
WikiLeaks releases Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Environment draft - mwilcox
http://wikileaks.org/tpp-enviro/
======
swombat
I don't really have the time to read through this. What are the key points?

I know the TPP is an agreement negotiated in secret by (probably non-elected)
representatives who have corporate best interests at heart, which probably
means it's hideously bad, but I don't have the time to read through it all
myself.

~~~
a_bonobo
This doesn't seem to be the full TPP, "just" the chapter on environment.
There's a press-release which summarizes some points:
[http://wikileaks.org/tpp-enviro/pressrelease.html](http://wikileaks.org/tpp-
enviro/pressrelease.html)

>When compared against other TPP chapters, the Environment Chapter is
noteworthy for its absence of mandated clauses or meaningful enforcement
measures. The dispute settlement mechanisms it creates are cooperative instead
of binding; there are no required penalties and no proposed criminal
sanctions. With the exception of fisheries, trade in 'environmental' goods and
the disputed inclusion of other multilateral agreements, the Chapter appears
to function as a public relations exercise.

>Julian Assange, WikiLeaks' publisher, stated: "Today's WikiLeaks release
shows that the public sweetner in the TPP is just media sugar water. The
fabled TPP environmental chapter turns out to be a toothless public relations
exercise with no enforcement mechanism."

and

>The documents date from 24 November 2013 ─ the end of the Salt Lake City
round. They were requested by the Ministers of the TPP after the August 2013
Brunei round. The Consolidated Text was designed to be a "landing zone"
document to further the negotiations quickly and displays what the Chairs say
is a good representation of all Parties' positions at the time.

~~~
prolifically
I wonder if that treaty has any effect on anything. Signing parties exclude
Japan, New-Zealand, Russia, Chile, Ecuador and all central america. Seems like
this is one of those treaty done just to say: 'Look we tried, but it's
complicated, [yada yada yada]'.

~~~
prawks
> public relations exercise

Without reading through it, it would seem it may have a great deal of effect
on public relations in the participating countries. I'd imagine it may be used
as PR leverage against countries who did not participate as well. "Just look
at how little Russia and NZ care about the environment!"

------
mwilcox
Also the Chair's report which covers where each country stands on issues:
[http://wikileaks.org/tpp-enviro-chairsreport/](http://wikileaks.org/tpp-
enviro-chairsreport/)

Edit: This NY Times article was posted on the Wikileaks twitter as well:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/politics/administration...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/politics/administration-
is-seen-as-retreating-on-environment-in-talks-on-pacific-trade.html)

------
001sky
_Why House Democrats Might Kill Obama 's Big Trade Deal_

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/11/fast-track-trade-
de...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/11/fast-track-trade-
democrats_n_4580720.html)

Interesing, this was just 3 days ago. The EFF has been looking for these docs
to review for a while, and it seems even members of congress in the POTUS's
own party are concerned about the process.

~~~
discordian
Very interesting that the fast track bill was introduced with no Democratic
cosponsors, only Republicans. That's a sign that there may be real opposition
to this deal forming within the President's own party.

I've often wondered why Obama is pushing this TPP deal in the first place. It
seems to directly contradict what he said in the 2008 campaign about NAFTA
hurting American workers. Of course it shouldn't be a surprise that
politicians lie, but rarely do they get away with such a complete reversal.

~~~
toyg
Obama is first of all the _US_ President, and _then_ a Democratic Party
member. The TPP follows long-established _US_ foreign policy guidelines that
are invariably supported by both major parties: _what is good for US companies
abroad, it 's good for the US government_. It's actually a very common foreign
policy principle among countries. There is an understanding that what is
paramount is that _power is projected abroad as much as possible_ , and
internal repercussions can be managed if necessary. This is not completely
irrational: it's easier for the President to pass a bill than it is to make
umpteen countries sign a treaty. For example, you first sign all the WTO
treaties and force other countries to open their markets, then quickly impose
tariffs on steel (Bush II), or on electronics (Reagan / Bush I) when strictly
necessary. First you make it illegal to use firewalls among peers, then bring
yours up at will.

------
adamnemecek
Why is this getting flagged?

~~~
mwilcox
Probably because it's not directly technology related? And political.

~~~
Executor
Technology doesn't live in a bubble - this social event directly affects
technology.

------
digitalengineer
These are great, I'm sure. But the Snowden releases showed dumping data in
it's raw form as Wikileaks does kills the important stuff. Data needs analysis
and interpretation. I haven't got time to read and interpret all these pages.

~~~
janlukacs
That's where jurnalists should come into play, too bad most of the media has
other interests :)

~~~
k-mcgrady
I think that was the point. You need to give it to the journalists to
interpret. When it's released raw they have less of an incentive to do so as
they aren't getting the 'exclusive'. It can be covered by anyone. It also
takes them time to analyse these things. The good journalists don't read it
and write a story, they take time and do it right and investigate further.
Releasing it raw brings it into the news and once it's gone out again it's
unlikely to come back so by the time a good journalist has written a good
report nobody will care.

