5 ms·

Free Trade Negotiated In Secret

themeekforgotpw 11y ago
They aren't free trade negotiations. They are protectionist trade deals meant to exclude China from trade in its region as it rises. (China has been trying, similarly, to arrange ASEAN trade deals to exclude the United States).
- rtpg 11y ago
  This is a bit of a myopic view isn't it? Given that these treaties often force Most Favored Nation status on the participants, the end result is lower tariffs overall (if only that they can't make it worse), so pro-free-trade
  - themeekforgotpw 11y ago
    The reason I say this is that it's being used to exclude certain countries and it sets up rules that explicitly favor particular countries. Given its strategic nature its role is to protect both Western powers and regional countries that want investment from the West and to grow against the rise of China. Since it protects 40% of the world GDP at the explicit and planned sacrifice of other nations and because it is used to instantiate international laws that protect those same countries I call it protectionist. And if you look at the leaked memos it's really not so big a stretch. It's also been called protectionist by people not aware of its strategic value (e.g. Assange).
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  China's deals are a heck of a lot sweeter than the TPP though.
evgen 11y ago
Out of curiosity, care to name one thing of any substance that was negotiated in public? Ever?
- twoodfin 11y ago
  Today, for example, HN seems to love the Iran deal that was certainly not negotiated in public. It'll be decades before we see drafts, notes, etc.
  - bpodgursky 11y ago
    That's because half of the TPP comments on this kind of article are astroturfing by the Chinese, and the rest are suckers who don't realize they're along for the ride.
- pjc50 11y ago
  We're used to negotiations resulting in agreements that limit states between themselves; disarmament treaties, border negotiations, etc. Or things with a single well-telegraphed purpose (anti-drug treaties do what they say). Treaties that bind the parties to enact domestic law that constrains what ordinary members of the public can do are another matter. It's a way to make law that cannot be reverted by a subsequent administration.
  - evgen 11y ago
    Do you realize that most of our trade treaties enact domestic law right? According to the current interpretation of article II, section 2, clause 2 the treaties are essentially a manifestation of domestic law (as was NAFTA, for example.) Where you are incorrect is in the assumption that it cannot be repealed. In fact, it is easier to get out of them than it is to approve them: congress can pass laws that repeal any aspects of the treaty (and no, a treaty cannot prevent a future congress from such action -- no act of congress is in any way binding on future congresses and only a change to the constitution would allow for such a restriction), the supreme court could declare any or all of a treaty as unconstitutional, or a future president can just declare that the US is no longer party to a treaty. The latter bit is still somewhat untested, but in cases where it has been used by sitting presidents it has not been successfully appealed.
    - pjc50 11y ago

They aren't free trade negotiations. They are protectionist trade deals meant to exclude China from trade in its region as it rises. (China has been trying, similarly, to arrange ASEAN trade deals to exclude the United States).

rtpg 11y ago
This is a bit of a myopic view isn't it? Given that these treaties often force Most Favored Nation status on the participants, the end result is lower tariffs overall (if only that they can't make it worse), so pro-free-trade
- themeekforgotpw 11y ago
  The reason I say this is that it's being used to exclude certain countries and it sets up rules that explicitly favor particular countries. Given its strategic nature its role is to protect both Western powers and regional countries that want investment from the West and to grow against the rise of China. Since it protects 40% of the world GDP at the explicit and planned sacrifice of other nations and because it is used to instantiate international laws that protect those same countries I call it protectionist. And if you look at the leaked memos it's really not so big a stretch. It's also been called protectionist by people not aware of its strategic value (e.g. Assange).
crdoconnor 11y ago
China's deals are a heck of a lot sweeter than the TPP though.

evgen 11y ago

Out of curiosity, care to name one thing of any substance that was negotiated in public? Ever?

twoodfin 11y ago
Today, for example, HN seems to love the Iran deal that was certainly not negotiated in public. It'll be decades before we see drafts, notes, etc.
- bpodgursky 11y ago
  That's because half of the TPP comments on this kind of article are astroturfing by the Chinese, and the rest are suckers who don't realize they're along for the ride.
pjc50 11y ago
We're used to negotiations resulting in agreements that limit states between themselves; disarmament treaties, border negotiations, etc. Or things with a single well-telegraphed purpose (anti-drug treaties do what they say). Treaties that bind the parties to enact domestic law that constrains what ordinary members of the public can do are another matter. It's a way to make law that cannot be reverted by a subsequent administration.
- evgen 11y ago
  Do you realize that most of our trade treaties enact domestic law right? According to the current interpretation of article II, section 2, clause 2 the treaties are essentially a manifestation of domestic law (as was NAFTA, for example.) Where you are incorrect is in the assumption that it cannot be repealed. In fact, it is easier to get out of them than it is to approve them: congress can pass laws that repeal any aspects of the treaty (and no, a treaty cannot prevent a future congress from such action -- no act of congress is in any way binding on future congresses and only a change to the constitution would allow for such a restriction), the supreme court could declare any or all of a treaty as unconstitutional, or a future president can just declare that the US is no longer party to a treaty. The latter bit is still somewhat untested, but in cases where it has been used by sitting presidents it has not been successfully appealed.
  - pjc50 11y ago