
UN Experts Condemn the Human Rights Costs of Secret Trade Agreements - DiabloD3
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/06/ten-un-experts-condemn-human-rights-costs-secret-trade-agreements
======
walterbell
Let's not forget TISA which covers 50 countries including EU and US,
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_in_Services_Agreement](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_in_Services_Agreement)

 _" The agreement bans government mandates for use of open source software,
stating "No Party may require the transfer of, or access to, source code of
software owned by a person of another Party, as a condition of providing
services related to such software in its territory." The open source word
processing application LibreOffice has been deployed by many local governments
throughout the EU to save money..

.. the agreement would strip existing protections which aim to keep
confidential or personally identifiable data within country borders or which
prohibit its movement to other countries which do not have similar data
protection laws in place.

.. seeking to end publicly provided services like public pension funds, which
are referred to as 'monopolies' and to limit public regulation of all
financial services ."_

~~~
1971genocide
This sounds so absurd.

Wait, so if I server Javascript to a client's computer, I am a criminal ??

do you what is the greatest monopoly ? government !

We should privatize the government and let the free market decide.

~~~
walterbell
One can view regulatory capture as a successful penetration test of democracy.

What lessons can be learned from analysis of democratic process
vulnerabilities?

------
madaxe_again
If only human rights were a thing people were still in favour of - here in the
UK the government and the majority of the population (through a sustained
propaganda campaign) strongly oppose human rights, and see them as "EU
interference". If you dare point out that Britain practically wrote the echr
back in the 50's... Well, you try it. People turn purple and start calling you
a terrorist.

It's easy in our little bubble to forget that most of the populace don't know,
don't care, don't _want_ to know anything about trade agreements, and will
simply take the first opinion handed to them as their own.

The alternative is that people rationally think stuff through, and end up
going "Down with humans! Dey took mah jurb!", which I can't believe.

Either way, if the UN keep it up, I'd wager you'll start seeing bits in the
British press about how the UN wants to take our freedom and give it to
someone else because immigration and terrorists and tigers oh my.

~~~
CJefferson
I have no idea what part of the UK you are in where people turn purple and
call you a terrorist because you tell the Britain wrote the echr.

Many people don't know that fact, but they don't tend to deny it.

Most people I know don't know about trade agreements, and indeed they don't
care, but not because they want "someone else" to give them an opinion, but
because they feel (probably rightly) that they can have almost no impact on
how business and government cosy up together. Recent history suggests they are
right.

I find it easy to understand as well how people can think (in your insulting
terms) "Dey took mah jurb!", because once again, I know many people where that
is, at least in the small, clearly what happened to them.

Of course if the factory where they worked hadn't fired most the UK workers
and replaced them with other workers on lower pay, benefits and safety the
factory would have been forced to close and move overseas, but that is a more
complex discussion to have.

In short, I'm disappointed but not surprised that the top-most answer here is
"Look at all the lowly working class people, how stupid they all are. They
clearly couldn't understand, or have any valid point of view".

~~~
pjc50
_that is a more complex discussion to have_

Indeed. Some people have done very badly out of globalisation, who should have
been treated better: compensation, transitional arrangements, possibly medium-
term protectionism. There are social housing shortages and rent problems.

There has also been a determined campaign by the rightwing parties and press
to put the blame for this firmly on the immigrants themselves. The left has
had a disastrous response to this, which is to call anyone complaining about
immigration a racist, rather than point to the misdirection and underlying
problems of inequality.

