Posted on 08/30/2016 3:27:25 AM PDT by expat_panama
One of the criticisms of trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is that they are negotiated in secret. Government-to-government discussions generally are conducted in private, so some confidentiality in trade talks is not surprising. The AFL-CIO, an advocate for greater transparency, asserts that "such secrecy is inconsistent with democratic principles" and has the effect of advancing "the policy preferences of political and economic elites, not the broad interest of the populace at large."
There is no doubt that transparency in government is a desirable goal. Transparency helps to assure accountability, and at times might even lead to more efficient use of public resources.
When it comes to trade talks, though, the question is: How transparent can the negotiating process be and still have any chance of success? ...
...Success in trade negotiations helps economies to grow. Both Democratic and Republican economists agree...
The U.S. trade negotiating process consists of three phases. In the first phase, Congress provides negotiating authority to the president...
The second phase involves actual negotiation with one or more other countries. These talks take place mostly in private...
The third phase is congressional consideration of the final agreement. The text of the agreement is made public relatively soon after completion of the talks...
...two of the three steps required for the U.S. to enter into a new trade agreement are highly transparent, but the actual negotiation with other governments is mostly private.
Does this represent a reasonable compromise between a desire for openness in government and a desire to talk seriously with other nations about trade liberalization? If not, how could the negotiation be made more transparent without undermining prospects for actually achieving an agreement?
We must avoid letting transparency itself become a smoke screen for stopping progress toward trade liberalization.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
Has the author been watching how Obama’s “transparency” operates? It’s all smokescreens. Deception and lies are its m.o.
If this is how it works our economy is screwed. The man knows nothing about economics other than how to line his own pockets.
Asinine article. There’s no reason trade talks can’t be transparent. What does it benefit either entity to keep it hidden?
Why should strategic arms limitation talks be secret? What does it benefit either side to keep them hidden?
If the investors know what is in it they will try to preposition themselves. If the union knows what's in it and don't like it they will try to pick it apart.
NAFTA was done in complete secrecy. Congress didn't know what was in it until it was signed in Oct 2002 by the trade representatives. And it was not known who would win the presidency.
Many in Congress Thought that the investor protections were to strong and the protection for labor and environment were lacking, but they can't change it. They can only approve it or kill it.
They didn't want to kill it because so much time was put into it. So when Clinton won the presidency they all decided that Clinton would negotiate side agreements which would contain the protections for labor and environment, which he did in 1993. Those were all ratified and went into force on Jan 1, 1994.
But these side agreements that Clinton negotiated turned out to be toothless because the arbitration panel refused to honor them because they weren't written into NAFTA.
So when GW Bush began negotiating CAFTA he would be transparent and not negotiate any term that would kill the deal in Congress. And CAFTA was easily ratified.
In the case of Obama and TPP, the GOP knew what was in it before they gave Obama fast track authority, except they didn't know absolutely everything because some of it is decided by negotiations. From the investors perspective there are few objection to TPP. The drug companies are complaining.
OTOH, the unions and enviros are absolutely sure that Obama is cutting their throats. And they know that Hillary is lying when she says that she objects to it. This is why Maureen Dowd proclaimed Hillary to be the perfect GOP candidate for the presidency.
--and while we're at it let's have the gov't release all your tax records too.
As a Federal employee, my complete salary is posted for public consumption.
What’s your next attempt at logic?
Next argument?
Okay, so you believe knowing 150 missiles will be mutually destroyed is something we won’t also know later? If it happens later and is known, why couldn’t we have known earlier?
Next argument?
Argument? I was merely trying to explain it to you. If you don't like the way it is done, then you need to make argument with those who are in policy positions.
But let me warn you, they don't give a shit what some unknown person in a chat room thinks.
My bad, I wasn’t clear. Here’s the focused version:
While you’d like to have open gov’t records most people don’t. My take is that sometimes it’s easier to work out the details for somethings in private (say, like w/ lawyer/client consultation) and then announce the overall proposal in public (the courtroom case to the judge & jury).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.