4 ms·

As Elizabeth Warren said: “I have heard the argument that transparency would undermine the Trade Representative’s policy to complete the trade agreement becaus

by seoguru 13y ago

As Elizabeth Warren said: “I have heard the argument that transparency would undermine the Trade Representative’s policy to complete the trade agreement because public opposition would be significant,” Warren explained. “In other words, if people knew what was going on, they would stop it. This argument is exactly backwards. If transparency would lead to widespread public opposition to a trade agreement, then that trade agreement should not be the policy of the United States.” watch her here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=kAgJaIwdXLI https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=kAgJaIwdXLI democracynow has more info out yesterday: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS-x5SlcPPM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS-x5SlcPPM

twoodfin 13y ago
This is a pretty silly argument from Sen. Warren. Put aside the fact that she can't even be bothered to ascribe the argument to any named individual, nobody's arguing that the agreements themselves shouldn't be public and "transparent". A modern trade agreement represents a balancing of a huge number of private interests. Some will benefit and some will be harmed, but the overall outcome is expected to be positive for all sides. Achieving that balance will require concessions from both sides. It is an extraordinary restraint on the capabilities of the USTR if they must worry about every concession they offer (which may never even make it into the deal) being trumpeted to the rooftops by domestic political opposition. This is really common sense. It's the same reason the military base closure commission deliberates in private, or, for that matter, why the U.S. Supreme Court does, even with no direct electoral politics at issue.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Closed proceedings are the exception in the American system. Generally, there are two justifications, deriving from constitutional missions: security, and the inherently counter-democratic function of the judiciary. Even then, oral arguments in front of the Supreme Court are public and recorded. The USTR cannot avail itself of such justifications.
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    Am I misunderstanding, or are you suggesting that it would be exceptional for the U.S. to keep diplomatic negotiations private? ISTM that it's just the opposite: International discussions are almost always held in private. Why should what the USTR does be any different from, say, negotiation with an ally over a Status of Forces agreement?

by seoguru 13y ago

twoodfin 13y ago

This is a pretty silly argument from Sen. Warren. Put aside the fact that she can't even be bothered to ascribe the argument to any named individual, nobody's arguing that the agreements themselves shouldn't be public and "transparent". A modern trade agreement represents a balancing of a huge number of private interests. Some will benefit and some will be harmed, but the overall outcome is expected to be positive for all sides. Achieving that balance will require concessions from both sides. It is an extraordinary restraint on the capabilities of the USTR if they must worry about every concession they offer (which may never even make it into the deal) being trumpeted to the rooftops by domestic political opposition. This is really common sense. It's the same reason the military base closure commission deliberates in private, or, for that matter, why the U.S. Supreme Court does, even with no direct electoral politics at issue.

rayiner 13y ago
Closed proceedings are the exception in the American system. Generally, there are two justifications, deriving from constitutional missions: security, and the inherently counter-democratic function of the judiciary. Even then, oral arguments in front of the Supreme Court are public and recorded. The USTR cannot avail itself of such justifications.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  Am I misunderstanding, or are you suggesting that it would be exceptional for the U.S. to keep diplomatic negotiations private? ISTM that it's just the opposite: International discussions are almost always held in private. Why should what the USTR does be any different from, say, negotiation with an ally over a Status of Forces agreement?