Slashdot Mirror
Extreme Secrecy Eroding Support For Trans-Pacific Partnership
schwit1 writes with news that political support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership is drying up because of the secrecy involved in developing it. Members of Congress can read the bill if they want, but they need to be located in a single room within the basement of the Capitol Visitor Center, and they can't have their staff with them. They can't have a copy, they can't take notes, and they can only view one section at a time. And they're monitored while they read it. Unsurprisingly, this is souring many members of Congress on the controversial trade agreement.
"Administration aides say they can’t make the details public because the negotiations are still going on with multiple countries at once; if for example, Vietnam knew what the American bottom line was with Japan, that might drive them to change their own terms. Trade might not seem like a national security issue, they say, but it is (and foreign governments regularly try to hack their way in to American trade deliberations)."
"Administration aides say they can’t make the details public because the negotiations are still going on with multiple countries at once; if for example, Vietnam knew what the American bottom line was with Japan, that might drive them to change their own terms. Trade might not seem like a national security issue, they say, but it is (and foreign governments regularly try to hack their way in to American trade deliberations)."
are bad laws. Period. I am hard pressed to think of an exception.
(and foreign governments regularly try to hack their way in to American trade deliberations).
So do america's supported allies
So this is how the US is doing it, anyone expect the rest of the world to be so secretive?
Waiting for an amusing sig.
So, does the leopard just sit there and watch them read it then? Seems like kind of a waste of a good leopard.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Give these Lawmakers more money! Fund Elections of new Lawmakers to replace all those who will not do our bidding! Fly my Lobbyists, fly!
Same with TTIP. I'll oppose it nail and tooth unless it is made public *before* people get a chance to deliberate on it (and this has to occur *before* parliaments decide on it).
Otherwise we might well ditch all our democracies and states of right and re-instate absolute monarchies.
How those corrupt politicians can play this game with a straight face is beyond my imagination.
That it would be difficult to negotiate such an expansive treaty openly, then perhaps we shouldn't negotiate such an expansive treaty. Either limit the scope or the number of countries to where the process can actually be democratic.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Just publish what you have right now under title: it may change signicantly...
As citizen of EU, i see it strange that something that's supposed to be good at us, is so secret we cant get information how its supposedly going to benefit us...
Witch lead me to asume that all benefits are just big BS. And only one benefiting these trade agreements are big multinational corporations. With n itself is reason enough to reject any trade agreement. Companies can be above countries. Ever..
too many secrets. ... like... lying without saying a word...
like someone who makes deals in their head with you and don't tell you....
like
it's gonna bite someones ass... wonder whose...
If the version presented to the Congress member has substantial changes written in, just for that Congressman, or if the treaty is modified without notification, then what the Congressman thought they were agreeing to will not match what the treaty. That is _begging_ for abuse, much like a recent project I saw where the code compiled by the developer bore only a passing resemblance to what was in the source control and which had been planned for release.
Apparently the businesses have added clauses that would let them project future revenues and base claims on that. It is not merely, "We sell x number of widgets a year and this regulation stops this, so we lose x times profit per unit". They can claim, "Without this regulation we would have sold y number of widgets at z USD profits per unit, so our loss is y * z ".
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
In fact, I'm sure those organizations have had a strong influence in writing the treaty.
So, it's only secret to those of us who will suffer the consequences (or, to be fair, reap the benefits, but color me skeptical on the latter).
Secrecy in these matters goes against the basic principles of democracy, democracy which nowadays feels like but a vague memory of more reasonable times.
"You should never doubt what nobody is sure about." -- Willy Wonka
The elaborate charade is all about convincing Congress that the negotiation is so complex that the president NEEDS fast-track authority to get this whole deal done.
Trade agreements aren't "secret" - they're generally pretty public things, as the trade-limiting quotas or punitive/protectionist tariffs are IMMEDIATELY published for the public record, so that the commercial community can deal with them....meaning that "if Vietnam [wanted to know] what the American bottom-line with Japan was" (to use the OP's example) they only have to wait 30 seconds after the deal is agreed.
You might think, "well, ok, so there's a competitive negotiating value to keeping your cards close to your chest until the negotiation is finished"...except the question begged here is that the last word in TPP is PARTNERSHIP. *Durable* partnerships are not forged from secretive poly-partner networks of agreements that would be spoiled by the bright light of day; I'm pretty sure we learned that in 1914 when Bismarck's successors failed to keep all those balls in the air quite spectacularly.
Durable generational trade agreements like GATT 1947 are formed from open discussions of mutual interest, and finding points where both/all sides can agree, or can at least agree to compromise.
So in short, this whole thing is bullshit. The current administration has already fucked up the ability of the US to leverage its most powerful peacetime strength - its market - to advance serious geopolitical goals around the Pacific Rim.
-Styopa
Members of Congress can read the bill if they want, but they need to be located in a single room within the basement of the Capitol Visitor Center, and they can't have their staff with them.
Since when has reading a bill ever been a prerequisite for passing it?
