
Whoever Is Leaking Trans-Pacific Partnership Drafts: Please Leak More - DiabloD3
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/whoever-is-leaking-trans-pacific-partnership-drafts-please-leak-more
======
themartorana
The move towards profit at all costs to the general public is seemingly global
at this point. There's not much escaping it. We all know the trouble with the
U.S. Harper's government in Canada has silenced scientists who would speak out
about the negative impacts of government policies, the UK is seeing university
tuitions triple and then some, with student loans becoming more and more
normal, despite the huge flashing warning sign the U.S. is about student
debt...

All over - stories about propping up the rich on the backs of anyone not rich.
The thing is, the middle and lower classes are complicit in their own demise,
voting in conservative governments or lackey liberals who don't even make
attempts to keep their corporate connections secret anymore - let alone their
desires to make life easier on those that already have it the easiest. Just
toss a few "abortion" quotes around and the public will distract themselves
with infighting while their standards of living are being destroyed, and for
the first time in modern history, your kids _won 't_ be better off or live
longer than you.

Used to be we could say that at least there were scientists and other
altruistic professions out there fighting the good fight. But even they are
being actively stifled in order to boost corporate profits (US, Canada,
others.)

I don't even know. I hate being pessimistic.

Apologies. End rant.

~~~
bko
To be fair, a lot of these corporate interests, if applicable broadly and
without prejudice (unlikely), would just reinforce property right.

For instance, articles such as these always sensationalize some of the issues.
This article claims that the agreement would allow corporations to sue
governments for instituting policies that hurt their bottom line. This is
probably true but this would cover expropriation, which many people feel is
unjust. I know many in US cringe at reports of Venezuela's government
expropriating business through force. Many would agree that if you have a law
abiding business it would be wrong for the government to come in and take all
your capital as their own. What I imagine corporations believe is that this
should be interpreted more broadly.

For instance, if you agree that expropriation is bad, at what point does
negatively harming a brand image effectively become expropriation? If a
government makes you put a warning label? Plain packaging? Patent
infringement?

Unfortunately, even if you agree with very strong property rights, this will
almost certainly not be applied evenly and without special carve-outs.

edit: repatriation -> expropriation

~~~
foolrush
“would just reinforce property right”

In many instances, the property right is questionable. Much of the property
right, such as with IP, was built on the back of a looser interpretation.
Disney's earliest years of spoofing mainstream cultural vernacular with Mickey
Mouse is perhaps the most well cited example. We could also question the
legitimacy of the well documented fleecing of earlier African American musical
artists during the 40s-70s that in turn amassed vast libraries of IP.

Art moves as language and relies on an interaction with the language of the
culture. The excessive IP is nothing more than a locking away of the keys that
permitted the mega corporations to come to power in the first place.

Illegitimate hegemony. Appropriated content. Preserved as capital by those
with little to no involvement with its creation.

~~~
bko
I completely agree with you on IP and I am concerned over cooperation among
countries to enforce IP protections. What I'm more concerned about is what I
consider valid property rights such as physical property (equipment, your
home, business) and your own body (expression, substances, etc).

NPR had a great article about US tariff policy. It detailed a 3,000 page book
that's used to set the appropriate tax:

> The book lists the tax that importers have to pay on approximately every
> single thing in the universe — including, of course, T-shirts. They're right
> there under heading 6109: T-shirts, singlets, tank tops and similar
> garments, knitted or crocheted.

The average tax rate on stuff coming into the U.S. is around 2 percent. The
tax on T-shirts is much higher: 16.5 percent. That's what we'll be paying on
the Planet Money men's shirts, which were made in Bangladesh. But the Planet
Money women's shirts were made in Colombia — and those, according to the book
of everything, come in duty-free, with no tariff at all. [0]

To me it just seems very arbitrary and hence rife for corruption.

[0] [http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/12/06/247361423/the-
gian...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/12/06/247361423/the-giant-book-
that-creates-and-destroys-entire-industries)

~~~
foolrush
“What I'm more concerned about is what I consider valid property rights such
as physical property (equipment, your home, business) and your own body
(expression, substances, etc).”

To an extent, even these forms of capital are accrued on the back of societal
and cultural context.

If one inherit's a home from a family member, under what contexts was that
permitted? Did we stop to evaluate how much capital and property right was
appropriated illegitimately? Did we evaluate government endorsed privilege and
bias in the transaction[1]?

Did we stop to evaluate what property was accumulated under corrupt special-
interest lobbying such as the TPP itself?

Ultimately, all capital and property is birthed from the culture. In many
instances, gender and sex, birthright, race, and a plethora of other chance
based factors result in an accumulation or deflation of capital and property.

