skip to main |
skip to sidebar
One of the many problems with the secretive nature of trade agreements
is that it insulates negotiators from the real-world consequences of
their actions. That's particularly true for the FTA talks between the EU and India,
currently taking place behind closed doors. One of the key issues for
the EU side is India's role as a supplier of generic medicines to the
world, and India's tough stance on issues like the evergreening
of pharma patents. From the various leaks that we have, it seems that
the EU is demanding that India toe the line on drug patents, and cut
back its supply of low-cost generics to emerging countries.
On
Techdirt.
We wrote recently about how multilateral trade agreements have become a convenient way to circumvent
democratic decision making. One of the important features of such
treaties is the inclusion of an investor-state dispute resolution
mechanism, which Techdirt discussed last year. The Huffington Post has a great article about how this measure is almost certain to be part of the imminent TAFTA negotiations, as it already is for TPP, and why that is deeply problematic:
On
Techdirt.
One of the most worrying aspects of ACTA -- which began life as a "simple" treaty about combatting counterfeit goods -- was how it morphed into a new approach to global policy making. This had two key aspects. First, the treaty would be negotiated in secret, with minimal input from the public, but plenty from lobbyists, who were given access to key documents and to negotiators. Secondly, the results of those secret negotiations were designed to constrain the participating governments in important ways that nullified ordinary democratic decision-making. If at all, representative bodies were presented with a take-it-or-leave it choice; changing individual details was not an option.
As Mike noted a couple of days ago, international trade agreements often have the effect of constraining
the power of national legislatures. Indeed, that's doubtless one of
the reasons why they have become so popular in recent years: they allow
backroom deals between politicians and lobbyists to set the agenda for
law-making around the world, without the need for any of that pesky
democratic oversight nonsense. In particular, the trade agreement
between South Korea and the US is turning out to be a key limiting factor for both TPP and what US politicians might try to do about phone unlocking. This makes two recent moves to loosen South Korea's harsh copyright laws potentially important far beyond that country's borders.
On
Techdirt.
It's not often that trade agreements make it to the front page of the newspapers, but that's what happened on New Year's Day:
On
Open Enterprise blog.
Alongside globe-spanning treaties like ACTA and TPP, there are more
subtle efforts to limit the power of national governments, through the
use of free trade agreements (FTAs) and bilateral investment treaties
(BITs). There are now so many of these that it's hard to keep up,
although the dedicated site bilaterals.org is a great help
here. The confusing multiplicity only adds to their attractiveness for
those negotiating them behind close doors, keen as they are to avoid
transparency as much as possible.
On
Techdirt.
Anyone who has been reading this blog for a while will be well aware
of some of the key problems with copyright in the Internet age. For
example, the desire to stop people sharing unauthorised digital files
online has led to more and more extreme legislation, culminating in the
recent ACTA and TPP.
In fact, it is impossible to stop people sharing such files unless you
institute total surveillance to check on everything that is uploaded and
downloaded. By an interesting coincidence, that is precisely where we
are heading thanks to legislation like the Draft Communications Data Bill...
On
Open Enterprise blog.
The negotiations behind closed doors of major treaties like ACTA and
TPP, and the refusal of participants to release official drafts or to
engage in any kind of substantive dialog, has meant that activists and
observers have been obliged to seize upon even the smallest signs and
hints emerging from those talks in an attempt to guess what is going on.
In a way, we are witnessing the birth of a new form of Kremlinology, which Wikipedia explains as follows:
On
Techdirt.
When it comes to ACTA and TPP, China is the elephant in the room -- or maybe that should be the dragon in the room. For without China's participation, these treaties designed to reduce counterfeiting will have little effect. And despite rather desperate optimism on the part of some that China will rush to sign up, itscomments so far suggest otherwise.
On
Techdirt.
On Monday I posted my talk "Before and After SOPA".
In it, there's a reference to "country club" treaties (slide 17) that
may have intrigued some people. It's a term I came across recently, and
I think provides us with a useful way of thinking about ACTA (and TPP).
On
Open Enterprise blog.
What an extraordinary year this has been for Net activism. After the great SOPA blackout led to SOPA and PIPA being withdrawn, and the anti-ACTA street demonstrations
triggered a complete rethink by the European Parliament that may well
result in a rejection of the treaty, now it seems that the Trans Pacific
Partnership is falling to pieces.
On
Techdirt.
Back in 2009, Techdirt wrote
about an interesting challenge to a then-new law against counterfeits
in Kenya, on the grounds that it might be used to stop perfectly legal
generic variants of drugs being imported into the country. That
matters, because around 90% of drugs used in Kenya are generics, which
means that blocking them would have serious implications for healthcare
in that country.
On
Techdirt.
One of the central problems of ACTA has been its lack of transparency.
TPP has also been negotiated behind closed doors, but unlike ACTA has
permitted at least one small opportunity for public groups to engage
with the negotiators through the use of stakeholder forums,
where organizations and even individuals were permitted to give short
presentations about aspects of TPP. This has allowed points of view
other than those of industry lobbyists to be heard by negotiators.
On
Techdirt.
ACTA and TPP have much in common. That's no coincidence, since they
are both born of a common desire to move away from multilateral forums
like WIPO that are relatively open to scrutiny, to invitation-only
groups negotiating behind closed doors. That lack of transparency has
allowed all kinds of extreme measures to be proposed without any
countervailing arguments being heard about why they are neither fair nor
sensible.
On
Techdirt.
Posts