(Finally, note that you can't tell someone's immigration status by looking at
them, and quite a lot of the UK ethnic minority population aren't "immigrants"
but were born here.)

~~~
mercer
> The left has had a disastrous response to this, which is to call anyone
> complaining about immigration a racist, rather than point to the
> misdirection and underlying problems of inequality.

(What I'm going to say is highly simplified, and possibly wrong. I'd love to
be corrected if I'm wrong in my views. I'd also like to add that in my
_ideals_ on social policy I am rather left-wing. I am also aware that the
simple left-right divide misses an important axis (social/economical). That
said, most people still speak of 'the left' and 'the right', so I'll do that.)

I see this as one of the primary reasons why the right-wing parties have done
so well in The Netherlands (including more extreme right-wing parties like
that of Geert Wilders and Rita Verdonk), which started when Pim Fortuyn gained
in popularity.

Fortuyn rose in popularity because he dared to attack the Left's sacred
'multi-culti' approach. Their reaction was to denounce him as a racist,
despite the fact that for the most part he actually acknowledged that the
underlying problem was economic inequality.

Of course, over time, their continued denial of problems and refusal to
discuss them left space for _actual_ racist and nationalist parties like that
of Geert Wilders.

From my point of view, based in part on my dealings with left-wing students,
the Left is making two big 'mistakes': 1\. their particular brand of 'caring'
for the common folk is often really of a rather elitist, condescending and
paternal kind, and these 'common folk' notice. 2\. they refuse to understand,
or perhaps because of 1, acknowledge that their complicated, academic views on
things, however correct they may be, need to be translated in a way that
everyone understands. At least when it comes to votes and not policy. I think
this is possible without devolving into soundbites or pure populism.

Concerning 1, it's sad and a bit ironic that the Left, in a scramble for
votes, eventually started acknowledging the problems and now _do_ engage with
the (perceived) problems with minorities in a somewhat populist way.

------
DigitalSea
The sad thing about all of these agreements is that they will most likely all
be ratified by participating countries. Democracy has been watered down to; we
can choose where we live, where we work and if we are lucky where we get
buried when we die. That's it. People no longer get to influence the laws that
govern them, society has been reduced down to: we pass these laws to protect
you, we have your best interests at heart, because terrorism, because ISIS or
some threat to our supposed freedom.

We all frown upon countries like China who restrict what their people can do
online and offline, what they can say and do, but the ironic thing is these
countries don't try to hide their actions and intents like the US and its
corporate lobbyists do. We are told the TPP and all of those other agreements
will be great for our countries, but will they?

The TPP specifically is a horrible piece of work. I understand free trade
agreements are beneficial to keeping the economy going, but Australia (where I
reside) ironically already has trade agreements with 8 of the 11 participating
countries in the TPP anyway. Do we really need to sign a new agreement just to
trade with 3 extra partners? We have a free healthcare system (free as in paid
for using tax) where we get access to subsidised generic medicines and doctor
visits that don't cost anything (like Canada) and under the TPP these freedoms
thanks to corporate interests could be removed entirely.

The very fact that Australia has had to request exemption from our environment
and healthcare system from being affected by the TPP and possible ISDS
provisions is worrying in itself. If we even get these exemptions will be
another matter entirely. Extending the duration under which pharmaceutical
companies can block out generic medicines is a lose-lose situation for the
poor.

I'm scared for what the future holds. I want my children to grow up having the
same freedoms and benefits that I did, not having to pay exorbitant amounts of
money to access medicines that would currently cost $10 or so under the
Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

~~~
madaxe_again
You write as though in some mythical past democracy was more open - but the
reality is that while things are as bad as they ever have been, democracy has
always been a Punch and Judy show for the masses while the man behind the
curtain commits atrocities. We're just more aware of it now as the Internet
has hurt their information control, and governments' reactive nationalistic
propaganda is blatant and overt.

The meat has realised that it's caged, and the people-farmers are trying very
hard to get the rest of the herd to trample the ones who say "guys, we could
walk out through this open gate".

~~~
TeMPOraL
The question is: walk out and go where? Sad as it is, you can't just let
everyone manage everything in truly equal fashion, because almost everyone is
totally incompetent in almost everything except their profession and their
hobby, and majority has a lifestyle that is not conductive to managing a happy
and prospering civilization. It seems to me that you'll always need someone
with a vision at the top, because you can't direct things anywhere by
committee.

~~~
madaxe_again
I see. So the need for structure mandates the need for nation-states, as there
is no alternative, and there have always been nation-states?

Recommend reading Hobbes' Leviathan and Hayek's Road to Serfdom, if this topic
interests you.

~~~
TeMPOraL
I didn't mean that. AFAIK, nation states are quite recent development. But
structure was always there, since the beginning of civilization. Sans full-
blown digital fluid democracy I don't see how a society can be managed without
a hierarchy. That probably reflects more my lack of imagination than something
about the real world though.

I have a copy of Leviathan sitting on my desk right now, but I haven't got
around to reading it yet :).

~~~
madaxe_again
Nation states are a very recent development indeed - they've only really
existed (as firm concepts) for about 400 years, and Hobbes essentially set out
the system of the world we operate to today in Leviathan - prior to that,
state power was vested in individuals and families, and was drawn from the
divine (think "dieu et mon droit" or "l'etat, c'est moi").