[1] See legislated housing policies in Chicago for example.
[http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117912/reparations-how-
mo...](http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117912/reparations-how-mortgage-
market-hurts-african-americans)

~~~
bko
I completely agree. The problem is that I, along with other people who lean
libertarian in their ideology, read the word "we" and interpret it as
"politicians" as they are the only party that can reasonably make these
judgement calls. Did [Dick Cheney|Barack Obama|Hugo Chavez|Kim Jong Un]
evaluate what property is legitimate? I honestly would rather not find out.

One can argue that we can vote but most decisions made are so far removed from
the democratic process that its effectively meaningless. In my home town of
New York City, I hear people argue that such and such should be allowed or
disallowed and there should be more discretion from officials. I always then
question them as to who these officials are or who the relevant party is that
makes such decisions. If they cannot answer, which they almost always cannot,
I ask why they have such faith that those unknown, probably unelected
officials will make wise decisions. Maybe I'm just a cynic and regulatory
capture isn't really as prevalent as I imagine it is.

------
zxcvcxz
When did secret global laws become a thing?

~~~
eli
The negotiations and drafts are secret (except to Congress), but it's public
when it's signed and debated/ratified by Congress.

~~~
jbuzbee
Congress has access, but it is quite limited. Unlike industry representatives,
they are only allowed to read the document in a special sealed room, but may
not make copies, may not take notes and may not bring along any staffer, even
those would be in a better position to interpret the opaque and complex legal
terms used.

[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120622/23220319444/ustr-...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120622/23220319444/ustr-
gives-mpaa-full-online-access-to-tpp-text-still-wont-share-with-senate-
staffers.shtml)

[edit for clarity}

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>and may not bring along any staffer //

Where are these rules written down, surely such anti-democratic actions have
to be unconstitutional?

Plus where does USA get off in trying to impose laws on the rest of the world
through secret treaty negotiations the details of which are only open to a
very limited and controlled politically chosen group and a second group chosen
entirely on wealth.

Land of the Free my arse - plutocratic hegemony more like it.

TPP is the most blatant "we're rich we'll decide the rules" that I think I've
ever come across.

From the OP:

>"is there any way to look at this situation and not judge it to be a case of
massive corruption?" //

No there isn't.

------
redwood
This is all about ensuring China isn't the only game in East Asia: Giving the
non-Chinese half of East Asia's population a chance of fending off Chinese
economic domination by creating a market union. I don't want to defend it
considering the lack of transparency which requires us to be cynical... BUT we
need to keep this in mind. This isn't all about the US or business per se.
Rather, East Asia, the US, and big business all are in political alignment
here, and that's how you build policy that happens... We're not the center of
this. East Asia is

~~~
astazangasta
Err, so you're saying this is about reducing the power of Chinese
manufacturing and cost of labor by playing other east Asian countries against
them, and that's somehow NOT about US power and interests?

~~~
beastofthefield
It is primarily due to the military threat China poses to its neighbors and
Chinese disrespect for international rules and is neighbors. US interests are
international stability and freedom of commerce, Chinese interests are much
less enlightened and do not consider anyone else but China.

~~~
easuter
> US interests are international stability and freedom of commerce

Haha! You can't really be serious!

~~~
xnull2guest
Well, he's not absurd. The US does have those interests but they are
(invariably) curbed toward the benefit of American citizens and allies. The US
order and global trade has done a lot of good. It's also committed and
supported atrocities for its own core or security interests and made flat out
mistakes. If you cherrypick either side the US can look like a paladin or an
ogre.

------
bko
I never understood why you need an agreement for free trade. Free trade should
be the default. What is being negotiated is a perversion of free trade used to
mask corporate subsidies and crony capitalism.

~~~
akhatri_aus
Lots of countries aim for protectionism. The reason is they need to boost
their manufacturing base or else they'll be stuck exporting raw materials to
import manufactured goods to no end.

------
xnull2guest
I've been an advocate of transparent discussion for some time. The TPP
represents a huge constellation of laws and it is absurd that the negotiations
are done so secretively.

But discussion about the TPP, too, is done in an opaque way. Everyone seems to
have their favorite issue with it - for example information and piracy
advocates will point to how grossly IP law is expanded internationally -
others questions why only 5 or so chapters of a couple dozen have to do with
trade if it's merely a trade deal - others will alarm at international
corporate tribunals, worried that the largest and most aggressive corporations
may abuse the liberal world order's tools to concentrate wealth and control.

But to understand the TPP - why it has few trade chapters relative to
international law chapters and why IP and American corporate legal
capabilities are strengthened as well as all of the secrecy - one needs to
understand why the US has been pushing it on the Asia-Pacific region.

Washington Thinktanks and Defense Officials have come to the conclusion that
the meteoric rise of China represents an existential threat to the supremacy
of US hegemonic world order. The US's grand defense strategy has always been
to 'balance' regions of the world where one country may otherwise dominate so
that they can not then 'grow up' to play the global power game.

Take Blackwill's recent publication: Revising US Grand Strategy Toward China.

[http://www.cfr.org/china/revising-us-grand-strategy-
toward-c...](http://www.cfr.org/china/revising-us-grand-strategy-toward-
china/p36371)

Blackwill suggests a series of measures: the first being to get the TPP out
the door to isolate China from international trade in its region. He goes on
further to suggest that the DoD should invest in cyberwarfare and other
capabilities - indeed these measures are being taken, as the DoD is now
partnering with VC firms inside the Valley to steer funding toward national
defense.

[https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/04/23/defense-department-
sili...](https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/04/23/defense-department-silicon-
valley/)

Secretary of Defense Carter penned his interest in the TPP, publicly stating
that he would rather have the TPP than another aircraft carrier.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe just visited Congress, whereupon he spoke to them
about the new unprecedented collective defense pact (think Asian NATO) being
entered into by the two countries which required Japan to reinterpret its
constitution. In the speech he discussed the importance of the TPP for defense
purposes, and took questions about the rise of China.

None of this is a defense of the TPP. What it is is a call for transparent
discussion. We can do one better than those discussing the TPP behind closed
doors. We can speak openly about what it gets the US and its allies.

~~~
beastofthefield
US is a benevolent guardian of international world order and its geopolitical
supremacy has brought nothing but benefits to other parties (Asia, EU, Japan).
Unlike China, which only considers its own interests and has a leadership that
is politically backward, does not hold any civilized values and poses a
military threat to world peace and stability. Your feral Anti-Americanism is
cute, but you offer nothing of substance.

~~~
tomp
> poses a military threat to world peace and stability

You can't be serious. In the past 10 years, the US has been a much greater
threat to world peace than China, by a very large margin.

~~~
beastofthefield
I suppose world peace is defined as tyrants and terrorists running the world
and US doing nothing about it? US has used military action to promote long
term peace and stability. China actively harasses sovereign nations in the
pacific region and may invade them some day.

~~~
DasIch
The instability that we currently have in the world is in almost all cases
caused by actions of the US. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia financed
terrorism, the list goes on and on.

Whenever the US intervenes it's either creating a mess or involving itself in
a mess that was created by the US in the first place.

~~~
xnull2guest
The stability and victories of peace are also due to the US. It is the US
world order. It has problems, but it's also very difficult to determine what
alternate histories would look like.

Neither the US nor China are evil or good. They are both rationally inclined
to their own interests, which compete. Each have their own issues and
histories. The US for the most part tries to find solutions that meet ideals
and at the same time meet US interests.

------
ExpiredLink
The leak is the European Commission:

[http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1230](http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1230)

~~~
xnull2guest
This is TTIP, not TTP. Can you clarify what you mean?

------
jqm
Containing China (as if this will work:) does no good for me if I'm simply
handed over to corporate masters who have control over my government and I
have no say. Thus the secrecy I suppose.

------
sh33mp
So could someone clarify this for me? Is is that the TPP negotiations are
occurring in secret, or is it that the TPP will be passed without it being
available for the public to view (which should be the case for most bills?)?

The former seems very reasonable to me (that negotiations happen in secret,
and then the final product is presented to the public/congress for a vote),
but up to this point I'm still not sure which is the case.

~~~
shmerl
Here is a good review of how it works:
[http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/](http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/)

~~~
bradbatt
That was amazingly good and informative. Cool site and book!

------
redwood
Not to defend potentially terrible policy (the lack of transparency makes
cynicism the only reasonable reaction):

But the elephant in the room with the TPP is China.

Ultimately at a high level East Asia has about as many Chinese as Non-Chinese.
This means that a strong economic block uniting non-China East Asia and
granting it strong market access actually has a chance of fending off China's
economic domination of the region.

Will a C

~~~
Maken
If this is about controlling China, and China obviously knows it, then I don't
see any reason for hiding it from the public instead of saying "this all is in
order to combat China". Or maybe the means proposed are something that most of
us aren't ready to accept in order to guarantee the economic supremacy of the
West enterprises?

------
beastofthefield
This is a necessary and enlightened agreement to put a check on China that
does not respect international rules, and give non-Chinese Asian allies and US
an economic boost. Whoever is leaking this is not doing a service to the world
as it only panders to a misguided populist impulse. This agreement is leading
us towards a more free and prosperous world.

~~~
xnull2guest
100% agreed on impulses of all sorts by citizens who don't understand what the
TPP is about. But this is because there is no discussion about it on frank
terms - the US can't even take a real stance on it and have to work in
vaguaries and "and for national security". The closest they came was Obama's
SotU. Without a real explanation there no way for citizens to understand, so
they panic. And populists do have legitimate grievances.