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Since everyone including the submitter seems to be spraining their ankles to avoid attaching his name to this ("administration", "government"), let me say it- This is the OBAMA Administration's policy. Barack Obama's policy. The guy so many of us voted for. The Obama that was so much less secretive than the previous guy. Say Obama out loud and stop covering for Obama. Obama. President Barack Obama. George Bush never got such a courtesy.
Laws that need to be made in secret are bad laws. Period. I am hard pressed to think of an exception.
Then you haven't thought about it very hard. There sometimes are very good reasons for negotiating positions to be secret prior to the final version of a law. The most important one is that what needs to happen isn't always popular. If politicians and negotiators have no room to offer deals because everything is public then it becomes impossible to reach any sort of compromise. That said, you can take the secrecy thing too far. Room to float ideas and propose compromises is one thing. Negotiating deals that are nothing but ghost writing for special interests and lobbies is something else entirely.
If negotiating positions are always public, politicians frequently have to harden their position to match their political rhetoric or party positions even if that results in a worse deal at the end of the day. Lots of our most important laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were negotiated significantly in secret because, let's face it - racism was hardly disguised back then and in many cases it could be hard for a politician to support something that he knew was right but that many of his constituents opposed. Sometimes what is best isn't popular and a limited amount ability to conduct back channel negotiations is actually far more important than most people realize. Read a biography of LBJ sometime if you want to see a real world example of some of what I'm talking about.
This treaty isn't just secret during negotiation. The administration is requesting fast track powers which would minimize the congressional review of the final product prior to implementation.
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
Treaty proponent: “I have great respect for the critics, many of whom have shown great leadership on progressive causes, and I look forward to a continued dialogue with members of Congress based on facts and substance,” Froman told POLITICO.
Just, don't talk about any of the facts or substance in public, or in private, or even take them out of the room with you...
No ! United States presidential election actually is not democratic ! The election of the President of the United States is an indirect vote in which citizens cast ballots for a slate of members of the U.S. Electoral College; these electors in turn directly elect the President. So the president is _chosen_ to implement the policies in favour of _gaint_ corporates. So it does not matter who is the president, all of them will doing the _job_ they are chosen for.
Or Investor-state dispute settlement
TLDR?
Corporations get to sue your sovereign nation if they think your laws are impeding their profits, decided by a "court" consisting of three "independent" lawyers.
So, for example, many EPA regulations would probably be contested very soon after the passing of this treaty.
This is what they want to hide. The fact that they are preparing to sign governance of the USA (and every other signatory) over to Big Corporate.
I'm more scared that there was support for TPP.
...then it's a BAD deal...
After years, decades of power creep, and constant abuse of power, I will not trust ANYTHING the federal government does, and will not recognize it.
What happened to the president that promised us transparency?
Even if you buy the argument that a trade agreement is a national security issue, the level of secrecy is still outrageous. Congressional oversight committees regularly deal with REAL top-secret, national security documents and do not have this level of restrictions.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
...if they were NOT secret and people would know what's in those contracts, the support would certainly not rise.
The mere idea alone to circumvent the judicial system and instead establish an "arbitration system" that's basically controlled by the international corporations should already be enough to ensure opposition by pretty much anyone.
Bluntly, any government in favor of this is basically giving up the sovereignty of the country entrusted to them and should be treated as such with the relevant laws. As long as the judges are still in charge.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This law will somehow be magically passed. Congressmen will be bribed, blackmailed or both to make it happen. The transnational wealthy want it to happen, so it will and their little servants in congress will be brought to heel, one way or another.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
I'm not sure why anyone should think that this is an issue.
If the agreements are in secret, then "support" or "lack of support" is irrelevant. It's secret. No one can tell the difference between support and its absence. If someone makes up something totally arbitrary and tells you that that's the official truth, you have no way of knowing if they are right or wrong.
And it's not like most people bother studying up on laws, regulations, trade agreements and precedents anyways - mostly we just rely on people we trust to tell us what's what (even when they are utterly wrong - and this happens all too often...).
And it's not like the decisions of judges always make sense to people - mostly people either just avoid such things entirely or try and make nice or they dig in their heels and push for what they believe is right (which can take many years to resolve, when dealing with courts).
Meanwhile, in the USA, anyone can already sue anyone for any reason (though the courts get annoyed if they feel you are abusing them). So that's not even a new issue (though it might be shorthand for something which is an issue - but since we don't know what we're talking about it's kind of hard to know what that issue would be).
Seriously, why does anyone think that this even matters?
I mean, aside from unfair competition (which we have been seeing a lot of, throughout history, in foreign trade and foreign relations), mostly this is going to wind up being a good reason to do absolutely nothing. And frankly, I'm good at that. I'm sure you are also capable of doing absolutely nothing.
Whatever.
This is simply a way for big corporations to off-shore my job. Death the the H1-B!!!!!
For America treaties must be ratified by the Senate 2/3's majority. so for all you yanks out there, stop complaining, you will get a chance to speak your mind based on facts as soon as the treaty is presented for senate vote (which will be the time you administer feedback / flame your 2 senators). For other countries civil disobedience may be the only recourse, u should check yourl local governance laws to figure out what your next step should be. (IHBT good grief)