Unhappy With Even Minimal Scrutiny, US Removes Last Pretense Of TPP Transparency
from the running-scared dept
One of the central problems of ACTA has been its lack of transparency. TPP has also been negotiated behind closed doors, but unlike ACTA has permitted at least one small opportunity for public groups to engage with the negotiators through the use of stakeholder forums, where organizations and even individuals were permitted to give short presentations about aspects of TPP. This has allowed points of view other than those of industry lobbyists to be heard by negotiators.
But it seems that even that tiny shaft of sunlight being shone upon the measures believed to be in TPP was too bright for the US, which is hosting the next round of the negotiations in Dallas, from May 8 to 18:
"As anticipated, now that the US has taken control of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement negotiations it has removed the only pretense of transparency -- the day-long 'stakeholder' programme where critics can present information and analysis directly to negotiators", says Professor Jane Kelsey, from the Law School at the University of Auckland.
The excellent site TPP Watch explains why even a few hours of transparency was so threatening:
The stakeholder presentations have offered detailed expert analyses of the legal issues and implications of TPPA proposals that many countries’ negotiators do not have time, resources or knowledge to develop themselves.
In theory, there are other ways for critics of TPP to gain access to the negotiators. For example, civil society groups might hold an open meeting about TPP in the hotel where the negotiations were being held -- except that last time they tried to do that, their booking was cancelled at the behest of the USTR.
They also provide important support for the positions that countries are taking in the negotiations, especially against the very aggressive demands from the US.
Even though it is voluntary for the negotiators to attend, they often ask for follow-up discussions on the issues and how they might protect their interests -- without, of course, the advisers having access to the draft text.
That action, taken with the latest move, shows that the US will do everything in its power to stop any kind of independent discussion of TPP taking place that might bring inconvenient issues about the treaty to the attention of negotiators from other countries. The only consolation is that this kind of bullying proves just how frightened the US is that open, transparent discussions of TPP could cause the whole thing to unravel -- and provides an additional incentive to fight for even more transparency than those stakeholder forums provided until now.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: acta, tpp, transparency
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Treat them the same way as any other criminal organisation that is trying to keep its activities secret. Someone not known to them has to infiltrate them and blow their cover. There need to be leaks from insiders. TPP is dead anyway, from a practical politics point of view. The real problem from now on, is to cause enough political embarrassment that the perps do not get away with it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
soooo
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: soooo
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Too Many Acronyms
[ link to this | view in thread ]
http://www.openstreetmap.org/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: soooo
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Too Many Acronyms
TPP -> TransPacific Partnership
US -> United States
USTR -> United States Trade Representative
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
How can I get in?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
traitor [ˈtreɪtə]
n
a person who is guilty of treason or treachery, in betraying friends, country, a cause or trust, etc.
They were at least right about one thing, there is treason afoot, just not pointed in the right direction
Bets on the first one of them to call themselve a traitor, any bidders..........someone???.......Anyone????
ok, ill go first then.........eigggghttweeeeelve-fitteee-six........yeah, thats my bet, six years, ............plus infinity
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Too Many Acronyms
For instance
"21st-century Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement"
http://www.ustr.gov/tpp
Even the URL has TPP in it.
It's not confusing to any regular reader here and if you're new here then it shouldn't take very long to familiarize yourself with most of these acronyms.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120307/13454918027/obama-administration-acta-is- binding-dont-worry-your-pretty-little-heads-about-tpp.shtml
[ link to this | view in thread ]
One of Those
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: reply
[ link to this | view in thread ]
can't take my eyes off it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: can't take my eyes off it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: can't take my eyes off it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: can't take my eyes off it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: soooo
I would realy like one of the attending counties to prove me wrong and leak it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: reply
perhaps because we've got little hope of actually changing the outcome of the agreement itself? 'can't fix it, may as well take advantage of it to damage those responsible'?
i'm guessing here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: soooo
not that the USSR was a good counter balance, obviously, as it had the same problems. the British and Russian empires might have been if they were still around. maybe. or they could be just as bad still.
basically, the only protective buffer in the pacific against actions by the USA is the even Worse position of becoming a puppet of China. this is true militarily, economically, and politically, though the last is mostly due to the first two.
now, the USA's internal economy might be a mess, but they still exert a lot of force on smaller entities in spite of this.
so, yeah.
(doesn't help that the current government in NZ at least is, if not a US puppet, made up of the same sorts of idiots who run things in the USA.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
that and bribery and assassination to ensure the people in a position to do so aren't those who would.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: One of Those
and Representative democracy is neither representative nor democratic. it is a method to allow the bureaucracy to generally maintain the status quo and press forward incremental changes to the detriment of the public without inciting revolt or finding themselves on the wrong end of a revolution and with less assassinations in the course of choosing who within the ruling elite gets to control what.
liberty is more easily maintained in a feudal system... if the boss suppresses it, you can shoot him and the new boss can actually do something Different.
the trade off, of course, is that you get more 'civil' wars.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
paraphrasing from somewhere, but there ya go.
[ link to this | view in thread ]