Fact or Fiction? The Secrecy Shrouding The TPP Is Unprecedented.

[cali]

Fact it is.

The assertions that all trade agreement negotiations have been handled this way, doesn't hold water.
I I'm sure this won't stop anyone from making that false claim, but here are the facts:

Transparency and Trade Agreements: If the Public Wouldn't Like It, Don't Sign It
by Sofia Plagakis, 7/2/2013

On June 7, a panel of federal judges ruled that international trade deals can be exempted from federal disclosure laws. This decision, coupled with the unprecedented secrecy surrounding the negotiations of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (which kicks off the 18th round of negotiations in two weeks), strips the American people of their voice and overrides the principle that public support or opposition of such agreements should guide U.S. policy.

<snip>

Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled to keep secret a document that revealed U.S. positions on international trade negotiations that impact public health and the environment. The court ruled that the document was "properly classified" in the interest of "national defense or foreign policy" and that these concerns superseded any public interest in the document. The court's decision has dangerous implications for Americans, as it means that the public loses the ability to effectively weigh in on public policy decisions with significant quality-of-life impacts.

The case dates back to 2001, when the Center for International Environmental Law, a nonprofit public interest law organization, filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) for documents related to negotiations on investment provisions in the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). FTAA was a proposed but abandoned agreement to extend NAFTA-type rules and eliminate trade barriers among all countries in the Americas except Cuba. The specific document in question includes U.S. positions on "most favored nation" and "national treatment," which grants foreign investors in countries that are parties to the agreement the same trade advantages as U.S. investors.

<snip>


The unprecedented secrecy surrounding the content of these agreements has resulted in campaigns across all the Trans-Pacific countries, including the United States, to educate the public about the potential impacts of this agreement and demand that governments release the working texts of the trade agreement. In addition, advocates have asked for the release of any documents negotiating countries signed to establish the restrictive classification.

In February 2012, over 20 public interest organizations wrote to President Obama, requesting that the administration fulfill its pledge to greater transparency and release draft negotiating texts. This followed an October 2011 public interest letter to U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, asking for the creation of a joint website with other countries that would include all documents related to the negotiations, including contact information for key negotiating personnel.

<snip>
http://www.foreffectivegov.org/transparency-and-trade-agreements-if-public-would-not-like-it-do-not-sign-it


Why All the Secrecy?

The office of the United States Trade Representative has said that “negotiators need to communicate with each other with a high degree of candor, creativity and mutual trust. To create the conditions necessary to successfully reach agreements in complex trade and investment negotiations, governments routinely keep their proposals and communications with each other confidential.”

But previous trade agreements were shared more openly and despite the secrecy efforts, portions of the document have been leaking out, through WikiLeaks and other organizations.
<snip>
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/business/unpacking-the-trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal.html?_r=0


No other trade agreement has been classified as top secret for National Security purposes. But this is setting precedent and it's the future.

What lies beneath: Yes, the text of the tpp will be available for the public to read if the TPA is passed (or if President Obama has a very unlikely change of heart- he can release it any old time), but vital information about the negotiating process which would enable us to see the negotiating priorities and tactics employed, will remain classified:

<snip>

Even when the trade pact takes effect, the participants will be forbidden from disclosing internal documents on the negotiation process for four years.

<snip>

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2015/05/13/editorials/need-haste-tpp-deal/#.VVNfmfBChOz

[tk2kewl]

1. it's bullshit with or without precedent

[SheilaT]

2. More than once in the past I've heard of

people being able to read files of some kind, but not be able to record or take paper notes. It's happened before.

[cali]

3. what specifically are you referring to?

And sorry, but the FACT remains that the TPP has been shrouded in unprecedented secrecy.

You want to refute that, than you have to do better than some vague claim, with NO supporting evidence, that "it's happened before".

You want to refute something than you need to actually do some research and post evidence for your claim.

Honestly, I would be embarrassed as all fuck to do what so many people do- make a declarative statement and not back it up. In any high school class you'd receive a failing grade.

[donnasgirl]

4. Correct again, Cali

[SheilaT]

8. I've run across this more than once.

And a quick a Google with the term: "researchers not being allowed to take notes when looking at classified documents" and got a link to a book about Ronald Reagan, and a passage about someone named Martin Anderson who was allowed access to documents in exactly the restricted way I described: https://books.google.com/books?id=H7lMqUs91eAC&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=researchers+not+being+allowed+to+take+notes+when+looking+at+classified+documents&source=bl&ots=DLCRc6t618&sig=9iFf34pNthjwGl0JVW9b8tK5z5M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0JtTVdWCIZS4ogTxs4CQDw&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=researchers%20not%20being%20allowed%20to%20take%20notes%20when%20looking%20at%20classified%20documents&f=false

I trust my own memory. I read a lot and I remember a lot. Thanks for your vote of confidence.

[A Little Weird]

9. Of course that's true for classified National Security Council documents

That's stuff like defense agreements and arms negotiations. But trade agreements, up until now, have not been considered a matter of national security. I guess the politicians can learn a thing or two and just classify whatever the hell they want - it would sure cut down on debate and other such democratic nonsense.

[SheilaT]

10. My point was, that being allowed to read something

without being able to take notes of any kind, has happened more than once. It's not unprecedented. Classified documents or a trade agreement isn't the point.

Although I'm equally appalled that this thing is being treated like some sort of top secret set of documents.

[A Little Weird]

11. Oh, I understand

I think most of us realize that level of secrecy happens for highly classified material. I just don't see why this would fit into that category. In my opinion the secrecy surrounding it (and the fact that corporations are in the loop while citizens are not) is reason enough to oppose the TPP. The preview we've seen in the leaked documents makes me wonder how President Obama or anyone on the left could support it.

[MaggieD]

5. It's not going to pass

Can we find something new to rag on Obama about now?

[cali]

6. odds are that the tpa will pass- regrettably

[pampango]

7. "But previous trade agreements were shared more openly ..." I wish the NYT author had gone into

more detail. Which 'previous agreements'? What does "shared more openly" (but not 'shared openly'?) mean?

The WTO does negotiate trade issues more openly which is a good thing. (Is that the 'previous trade agreements' being referenced?) Of course, the latest attempts to openly negotiate improvements in trade rules (the Doha Round) at the WTO has been going on since 2001 and is bogged down with no end on the horizon. And there is not likely to any attempt to include labor and environmental standards into WTO rules since the negotiation and approval process makes that next to impossible. That is one of the reasons that countries negotiate trade agreements outside of the WTO.

From the Japan Times link:

Another major stumbling block to a deal among the negotiating countries is that the U.S. Congress has yet to give Obama fast-track authority to conclude the talks. If he can’t secure this authority, agreements reached with the U.S. government could later be altered by Congress — a prospect that makes it difficult for the other participants to make concessions. Congressional deliberations on a bill on fast-track authority are now being delayed, and its success or failure will heavily influence the course of the negotiations.