved vote on it.
3. No international treaty is ever made public till the the final draft. Negotiators need to be free to negotiate.
4. Many of these agreements never get to final draft as agreement sometimes is never reached,
4. The agreement will not come into effect unless ratified by the duly elected governments of the countries involved. Until then no one has "signed on".
Perhaps the reason behind this post is that WikiLeaks is not trending enough.
I love this quote from the article;
Additionally, the current draft also includes language inferring that, upon the finishing of negotiations, the document will be kept classified for five full years.
It makes it sound like the annex will not be seen for 5 years after it is in effect.
Here is the reason from the actual document;
This document must be protected from unauthorized disclosure, but may be mailed or transmitted over unclassified e-mail or fax, discussed over unsecured phone lines, and stored on unclassified computer systems. It must be stored in a locked or secured building, room, or container.
It refers to the current document as it is a draft. The final document will not have this clause as it will need to be debated before it can be passed by each country. WikiLeaks is again playing on the general lack of understanding of how complex treaties are and need to be negotiated.
I am giving up my modeator opportunity on this just to call you a troll.
Who's talking about surprise!?
This is information coming into the open, that's what it is.
Was that a mistake are creative editing? No country as "signed" considering the negotiations are not even complete yet. Calling it "signed on" was bad enough. Calling it "signed" is even worse.
The NRA isn't a government-run organization. Certainly if their membership is opposed to secret meetings they can and should take it up within the NRA organization.
But the Government is all of ours.
Trade negotiations are the responsibility of the administration, which is firmly controlled by the Democrats. And this Democratic administration, in particular, has been quite secretive in many ways.
Get out of that stupid partisan mindset that the Democrats are the good guys.
1. Negotiate secret deals to deregulate
2. Watch the collapse
3. Create one-world-currency-system
4. Profit! (for them) Enslavement! (for the rest of us)
Meanwhile, the people they hire to use guns and other enforcement measures are "just doing their jobs."
And once it's official? What then? "Too late?!"
This is the point of all this. As these things are happening, they need to be stopped not after they are enacted. Do you prefer to prevent disease or cure it after it happens?
The behavior of corporations -- artificial persons created by state fiat -- is not a "private matter".
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
What they are trying to do is pretty obvious. The final will not differ greatly from the drafts. We have seen all of this before. Your wait and see attitude is what enables the creep to go forward. It's time to be done with that. It just doesn't work.
Canada was openly ridiculed by the US for not deregulating its financial industry right up until the financial disaster. By an large, Canada escaped disaster that plagued the other G8 countries in the banking meltdown.
So, we have recent proof that strict financial regulation works and yet they want to keep doubling down on deregulation?
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
Any treaty binding the businesses of two or more countries would have to be known to all concerned, surely.
Considering that the US and Europe were slammed to the dirt by lack of business regulation and enforcement it seems reasonable to me that we insist on far tight regulation and enforcement and more severe penalties for breaches as well. In essence the government encourages crime by issuing penalties that are far less than the money gained by criminal, business, behaviors. GM is a huge example of that right now with the ignition switch murders. That is serious enough to seize the assets and sell of everything GM owns and put executives under the prison.