The most controversial part of this for me is this:
[NZ/CL/PE/VN/BN/MY/SG/CA4/MX5 propose; US/JP oppose: The objectives of this Chapter are:
Who are these parties and why are they negotiating this in secret, away from the public eye. If it is just mundane boilerplate (not finished reading yet) then I have to say that the most surprising thing of all is that we are being governed by copy/paste. I don't think that is the case here.
New Zealand / Chile / Peru / Vietnam / Brunei / Malaysia / Singapore / Canada / Mexico propose; United States / Japan oppose.
International agreements are always negotiated privately before being submitted to legislatures for public comment and ratification.
Domestic laws are done the same way. The terms of any major bill before the U.S. Congress, for instance, are first negotiated in private among a smaller group of legislators before being introduced for public debate and amendment.
Business deals are usually done the same way. Two companies considering a merger negotiate the terms in private first, then present the deal to their boards/shareholders for approval.
While that is true, it does not mean that this is right.
Do note that domestic laws are actually brought up for discussion, and (at least in democratic countries), often have non trivial changes applied, some items dropped altogether, etc.
Similarly, a merger is brought to a vote/discussion, and the terms often change during this discussion - e.g., shareholders want more cash / more equity, and stuff like that.
Agreements like the TPP are take-it-or-leave-it, meaning there's basically no discussion except by the unelected negotiators - which, especially in WIPO related issues, seem to have their past and future employers' interest in mind more than they represent their public.
>> International agreements are always negotiated privately before being submitted to legislatures for public comment and ratification.
The whole problem with that is the folks doing the negotiating do not represent the public and they are in effect agreeing to have laws passed. One group is negotiating to have a second group pass laws, who are supposed to represent a third group - the people. I suppose they think bringing it to congress for a vote makes it all OK, but where was the real debate?
The negotiators are official representatives of these national governments. So, they represent their citizens to the extent that any government staff person does so in each respective country. For the U.S., negotiations are led by the U.S. Trade Representative, who is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
The best interests of the people being impacted are not being protected. Citizens are being excluded from a process that is supposed to be democratic. It is corrupt.
