Sen. Ron Wyden and Sen. Orrin Hatch are now in a stand-off
over a bill that would put secretive trade deals like the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP) agreement on the Fast Track
to passage through Congress. The White House meanwhile, has intensified
their propaganda campaign, going so far as to mislead the public about how
trade deals—like the TPP and its counterpart, the Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership (TTIP)—will effect the Internet and users’ rights.
They are creating videos, writing several blog posts, and then this week, even
sent out a letter from an “online small business
owner” to everyone on the White House’s
massive email list, to further misinform the public about Fast Track.
In a blog post published this week, the White House flat out uses doublespeak to tout the
benefits of the TPP, even going so far as to claim that without these new
trade agreements, “there would be no rules protecting American invention,
artistic creativity, and research”. That is pure bogus, much like the other
lies the White House has been recently saying about its trade policies. Let’s
look at the four main myths they have been saying to sell lawmakers and the
public on Fast Track for the TPP.
Myth #1: TPP Is Good for the Internet
First, there are the claims that this agreement will create “stronger protections of a
free and open Internet”. As we know
from previous leaks of the TPP’s Intellectual Property chapter, the complete opposite is true. Most of all, the TPP’s ISP liability provisions could
create greater incentives for Internet and content providers to block and
filter content, or even monitor their users in the name of copyright
enforcement. What they believe are efforts toward protecting the future of the
Internet are provisions they’re advocating for in this and other secret agreements on the “free flow of
information”. In short, these are policies
aimed at subverting data localization laws.
Such an obligation could be a good or a bad thing, depending
on what kind of impact it could have on national censorship, or consumer protections
for personal data. It’s a complicated issue without an easy solution—which
is exactly why this should not be decided through secretive trade negotiations.
These “free flow of information” rules have likely been lobbied for by major
tech companies, which do not want laws to restrict them on how they deal with
users’ data. It is dishonest to say that what these tech companies can do
with people’s data is good for all users and the Internet at large.
Myth #2: Fast Track Would Strengthen Congressional
Oversight
The second, oft-repeated claim is that Fast Track would
strengthen congressional oversight—which is again not true. The U.S. Trade
Representative has made this claim throughout the past couple months,
including at a Senate Finance Committee hearing in January when he said:
TPA puts Congress in the driver’s seat to define our negotiating
objectives and strengthens Congressional oversight by requiring consultations
and transparency throughout the negotiating process.
Maybe we could believe this if the White House had fought
for Fast Track before delegates began negotiating the TPP and TTIP. Maybe
it could also have been true if that bill had ensured that Congress members
had easy access to the text and kept a close leash on the White House throughout
the process to ensure that the negotiating objectives they outlined were
in fact being met in the deal. However, we know from the past several years
of TPP negotiations, that Congress has largely been shut out of the process. Many members of Congress have spoken out
about the White House’s strict rules that have made it exceedingly difficult
to influence or even see the terms of these trade deals.
The only way Fast Track could really put “Congress in the
driver’s seat” over trade policy would be if it fully addressed the lack of
congressional oversight over the TPP and TTIP thus far. Lawmakers should
be able to hold unlimited debate over the policies being proposed in these
deals, and if it comes to it, to amend their provisions. It would be meaningless
if the new Fast Track bill enabled more congressional oversight, but if it
did not apply to agreements that are ongoing or almost completed.
Myth #3: Small Online Businesses Would Benefit from
Fast Track
Then the third misleading claim is that Fast Track would help small businesses. Their repetition of this has become louder amid increasing
public awareness that the TPP has primarily been driven by major corporations.
What may be good for established multinational companies could also benefit
certain small online businesses as well. The White House says that tariffs
are hindering small online businesses from selling their products abroad,
but research has shown that the kinds of traditional trade barriers, like tariffs,
that past trade agreements were negotiated to address are already close to
non-existent. Therefore it is unclear what other kind of benefits online
businesses would see from the TPP.
Even if there were some benefits, there are many more ways that the TPP could harm
small Internet-based companies.
The TPP’s copyright provisions could lead to policies where ISPs would be
forced to implement costly systems to oversee all users’ activities and
process each takedown notice they receive. They could also discourage investment
in new innovative start-ups, even those that plan to “play by the rules”,
due to the risk that companies would have to sink significant resources
into legal defenses against copyright holders, or face heavy deterrent penalties
for infringement established by the TPP.
Myth #4: TPP and Other Secret Trade Deals Are a National
Security Issue
The last, and most confounding of the White House’s assertions
is that the TPP and TTIP are an “integral part” of the United States’ national security strategy, because its “global strategic interests are intimately
linked with [its] broader economic interests.” As we have seen with the U.S. government’s expansive surveillance regime, “national security” is often invoked for policies even
if they directly undermine our civil liberties. It is hard to argue with the
administration whether the TPP and TTIP are in fact in the United States’
economic or strategic interests, since only they are allowed to see the
entire contents of these agreements. Either way, it seems like a huge stretch
to say that we can trust the White House and major corporate representatives
to determine, in secret, what is in fact good digital policy for the country
and the world. We may be hearing this line more and more in the coming weeks
as the White House becomes more desperate to legitimize the need for Fast
Track to pass the TPP and TTIP.
Conclusion
The fact that the White House has resorted to distorting
the truth about its trade policies is enough to demonstrate how little the
administration values honesty and transparency in policy making, and
how much the public stands to lose from these agreements negotiated in
secret. The more they try and espouse the potential gains from Fast
Track—while the trade agreements this legislation would advance remain
secret—the more reason we ought to be skeptical. If the TPP is so great and
if Fast Track would in fact enable more democratic oversight, why are the
contents of either of them still not public?
If you’re in the United States, take action to stop TPP and
other anti-user trade deals from getting fast-tracked through Congress by contacting
your lawmaker about trade promotion authority:
Related Posts
-
Filed Under: Corporatism/Fascism, New World Order, Public/Private Partnerships, Technocracy, Trade, United Nationshttp://agenda21news.com/2015/03/the-white-house-has-gone-full-doublespeak-on-fast-track-and-the-tpp/#more-5016
No comments:
Post a Comment