There has been a hierarchical structure for as long _as we recall_ , from
tribal "big men" to pharaonic rule through to the POTUS - and we see this
mirrored in Chimpanzees and Bonobos - but it does not mean that we must be
bound to it. Consensus based rule becomes feasible when your arbiter and
enforcer ceases to be human - the tragedy of the commons, Abilene paradox,
etc., can be systemically dealt with - and replacing our current systems of
governance and our current concepts of nationhood does not require a turn of
the wheel, a revolution - rather it can happen from within, and co-exist, and
with sufficient mass, simply render the current system an anachronism.

Consider monarchy - why do we still have it? Because thinkers in the
enlightenment realised that trying to outright do away with it would be too
painful a tear for their societies, so instead, they invented systems
(parliament, representation of commoners) which worked within, and then
subverted the existing power structure. The English Civil War and its
aftermath (Glorious Revolution, specifically) underscored the fact that change
happens best when you seek not to replace or overthrow, but simply to do
better.

It can happen again. We just need to try.

------
pjc50
The underlying problem is the strength of intergovernmental agreements. It
turns out that making an international agreement to make or not make certain
laws is actually _more binding_ than the local constitution, and less subject
to local democratic veto amendment.

------
marcoperaza
All of these experts are involved with the UN Human Rights Council, a
thoroughly discredited organization that consists mostly of undemocratic
regimes with dismal human rights records, including Russia, China, Cuba,
Venezuela, Pakistan, Vietnam, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. There is only a single
item that is permanently on the agenda and must be discussed at every meeting
of the council: supposed Israeli human rights abuses. I'm not surprised to see
more anti-Western and anti-capitalist propaganda coming from these people.

~~~
joshuapants
I agree with you about the amusingly named Human Rights Council, but that
doesn't mean these trade agreements should be negotiated in secret or that
these agreements are necessarily good.

~~~
marcoperaza
It's standard practice for negotiations between governments to happen in
secret. If they didn't, negotiators would be looking over their shoulders
constantly and the natural back and forth of negotiation would be impossible.
The final draft will be released well before governments decide whether to
sign and ratify.

~~~
badsock
I'm curious - based on previous agreements like this, how much time (in weeks
or months) would you expect there to be between the terms of TPP being made
public in full and the signing of the member governments?

~~~
snowwrestler
See this Reddit post for the time spans on previous agreements:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/387elg/wikileaks_...](http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/387elg/wikileaks_announces_100k_bounty_for_the_tpp_text/crtebjy)

As you can see, there is a huge range.

~~~
walterbell
The _draft_ documents are classified until 4 years after the agreement comes
into force, [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/business/trans-pacific-
par...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/business/trans-pacific-partnership-
seen-as-door-for-foreign-suits-against-us.html) &
[http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/02/australian-m...](http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/02/australian-
mps-allowed-to-see-top-secret-trade-deal-text-on-condition-of-confidentiality)

There could be several years between the agreement being signed and the
agreement coming into force, e.g.
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2014/10/17/latest...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2014/10/17/latest-
tpp-leak-shows-even-harsher-copyright-rules/)

 _"..new draft gives some countries extra time to implement the agreement –
meaning that current governments won’t necessarily have to carry the can for
their decisions. “Developing countries are being asked to accept very
restrictive standards for intellectual property in return for transition
periods that defer the harm until current governments are no longer held
accountable,”.."_

~~~
marcoperaza
Immediate disclosure of drafts also makes it harder to close on the deal. You
enable compromise by letting each government save face over its defeats.
Releasing the draft versions after four years is already heavily tilted toward
transparency.

~~~
walterbell
These historical game theories may need revision in a world of Streisand
effects.

~~~
marcoperaza
That's an interesting point. But I don't think the EFF, for example, really
feels that strongly about whether negotiations are conducted publicly or not.
They're worried about the intellectual property provisions that are expected
to be part of the deal. Secret negotiations is just another line of attack.
That kind of mentality doesn't even have to be conscious; it's pretty
widespread in politics.

~~~
walterbell
In a world of near-instant feedback channels, should the public (who may
become criminals under the proposed agreement) have any opportunity to comment
on the proposals?

In which institutions can society debate where to draw the line between the
benefits of negotiating "secretly" vs. the benefits of legitimizing the
agreement in the eyes of the public?

Given that some details of the agreements are already public, i.e. they no
longer have negotiating value, can a democratic society avail itself of the
benefits of debating the already-public subset?

