NY Times Changes Its Tune On TPP; Highlights Cronyism, Lack Of Transparency As Problems
from the getting-it-right-second-time-around dept
Last fall, many folks who follow these issues were somewhat dismayed by a weird NY Times editorial that appeared to endorse the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, while basically ignoring the many complaints about it. It wasn't exactly a ringing endorsement, but it did clearly support the agreement, concluding with:A good agreement would lower duties and trade barriers on most products and services, strengthen labor and environmental protections, limit the ability of governments to tilt the playing field in favor of state-owned firms and balance the interests of consumers and creators of intellectual property. Such a deal will not only help individual countries but set an example for global trade talks.The endorsement resulted in the Times being rightly mocked for endorsing a secretive agreement that the NY Times editorial writers had not seen (indeed, could not see). Apparently, some folks on the editorial staff took at least some of this criticism to heart, and have now released a new editorial that is much more critical of the TPP -- in particular, the process around it.
That is, while the editorial still (rightly, in our opinion) supports the idea of lowering key trade barriers, it finally acknowledges that a lot of what the TPP is doing has little to do with removing trade barriers, and plenty to do with helping corporations push through global regulations that it could not get adopted domestically. Furthermore, it directly takes on the fact that the USTR is ridiculously secretive on the negotiation with everyone except big businesses that have direct access:
The Obama administration has revealed so few details about the negotiations, even to members of Congress and their staffs, that it is impossible to fully analyze the Pacific partnership. Negotiators have argued that it’s impossible to conduct trade talks in public because opponents to the deal would try to derail them.The editorial further notes the problematic "corporate sovereignty" provisions that allow companies the ability to sue countries for regulations they dislike, noting how it could be abused by banks to block financial regulations (as an example). It further questions some of the predictions of economic benefits from these agreements.
But the administration’s rationale for secrecy seems to apply only to the public. Big corporations are playing an active role in shaping the American position because they are on industry advisory committees to the United States trade representative, Michael Froman. By contrast, public interest groups have seats on only a handful of committees that negotiators do not consult closely.
That lopsided influence is dangerous, because companies are using trade agreements to get special benefits that they would find much more difficult to get through the standard legislative process. For example, draft chapters from the Pacific agreement that have been leaked in recent months reveal that most countries involved in the talks, except the United States, do not want the agreement to include enforceable environmental standards. Business interests in the United States, which would benefit from weaker rules by placing their operations in countries with lower protections, have aligned themselves with the position of foreign governments. Another chapter, on intellectual property, is said to contain language favorable to the pharmaceutical industry that could make it harder for poor people in countries like Peru to get generic medicines.
Towards the end, it notes (as many of us have been pointing out for years) that the Obama administration, and the USTR in particular, only have themselves to blame for this mess:
To a large extent, the administration has only itself to blame. By keeping secret so much information about trade negotiations, which have ceased to be purely about trade matters like tariffs and quotas, the government has made itself a target for criticism. Mr. Obama and Mr. Froman argue that their critics have misunderstood or misrepresented their intentions. But that is precisely why the president should provide answers to the questions people have raised about these agreements. It is time for him to make a strong case for why these new agreements will be good for the American economy and workers.Of course, considering how many times this has been pointed out, and the USTR's only response is to push out blatant misrepresentations of the truth, it seems unlikely that anything is going to change any time soon.
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: cronyism, michael froman, ny times, tpp, transparency, ustr
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Good...
Makes one wonder why they didn't see it before though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Good...
Or in other words: The earlier editorial was a disgrace to the journalistic profession because of the lack of research and the priority it was given. The new editorial could have worked well in tandem with the other!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You'd think they would want people to examine the documents, so they could see for themselves how wonderful the proposed deal is going to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 22nd, 2014 @ 2:19am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well yeah, when you won't explain your intentions claiming they are "secret," anyone can assign ANY intention -- evil or positive to your actions. Duh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We will not be colonized by 600+ transnationals.
More info:
http://www.themichiganvoice.com/2014/02/trans-pacific-partnership/
Our event:
https://www.facebook.com/events/359507710860008/?ref=51&source=1
By the way, you may find this interesting...
"Below is a list of 605 corporate advisers who have been allowed access to the TPP text..."
http://www.flushthetpp.org/tpp-corporate-insiders/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We will not be colonized by 600+ transnationals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Secret negotiations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]