Re:WikiLeaks releases Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Enviro...
by swombat on Wednesday January 15, 2014 @04:02AM
(#7062334)
I don't really have the time to read through this. What are the key points?
I know the TPP is an agreement negotiated in secret by (probably non-elected) representatives who have corporate best interests at heart, which probably means it's hideously bad, but I don't have the time to read through it all myself.
>When compared against other TPP chapters, the Environment Chapter is noteworthy for its absence of mandated clauses or meaningful enforcement measures. The dispute settlement mechanisms it creates are cooperative instead of binding; there are no required penalties and no proposed criminal sanctions. With the exception of fisheries, trade in 'environmental' goods and the disputed inclusion of other multilateral agreements, the Chapter appears to function as a public relations exercise.
>Julian Assange, WikiLeaks' publisher, stated: "Today's WikiLeaks release shows that the public sweetner in the TPP is just media sugar water. The fabled TPP environmental chapter turns out to be a toothless public relations exercise with no enforcement mechanism."
and
>The documents date from 24 November 2013 ─ the end of the Salt Lake City round. They were requested by the Ministers of the TPP after the August 2013 Brunei round. The Consolidated Text was designed to be a "landing zone" document to further the negotiations quickly and displays what the Chairs say is a good representation of all Parties' positions at the time.
Re:WikiLeaks releases Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Enviro...
by prolifically on Wednesday January 15, 2014 @07:56AM
(#7063052)
I wonder if that treaty has any effect on anything. Signing parties exclude Japan, New-Zealand, Russia, Chile, Ecuador and all central america. Seems like this is one of those treaty done just to say: 'Look we tried, but it's complicated, [yada yada yada]'.
Re:WikiLeaks releases Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Enviro...
by prawks on Wednesday January 15, 2014 @08:58AM
(#7063328)
> public relations exercise
Without reading through it, it would seem it may have a great deal of effect on public relations in the participating countries. I'd imagine it may be used as PR leverage against countries who did not participate as well. "Just look at how little Russia and NZ care about the environment!"
Re:WikiLeaks releases Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Enviro...
by alan_cx on Wednesday January 15, 2014 @04:18AM
(#7062379)
I know what you mean. Worse still, you need to be a lawyer to understand it. I started on it and ground to a halt, and I do have some limited experience of dealing with legal paperwork.
And of course, while I appreciate the need for precise legally robust language in these things, it use does create a barriers to general understanding.
I dont know how it could be funded, but I'd love to see a service where these sorts of documents are boiled down to something the average person can understand with out a law degree.
Interesing, this was just 3 days ago. The EFF has been looking for these docs to review for a while, and it seems even members of congress in the POTUS's own party are concerned about the process.
Re:WikiLeaks releases Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Enviro...
by discordian on Wednesday January 15, 2014 @05:41AM
(#7062615)
Very interesting that the fast track bill was introduced with no Democratic cosponsors, only Republicans. That's a sign that there may be real opposition to this deal forming within the President's own party.
I've often wondered why Obama is pushing this TPP deal in the first place. It seems to directly contradict what he said in the 2008 campaign about NAFTA hurting American workers. Of course it shouldn't be a surprise that politicians lie, but rarely do they get away with such a complete reversal.
Re:WikiLeaks releases Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Enviro...
by toyg on Wednesday January 15, 2014 @09:42AM
(#7063551)
Obama is first of all the US President, and then a Democratic Party member. The TPP follows long-established US foreign policy guidelines that are invariably supported by both major parties: what is good for US companies abroad, it's good for the US government. It's actually a very common foreign policy principle among countries. There is an understanding that what is paramount is that power is projected abroad as much as possible, and internal repercussions can be managed if necessary. This is not completely irrational: it's easier for the President to pass a bill than it is to make umpteen countries sign a treaty. For example, you first sign all the WTO treaties and force other countries to open their markets, then quickly impose tariffs on steel (Bush II), or on electronics (Reagan / Bush I) when strictly necessary. First you make it illegal to use firewalls among peers, then bring yours up at will.
Re:WikiLeaks releases Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Enviro...
by digitalengineer on Wednesday January 15, 2014 @04:02AM
(#7062331)
These are great, I'm sure. But the Snowden releases showed dumping data in it's raw form as Wikileaks does kills the important stuff. Data needs analysis and interpretation. I haven't got time to read and interpret all these pages.
Re:WikiLeaks releases Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Enviro...
by k-mcgrady on Wednesday January 15, 2014 @04:21AM
(#7062387)
I think that was the point. You need to give it to the journalists to interpret. When it's released raw they have less of an incentive to do so as they aren't getting the 'exclusive'. It can be covered by anyone. It also takes them time to analyse these things. The good journalists don't read it and write a story, they take time and do it right and investigate further. Releasing it raw brings it into the news and once it's gone out again it's unlikely to come back so by the time a good journalist has written a good report nobody will care.
I know the TPP is an agreement negotiated in secret by (probably non-elected) representatives who have corporate best interests at heart, which probably means it's hideously bad, but I don't have the time to read through it all myself.
>When compared against other TPP chapters, the Environment Chapter is noteworthy for its absence of mandated clauses or meaningful enforcement measures. The dispute settlement mechanisms it creates are cooperative instead of binding; there are no required penalties and no proposed criminal sanctions. With the exception of fisheries, trade in 'environmental' goods and the disputed inclusion of other multilateral agreements, the Chapter appears to function as a public relations exercise.
>Julian Assange, WikiLeaks' publisher, stated: "Today's WikiLeaks release shows that the public sweetner in the TPP is just media sugar water. The fabled TPP environmental chapter turns out to be a toothless public relations exercise with no enforcement mechanism."
and
>The documents date from 24 November 2013 ─ the end of the Salt Lake City round. They were requested by the Ministers of the TPP after the August 2013 Brunei round. The Consolidated Text was designed to be a "landing zone" document to further the negotiations quickly and displays what the Chairs say is a good representation of all Parties' positions at the time.
Without reading through it, it would seem it may have a great deal of effect on public relations in the participating countries. I'd imagine it may be used as PR leverage against countries who did not participate as well. "Just look at how little Russia and NZ care about the environment!"
And of course, while I appreciate the need for precise legally robust language in these things, it use does create a barriers to general understanding.
I dont know how it could be funded, but I'd love to see a service where these sorts of documents are boiled down to something the average person can understand with out a law degree.
Edit: This NY Times article was posted on the Wikileaks twitter as well: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/politics/administration...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/11/fast-track-trade-de...
Interesing, this was just 3 days ago. The EFF has been looking for these docs to review for a while, and it seems even members of congress in the POTUS's own party are concerned about the process.
I've often wondered why Obama is pushing this TPP deal in the first place. It seems to directly contradict what he said in the 2008 campaign about NAFTA hurting American workers. Of course it shouldn't be a surprise that politicians lie, but rarely do they get away with such a complete reversal.
Wake me up, I must be dreaming.