From inside the belly of the beast on trade comes an illuminating view on the secrecy around the Trans Pacific Partnership. From an insider. Who knows. And he says: Sens. Warren and Sanders, and a whole host of others, are right on the mark about the secrecy.
The views come from Michael Wessel whose tagline in this opinion piece describes him as a "cleared liaison to two statutory advisory committees and was a commissioner on the U.S. Trade Deficit Review Commission, as well as the international trade co-chair for the Kerry-Edwards Presidential Campaign". To be fair, he's a lobbyist--take that for what it's worth. On the other hand, for a couple of decades, he was the right-hand man for House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt. Gephardt, though quite moderate on most issues (and not my cup of tea generally) was very close to labor and quite active on the trade issue, and opposed NAFTA--remember, this was a senior party leader opposing Bill Clinton--primarily because he saw it as driving wages lower and lacking environmental and labor protections (not that I believe that those slapped on "protections" amount to much).
So, Wessel says:
The public criticisms of the TPP have been vague. That’s by design—anyone who has read the text of the agreement could be jailed for disclosing its contents. I’ve actually read the TPP text provided to the government’s own advisors, and I’ve given the president an earful about how this trade deal will damage this nation. But I can’t share my criticisms with you.
I can tell you that Elizabeth Warren is right about her criticism of the trade deal. We should be very concerned about what's hidden in this trade deal—and particularly how the Obama administration is keeping information secret even from those of us who are supposed to provide advice.
So-called “cleared advisors” like me are prohibited from sharing publicly the criticisms we’ve lodged about specific proposals and approaches. The government has created a perfect Catch 22: The law prohibits us from talking about the specifics of what we’ve seen, allowing the president to criticize us for not being specific. Instead of simply admitting that he disagrees with me—and with many other cleared advisors—about the merits of the TPP, the president instead pretends that our specific, pointed criticisms don’t exist.
What I can tell you is that the administration is being unfair to those who are raising proper questions about the harms the TPP would do. To the administration, everyone who questions their approach is branded as a protectionist—or worse—dishonest. They broadly criticize organized labor, despite the fact that unions have been the primary force in America pushing for strong rules to promote opportunity and jobs. And they dismiss individuals like me who believe that, first and foremost, a trade agreement should promote the interests of domestic producers and their employees.[emphasis added]
And:
The text of the TPP, like all trade deals, is a closely guarded secret. That fact makes a genuine public debate impossible and should make robust debate behind closed doors all the more essential. But the ability of TPP critics like me to point out the deal’s many failings is limited by the government’s surprising and unprecedented refusal to make revisions to the language in the TPP fully available to cleared advisors.[emphasis added because the whole thing was worth emphasizing]
And:
Advisors are almost flying blind on these questions and others.
Only portions of the text have been provided, to be read under the watchful eye of a USTR official. Access, up until recently, was provided on secure web sites. But the government-run website does not contain the most-up-to-date information for cleared advisors. To get that information, we have to travel to certain government facilities and sign in to read the materials. Even then, the administration determines what we can and cannot review and, often, they provide carefully edited summaries rather than the actual underlying text, which is critical to really understanding the consequences of the agreement.
Other members of Congress have attacked this secrecy. Keith Ellison, for example, said
"Maybe there’s some definition of secrecy he knows that I don’t know.”
The president has attacked his critics and has refused to debate critics directly, preferring to hide behind staged appearances at places like Nike--in my view, in a cowardly fashion. It may be that the White House doesn't want to debate the lies that come up time and again around the TPP.
But, the secrecy of the deal is a fact.
UPDATE: Meteor Blades has written usual great diary on this as well. Rec it up!