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.
"We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back."
- Jean-Claude Juncke
I do not care if it's standard practice for negotiations to happen in secret. My government should represent me and my interests and I want to know what's going on. If not, I'll scream as loudly as I can because I want a government that's transparent. If the governments of other countries demand less transparency, well I see that as violating the sovereignty of our nation. Also claims that back and forth negotiations would be impossible need evidence. I see this claim repeated without references as if it's a given and I seek education on the matter.
1. I'm not certain you understand how representative government works. You vote for a person, they do what they believe is in your best interest - and whatever they do must be in your best interest, because you voted for them. Do you want your representatives to send you notice of what they do every day?
Why can't the document be negotiated in secret, if EVERY piece of it is made public before it is signed into law by your government. Other than your 'need' for information, what is the purpose of requiring every step be made public?
2. You don't seem to understand how negotiations work.
It's (relatively) easy to negotiate on behalf of 300 million people. It's impossible to negotiate when a majority of the 300 million "want to know what's going on". What you believe is in your best interest isn't what Jim in Texas believes is in his best interest. What I believe is best for all of us isn't want you believe is best for all of us. A middle ground, based on experience and research is the starting point for any economic negotiations. Experts in the field are used (although we could debate how to define expert, and how to ensure they don't have any conflicts of interest).
You know what kills any negotiation? If one party is seen to be unable to make decisions for the group they represent. What both sides want is to know the other person at the table is able to say yes and no, with relatively strong assurance the decisions will be held in the future, or changed in ways that will still be acceptable.
You know what happens if every step of a negotiation this large is public at every point? Fox News, CNBC, and the like let their screaming head commentators loose on it, thereby undermining the appearance of negotiator authority - REGARDLESS of the actual content of the document. There are people, public, famous people, who make a living by complaining just for the sake of it - and they have a lot of fans.
With this many people involved, there will be loud voices of dissent on every.single.point.
Anyway, what is the difference between you knowing that on Tuesday we agreed to weaken X, in exchange for Y instead of having public access to the document once the initial negotiation process is finished but before it is ratified by our government? You still get your information, you still get to see what's going on, and you still get input. I don't see the issue with that.
And if you are seeking education on the matter, Harvard Business School and the University of Chicago Business School have one metric ton of research and publications out on negotiation theory.
whatever they do must be in your best interest, because you voted for them.
This is a bizarre view. Not only did I not vote for them, the UK conservative government got 37% of the vote. They're not bound to implement their manifesto and there is no real reason to assume the decisions made are in my best interest at all.
Why can't the document be negotiated in secret, if EVERY piece of it is made public before it is signed into law by your government. Other than your 'need' for information, what is the purpose of requiring every step be made public?
Well, this provides no way of amending it piecewise, and the only possibility is then to reject it wholesale in the legislature. Moreover, it can't then easily be changed by a subsequent change of government; it's more like a constitutional change. There may be substantial penalties to accession and withdrawal.
one party is seen to be unable to make decisions for the group they represent
It's worth questioning the extent to which the current leaders of a democratic body can sign away its future freedom of action.
Thanks for sharing this perspective. No offense to you intended, but it sounds incredibly outmoded. Negotiators come off as childish and petty. The idea that terms of an agreement that will have material effects on my life should be decided without my input is patronizing and offensive.
This is 2015. The web has been around for nearly a quarter century, and TV news pundits even longer. Statecraft needs to evolve and adapt, not by ramping up the authoritarian penalties for violating secrecy, but by developing processes and attitudes that can thrive on transparency.
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?
"..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,”.."
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.
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.
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?
Hard to find specific evidence on this question, but I believe most of the details of the ministerials are public, and its main goals are public (because we're technically mid-Doha round, but we know all the basic arguments and points).
However, when a new member considers accession, they have one on one negotiations with all existing members, sometimes in private.
The common talking point is a little misleading in that it suggests that this is unusual (it's not), or that TPP will become binding before it becomes public (it won't).
The common rebuttal is a little misleading when suggesting that every deal is negotiated this way. (Not every deal, but enough so it's probably not that big a deal.)
