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.
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!
How those corrupt politicians can play this game with a straight face is beyond my imagination.
Because billionaires and corporations continue to fund their campaigns and people continue to vote for them on that basis.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
We have allies? Where? Name one who isn't a disarmed weenie.
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..
Do they count as wienies with the tips snipped off?
Sorry, it was too easy!
People are not really to blame...To a certain extent...
Basically you are presented with 2 (billionaire/corporation) backed choices (in the US, 4 or 5 in other western democracies) and asked to chose. So no matter what choice you make, you lose.
What exactly are people supposed to do?
Also most average people is so preoccupied with their job and family that they do not have the time to dig too deep to see what is going on with politics. This is by design. And there are a lot of smart people out there that are aware of what is going on however they are scared of losing what few crumbs the elites have allowed them to have (remember a man with nothing to lose is a threat).
And if I recall correctly, they tried to pass previous versions of these treaties and where defeated due to their unpopularity when the details where leaked. Hence why all the secrecy and security this time around.
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.
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".
Do they even really count as an ally after we've so thoroughly snubbed them on what they consider one of their #1 national security issues (nuclear Iran)? I don't know if we qualify as something more than "vaguely co-aligned friendlyish nations" anymore.
The negotiations with Iran are being held in order to get them to not develop a nuclear weapon. I would think Israel would be in favor of such negotiations, if they are so scared of a nuclear-armed Iran. So I don't see how we have snubbed them, unless Israel's actual goal is to get the US to attack Iran for them, and thereby advance their strategic interests.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
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.
Are you saying there is no way out? This is our eternal destiny? That could only mean we are not truly conscious, that we do everything by raw instinct, run with the herd, evolution will determine our path. Eh, not entirely implausible I guess...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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.
There is a way out. But we are not there yet. Not by a long shot. It's still gotta get much darker before the dawn.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The answer is to reform your electoral system duh. Make reform the entire purpose of your political actions and keep throwing out candidates until you get an electoral reformist into office.
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.
Pretty strong words for a coward. Are you worried about the consequences of what you said? I agree with you that they are no longer for the people.
The alleged goal of those negotiations was to keep Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. It is a valid question as to whether the terms achieved will accomplish that goal. If Israel does not believe the agreement, the terms which they are aware of, will achieve that go then naturally I would expect them to oppose the treaty regardless of being an ally of the United States.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork