
UN Experts Say TPP and Fast Track Threaten Human Rights - DiabloD3
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/05/how-tpp-and-fast-track-threaten-human-rights
======
jimrandomh
> They allow investors to sue nations over legislative and administrative
> rules alleging that they harm their profits.

This is much bigger than copyright. This is removing substantive power from
existing governments and transferring it to a new structure. The fast-tracking
should be seen, not just as evading scrutiny by the public, but also as
evading scrutiny by Congress and by other legislatures whose power is being
stolen from them. When you write your representative, you might warn them that
this puts them on track to end up like the Queen of England: powerless
figureheads.

~~~
jpollock
The goal of those sections of the agreement are to force governments to treat
foreign investment the same as if it had arrived from a resident.

The intent is to stop things like what happens in South America, where they
look around, see an oil company sitting there that is majority foreign owned
and nationalise it to fix a balance of payments issue[2]. Some organisations
(like Philip Morris) will try to use it as a hammer, but that's because anyone
can sue.

The US is already party to similar agreements - NAFTA being one. They've even
got a standard set of terms for them [1].

First world countries with strong court systems already have these protections
in place. This is aimed at other countries who don't have quite as strong a
rule of law.

As for secrecy... Just because congress gives the President fast-track
negotiation rights doesn't mean that the deal has to pass. It just means that
congress has to have a straight up or down vote on it, without amendments.
There will still be time to review and debate it.

Agreements are negotiated in secret. Can you imagine a trade agreement
negotiated in the current US Congress?

[1]
[http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/188371.pdf](http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/188371.pdf)

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrobras#Bolivian_controversy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrobras#Bolivian_controversy)

~~~
georgemcbay
"The intent is to stop things like what happens in South America"

... so the intent is to stop the people of economically poor but resource rich
countries from having a say in whether or not they continue to have their
natural resources exploited by wealthy foreigners?

That doesn't sound positive to me at all.

~~~
anigbrowl
Oh please, Find me someone in the US that doesn't like the part of the US
constitution that says if the government takes something from you, it has to
be paid for. While I'm not particularly a fan of oil companies, they didn't
just turn up in a country and start drilling wells without permission.
Generally they were invited in by governments that lacked the technology or
capital ot build a domestic oil industry. Countries frequently publish
invitations to tender and it's reasonable for both parties to such contracts
to expect the other side to deal in good faith. Oil companies do pay royalties
on the resources they extract to the governments of those countries.

Now, I'm a lot more worried about the environmental record of those oil
companies, but let's not fool ourselves that they snuck in and set up drilling
rigs and refineries without permission.

~~~
hansjorg
> they didn't just turn up in a country and start drilling wells without
> permission

Permission from whom?

What an incredibly naive world view.

~~~
anigbrowl
I'm well aware of the history of the US meddling in Latin America. On the
other hand, many governments in Latin America have been over-eager to just
blame external forces for their economic problems and attempt to solve them
via expropriation. I still hear this argument from supporters of the
Venezuelan government; you don't have to be a raging capitalist to think that
the government of that country is catastrophically incompetent. Last time I
looked they were nationalizing supermarkets.

------
mark_l_watson
One of the things I most like about the EFF is that they increase the
transparency of back room deals that help special interests to the detriment
of the general public.

A little off topic, but in the last day I have found two public data sites
that increase transparency in government finances at the local, state, and
federal level: [http://www.statedatalab.org](http://www.statedatalab.org) and
[http://www.truthinaccounting.org](http://www.truthinaccounting.org)

~~~
thangalin
[https://bitbucket.org/djarvis/world-
politics/wiki/Related](https://bitbucket.org/djarvis/world-
politics/wiki/Related)

Jump to "Government Tracking" and "Education" for more related links.

------
walterbell
From [http://motherboard.vice.com/read/whoever-is-leaking-trans-
pa...](http://motherboard.vice.com/read/whoever-is-leaking-trans-pacific-
partnership-drafts-please-leak-more)

 _" [TPP] .. stands to have intensely damaging effects on nearly every front,
from internet freedom to copyright law. But if you raise these concerns with
negotiators, who have privileged access to the text of the agreement, they’ll
just tell you that they have access to the latest draft, and you don’t ...
Every TPP chapter leaked reveals some new policy horrorshow. But in this game
of cat and mouse between governments, corporations, and citizens, those who
are in the know always have the upper hand."_

------
wpietri
The TPP makes me crazy, as I'm a big fan of trade for basically the same
reason I'm a big fan of transparency: I think things generally go better when
we have a lot of well-informed individuals thinking and making choices.

I've been strongly in favor of pretty much every trade deal to come along. But
here my feeling is more "fuck that" as I have zero faith that the secretive
TPP process would produce anything I can trust.

~~~
crdoconnor
The TPP is an anti-free trade deal. It's mostly about strengthening
intellectual property and giving multinationals their own special courts so
that they can sue governments for lost profits if they implement
environment/labor legislation.

Nothing very free about any of that.

~~~
vinceguidry
How do you know this? I follow economics blogs and the general reaction
concerning TPP is that the secrecy hype is overblown and that it's largely
just a mundane trade agreement with a few nasty provisions like the copyright
stuff, but the good parts outweigh the bad.

I'd be hard-pressed to argue with their opinion without actually reading the
agreement, not to mention the years of education and exposure to global
geopolitics I'd need to actually understand what the provisions being argued
over mean and why they exist.

Geopolitics is nuclear science that everyone seems to think is a bikeshed.

~~~
crdoconnor
Which blogs?

Geopolitics is NOT nuclear science. It's much less complicated.

If somebody's trying to convince you that it is too complex for the layman to
understand, they're likely trying to conceal something.

~~~
vinceguidry
Mostly Marginal Revolution and whatever he links to. He's got a way of making
economics accessible that I've yet to really see elsewhere.

I wasn't being literal. It's not very complicated, and you can understand it,
but there's a lot of hidden context involved and the consequences of ignorance
in that space are immense.

~~~
crdoconnor
If you want to see a teardown of this post:

[http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/05/how...](http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/05/how-
bad-are-the-investor-arbitration-clauses-in-tpp.html)

See here:

[http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/05/the-investor-
arbitrat...](http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/05/the-investor-arbitration-
clauses-in-tpp-are-indeed-very-bad.html)

------
Nursie
And don't forget TTIP, the euro side of this.

It's the same idea (companies can sue governments for making laws that impact
potential future earnings' amongst other things), and is being negotiated in
the same secretive way, with even MEPs having to sign NDAs before being
allowed to see a draft.

Crazy.

------
blindblom
How can a trade deal be negotiated transparently when our media circus will be
out in force muddying the waters? If he (Obama) keeps the terms of the deal
secret until its brought up for a vote, he's not being transparent. If he
makes the current terms of negotiation transparent, how is any president
supposed to negotiate terms with multiple foreign governments when the noise
generated by the media circus, members of the house and senate, and various
other talking-heads would constantly muddy the waters? Until the terms of the
deal are known, I prefer to withhold judgement because even ordering from a
drive-thru with a half-dozen children in the back of your car is difficult. I
can't imagine the impossibility of negotiating a trade deal with Republicans
and Rupert Murdock giving their play-by-play analysis every step of the way.

~~~
pyre
The terms of the TTP are so bad that they _had_ to discuss it in secret,
because otherwise people would be able to see all of the utter bullshit that
it contains.

------
javajosh
There is a chapter in _The Two Towers_ called "The Voice of Saruman". Saruman
is defeated, but is still powerfully persuasive. At one point he calls to
Gandalf and invites him into Orthanc. Those who hear the invitation believe
that Gandalf will go into the tower to confer with Saruman, and will then
emerge again to tell everyone their fate.

Instead of doing that, Gandalf laughs, insults Saruman, and breaks his fucking
staff.

------
borrowedhour
It's incredulous that Obama is pushing this deal so hard after backing net
neutrality so early on when this deal is universally frowned upon. Not able to
wrap around my head around this.

~~~
jimrandomh
Do you know if Obama's involved (or for that matter, fully aware)? This seems
like something that would mostly unfold at a lower level.

~~~
jbuzbee
Know about it? He's all over it:

[http://infojustice.org/archives/32657](http://infojustice.org/archives/32657)

And he complains that critics have a “lack of knowledge of what is going on in
the negotiations”

How rich. Of course they have a lack of knowledge since he has kept everything
secret. The only thing we know about what is actually being negotiated is
because of some leaks.

------
jayvanguard
In 30 years, with the benefit of hindsight, this could turn out to be one of
the defining issues of our era (along with surveillance and the growth of
state and corporate cyber warfare). Glad the UN and EFF are doing something to
shine a light on it.

------
johnnybowman
Devil's advocate here:

\- America already has low tariffs (hence our lust for imported goods). The
rest of the world has higher tariffs. US goods producers stand more to gain
from TPP than foreign goods producers.

\- Average wages for traded/export industries, such as Kentucky bourbon, are
higher than for local industries, like hospitals. The more the US can focus on
traded industries, the more wages rise in America. Germany does a great job of
this. We don't but TPP would help.

\- TPP still has to get approved by Congress. Fast track just strips Congress'
ability to amend or filibuster the deal - two tactics that favor special
interests over majority interests.

\- Special interests are always powerful in trade negotiations. Limiting their
power is crucial to passing equitable, long-term focused deals.

~~~
smutticus
We can't engage in any nuanced conversation of the TPP because we don't know
what's in it. Given that, I find no reason to be anything but completely
against it.

~~~
mpyne
How can you be _completely_ against something that, by your own admission, you
are unfamiliar with? Would you have been "completely against" North Korea and
the U.N. signing an armistice in 1953 while it was still being negotiated?

------
jbuzbee
I'm all for free trade. Who could be for protectionism and artificial
constraints on basic economic forces? But free trade, the TPP ain't:

[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150422/23441830765/if-
yo...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150422/23441830765/if-you-really-
think-tpp-is-about-trade-then-your-analysis-is-already-wrong.shtml)

~~~
maceo
Who could be for protectionism? Well for starters, the United States for most
of its history. Protectionism is a big part of what put the US in a position
to become the global superpower.

Tariffs on superior, imported textiles from the British Empire allowed the US
textile industry to become dominant. Many years later the US gov did the same
thing at the behest of the American steel magnates, allowing the US steel
industry to become dominant. In fact, the GWB administration added tariffs to
protect the US steel industry against Chinese steel about 10 years ago.
Furthermore, just this week, US steel companies are asking to have them put
back into place [http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-steel-ceo-says-tariffs-
could...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-steel-ceo-says-tariffs-could-be-
needed-on-chinese-imports-1430950792) .

This is a case of the US advocating do as we say, not as we do. The US
obviously doesn't want Vietnam, Mexico, or any other country to develop their
own industries -- they want to flood their markets with American made products
so that American corporations can see nice profits. Unfortunately, thats
usually at odds with whats in the best interest of the foreign nations
population.

~~~
jbuzbee
No arguments here. Lots of countries, the US included, have historically
utilized protectionist polices that benefit local industries at the expense of
higher prices for local citizens and undeserved profits for local industry. My
point, besides the fact that I'm personally in favor of free trade, is that
the TPP in reality has little to do with free trade. From an analysis by Dean
Baker:

"The actual trade barriers between the United States and the countries in
these deals, with few exceptions, are already quite low. This means that there
is little to be gained by lowering them still further."

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/the-trade-
agreement...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/the-trade-agreement-
pinat_b_6369924.html)

------
xnull2guest
How can I come to these comments and not see a single thing written about
China?

Secretary of Defense Carter stated that he would rather have the TPP succeed
than have another aircraft carrier.

The TPP, from a national defense perspective, is one of the aces in the US
sleeve. It is a way to isolate China, who would like to be a superpower, who
has overtaken the US in terms of economic might, and who is challenging the US
for geopolitical power, from the rest of the Asia-Pacific economy - unless it
plays by a specific set of rules.

Extremely strong exportation of US intellectual property law into the Asia-
Pacific? Yeah, that has nothing to do with the battle for the new world and
the past 16 years of US foreign policy to 'Pivot to Asia'.

I'm not saying the TPP will be good for US citizens. I am saying that it will
be one piece in something 'good' for the United States as a world power. It's
true and unfortunate that what can be bad for one can be good for another. But
let's call a spade a spade.

~~~
contingencies
First, China is not the boogeyman. I've lived there for ages, the modern state
is very decent by a lot of measures and you really do feel safer on the
streets than in much of the western world. Yes, it has its problems, but at
least it doesn't run around randomly invading countries, dreaming out loud
about "instant global strike capability".

China doesn't and will never play by US rules. For example, they joined the
WTO and just ignored a lot of the provisions. This is a _good thing_ for the
world, because it keeps things multi-polar. The last thing we need is one
world government with a corporate-dominated aggressor-state flush with
dynastic influence determining world political and economic fate in an era
where we are facing survival-level serious global issues.

Einstein rightly said _Nationalism is an infantile disease: the measles of
mankind_ ... however, I'm sure he wouldn't have lobbied for the alternative of
a shady back-channel network of non-transparent private supra-national
political/economic paralegal rent-seeking and enforcement. That's essentially
what we're heading toward, as Assange echoes: _The world is not sliding, but
galloping into a new transnational dystopia._
[http://cryptome.org/2012/12/assange-crypto-
arms.htm](http://cryptome.org/2012/12/assange-crypto-arms.htm)

You should consider broadening your conception of international happenings
from American politics. US 'pivoted' as far as Taiwan, Korea and Japan with a
fat military 60 years ago, now the dominant thinking in the region (with early
indications led by New Zealand and elements of Australian politics) is that
they can go and _pivot_ back on home.

~~~
xnull2guest
First, thank you for taking the time to write a thoughtful reply.

China is definitely not a boogeyman. I hope my comment did not imply it
is/was. :)

It's better to understand the comment by the idea that the US does not want a
multi-polar world and will act in accordance. The Wolfowitz Doctrine (and
friends) quite clearly state that the US Grand Defense Strategy is to prevent
other superpowers from forming. The US will be chasing its interests rather
than its ideals in this case.

If you look through my other comments you will see that my conception of
international happenings is broader than American politics.

But here, for the discussion of American politics and legislation - whether
Fast Track will be passed etc - it is enough to understand why the US, rightly
or wrongly, wants the TPP.

While many, including myself, are likely to agree that a US hegemony is a
questionable way to run the world, this doesn't allow us insight into what the
TPP is about for the United States. The TPP is about preventing the 'second
pole'.

The US and Japan just formed a collective defense pact which required them to
reinterpret their Constitution. The number of military vessels, wargaming,
intelligence, etc being pointed at China has nothing to do with it's being a
boogeyman. As Einstein right said Nationalism is an infantile disease: the
meales of mankind.... this measels shows itself again with another fight for
power and influence.

------
mpyne
I can see how TPP (when we find out what precise it is) could be claimed to
affect human rights. But "fast track" is a parliamentary technique used for
other types of bills, such as the BRAC bills that are used to close U.S.
military bases (domestically and overseas).

Do things like BRAC also threaten human rights?

~~~
notthepointt
Turn it around...

Why fast track debate on a topic that these experts are warning about?

~~~
anigbrowl
To force Congress into an up-or-down vote on the merits of the whole package
instead of pointless thread-pulling that will cause an agreement to founder.
There are 12 countries that are a party to the TPP. If we are to wait for 12
legislatures to debate and amend and re-amend then nothing will ever get done;
there are times when a simple yes or no vote is more appropriate.

It's like people don't seem to understand the point of having an executive
branch in the first place. This sort of thing is _precisely_ why we have one,
and why the Constitution specifically empowers the President to negotiate
treaties 'with the advice and consent of the senate' \- not with the endless
amendments and horse-trading of Congress as a whole that bedevils a great deal
of domestic legislation.

------
shit_parade2
What can people do about secret backroom deals?

Honestly very little or just about nothing unless you have more money and
influence than the mega corps who want this deal passed.

No, what people can do is just ignore the law and defy the government, not
like the government wields legitimate power anyway.

~~~
arca_vorago
This is the real problem that TPTB dont seem to grasp. If you make the rampant
lawlessness visible to the people, the people will stop respecting the law.
That is how societies fall apart, when the rule of law is a farce, you can
expect nothing but strife.

~~~
pekk
The general complaint is that this isn't transparent, but it's fully within
the law.

------
davidu
TPA has been around for 30 years. It's always worked well.

The idea is that congress sets a standard and set of parameters for
negotiation that the US Trade Authority then goes out to negotiate and
structure trade deals. They _must_ stay within the boundaries set by congress.
Then they can go out and negotiate in good faith, knowing that if they stay in
those boundaries, congress has agreed to debate and then approve or reject a
deal within 90 congressional days (about a year). The bar for rejection is
high, because the deal in front of them has to already fit within the
parameters congress themselves set out.

The term "Fast Track" has to be one of the most misleading terms used in
political lingo. Fast Track in this sense basically means almost a year for
congress to approve a trade deal.

Moreover, very little about TPP or Fast Track is "secret" or "backroom" and is
how trade deals have been done for the longest time. It's unclear why the EFF
is taking up this cause.

This is also helpful, and is _non-partisan_ congressional research funded by
congress to surface the real facts:
[https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33743.pdf](https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33743.pdf)

The amount of propaganda being spun up over TPA is surprising, considering
we've had it for 30 years and it's been an economic boon for the US economy.

Edit: I have no idea why I'm being downvoted for this.

~~~
lotsofmangos
The fast track, that is taking congress a year to sign, is the process of not
then needing congress to sign anything after. If it passes, the whitehouse
will be able to then sign details of new trade agreements without congress. It
is not not the initial process of getting congress to agree to fast track.

~~~
davidu
That's not true. Link to the draft section?

This is also helpful, and is non-partisan congressional research:
[https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33743.pdf](https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33743.pdf)

What people don't get is that we've had TPA since the 70s:

""""" For more than 30 years, Congress has granted the President TPA/fast
track authority, agreeing to consider trade agreement implementing legislation
expeditiously and to vote on it without amendment, provided the President
meets certain statutory negotiating objectives and consultation requirements,
and the implementing bill contains the necessary and limited qualifying
provisions. TPA strikes a delicate balance by clarifying how Congress chooses
to exercise its constitutional authority over a particular aspect of trade
policy, while presumably giving the President additional negotiating leverage
by effectively assuring U.S. trade partners that a final agreement will be
given timely and unamended consideration by Congress. """"

