Are treaty negotiations normally done in secret?

Factual Questions
1

A few of my friends are very vocal of the dangers of the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership deal (TTIP) currently being negotiated between the US and the EU. Merits of the proposed treaty aside, they are attacking the treaty for its secrecy - that the average public citizen cannot grab a copy of the draft treaty.

I am unsure, but I thought it was generally normal (although entirely down to the treating parties rather than a rule) that draft treaties tend to be done confidentially, and the agreed text made public for ratification?

Or am I mistaken, and TTIP is unusually and suspiciously murky?

Thanks :slight_smile:

2

It’s not that secret. The texts are fully accessible if you are an accredited politician of a participating country, vouched for and trip-funded by your government for the purpose — providing you sign the non-disclosures — travelling to Brussels and locked in a small room.
No cell-phones.

3

Treaties have always been negotiated in secret. Not only that but they were kept secret until ratified. I learned (or perhaps I should say was taught) in HS that the reason only the senate gets to vote on treaties is that it was considered that there was some chance that 26 men could keep a secret for a short term, but the HR would soon grow too large.

4

Negotiations are typically done in secret. Otherwise, they would likely devolve into posturing for electoral gain and produce little.

Proposals would be greatly inhibited because any proposed sacrifice of particular constituents’ interests could be held against the administration that proposed it. E.g.: If you make a proposal that sacrifices some interests of B constituency to gain some for A constituency and then make another proposal that sacrifices some interests of A constituency to gain some for B, both might be pissed at you and your electoral opponents can claim that you wanted to sacrifice A and B constituencies.

There would also be no end of Monday morning negotiators.
Brainstorming (with its common production of crappy ideas) would be right out, even if it can be quite useful.

5

Beware the leopard.

6

This might help if you are interested. Comes from the UK’s point of view.

7

There is an impressive list here of politicians from various countries who are unhappy with the progress of the TPP.

What they are calling for is for negotiators to:

Negotiating privately is one thing. However, there has to be some point at which our elected representatives - NOT just the ones who belong to the current party in power - and we ourselves, get to see what is being agreed to. BEFORE it is agreed.

8

Why? Agreement by the governments who negotiate a text doesn’t bring the treaty into force. It then has to be ratified by each signatory, and then laws passed by each signatory to implement it. If there is sufficient popular opposition to a treaty as drafted, then the internal domestic politics of each country should allow for sufficient review. What does putting out a draft treaty prior to signing accomplish?

9

I get the feeling that some posters here have never done any formal negotiations. It’s hard enough having two attorneys agree to terms in a business contract, even when they’ve been provided with fairly clear guidelines by their clients. So the idea that negotiations of an international treaty could be accomplished with the involvement of the full Congress (and all the political posturing that will naturally bring) is endearingly naive.

10

(My emphasis).

There is no copy of the draft treaty, so long as negotiations are underway. There may be a draft, but it will have areas that are still under negotiation; some parts may be settled, but other parts may have two or three or more possible approaches, still being discussed and argued for by the different negotiators.

[QUOTE=dofe]
So the idea that negotiations of an international treaty could be accomplished with the involvement of the full Congress (and all the political posturing that will naturally bring) is endearingly naive.
[/QUOTE]
No just Congress, but the EU Parliament and all the Parliaments of the EU members!

It just isn’t possible to conduct negotiations with that many people looking over one’s shoulders and scrutinising every day’s work.

By analogy, the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia met in camera for its entire session. No outsiders were permitted in, and there were no leaks. That was considered essential to allow the normal give and take that is essential for good negotiations.

11

Perhaps some of your friends are confusing this with the TPP and the complaints about fast-tracking.

12

Theoretically it allows the public time enough to organize and make their views known to their representatives before the vote takes place.

13

How do you organize and make your views known about a proposed treaty that isn’t written yet?

14

For many it appears they assume treaties are dealt with not unlike laws, which appear in draft and have amendments made to them.

15

Surely you’ve watched enough US politics to know that lack of facts is no obstacle to absolutist positions. :slight_smile:

16

The problem is the magnitude of what is being negotiated - and the fast track, “take it or leave it” approach.

The tenor of the opposition arguments is that lobbyists with an “in” are helping write the treaty, yet the lawmakers who must approve it are kept in the dark until the full text is “sprung” on them, with of course urgent appeals to pass as soon as possible to limit debate and avoid finding loopholes.

For example -

Copyright - it’s believed the USA is pushing for extreme copyright language which would mean that copyright in one country is valid in another. So if Mickey Mouse or Sherlock Holmes or “Happy Birthday” lobbies hard enough for another 50 years of protection, even retroactive removal from the public domain, every signatory must recognize that.

The same fear applies to patents and trademarks. Presumably, what is now civil issues will become criminal issues to all signatories. Canada, for example, has lesser patent terms and rights to drugs and mandatory generic licensing after that. Under the TPP, they would have to respect other countries’ limits.

There’s the “corporate sovereignty” issue, where if a country’s laws impact a corporation’s profit or ability to do business, then the corporation can sue for redress - so if a country bans asbestos, or requires scare labelling for cigarettes, or has more strict health standards for a food product, the corporation has the option to sue and get repaid for their lost business opportunity.

Yes, the negotiations tend to be secret, but we seem to have known more about the Iran nuclear negotiations than we do about this deal. Why? It’s not like the negotiations are “top secret”. All the negotiation teams know what’s going on. Congressman A spilling the beans won’t wreck the USA’s negotiation advantage, the rest of the negotiators for the other countries know. It’s not like START, where how much and how powerful and how capable our arsenal is, is a key negotiation issue - it’s trade, all the numbers are published statistics. So the goal is to hide the content of the agreement from the public, completely. That says an awful lot about how “interesting” the content is.

The idea is to spring it on congress and hope it passes before people realize the ramifications of what they agreed to. (hence the big push for “fast track” where the treaty cannot be amended).

17

Are you quite sure that losing profit or ability to do business is a sufficient condition to win a suit rather than a necessary condition to start a suit?

I heard the same thing about NAFTA yet where I am (Canada), scare labelling of cigarettes is used. Can you find successful suits by tobacco companies for loss of profits or ability to do business against the federal or a provincial gov’t where the loss of profit/ability to do business was the sole and sufficient reason for the success of the suit?