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.
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.
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
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.
Yeah, I'm fine with secret negotiations. I don't see how you could negotiate effectively if every offer and counteroffer were broadcast to the world.
However, congressional representatives should not be subject to that level of obfuscation. I want my representative to be able to oversee what's going on to make sure the general direction is in my best interests (I know, I know, corps, plebes, money, don't care about you, blah blah blah, I'm talking about the way the system should work, not the way it does).
And I don't like the rumblings I've been hearing about "fast tracking" TPP. I don't know how true that is, I've only seen it in passing.
Negotiate in secret, fine. But let my representatives review the process. And once the negotiations are done, publish the full draft of the agreement and allow a lengthy, lengthy time for the public and lawmakers to deliberate over the provisions.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
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)
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.
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.