![]() ![]() The United States’ failure to do so is an embarrassment for Congress, compounded by their efforts to prevent the executive branch from acting on its own.Īs usual, there is a subtext here. However, they are hard everywhere, and that has not prevented the European Union, the United Kingdom, Japan, and many others in Asia from moving forward. These are hard issues, and agreement has proved elusive. In fairness, it is not for lack of effort on the part of some members of Congress. That, of course, ignores the rather messy fact that we don’t have those national policies because Congress, including the senatorial critics, has failed to act. The senators are concerned that a trade agreement that addresses those issues may make it more difficult for Congress to act in the future. This is a reflection of the unfortunate fact that in many digital-related areas, there is no national policy-for example, on privacy, data localization, content moderation, protection of children, and rules for competition. They fear that any provisions that commit the United States to taking-or not taking-specific actions will tie Congress’s hands in the future. The recommendation of both the right and the left is not very many. The issue on the table is which provisions on digital trade USTR should propose to include in IPEF. That is exactly what she is supposed to do, and it is really all we have a right to ask her to do.īut I’m not finished, because the underlying debate is rant-worthy as well. ![]() In this particular case, I don’t have a lot of confidence Ambassador Tai will do what I think is in the country’s best interest, but I have complete confidence she will do what she thinks is in the country’s best interest, regardless of pressure from outside parties. And there, I think you have to count on the integrity of the officials in question who, at senior levels, were subject to Senate confirmation. Of course, they have a built-in bias in favor of their companies’ interests, but it is government officials’ task to unpack that and make a decision in the broader national interest. The companies in question provide the services that are at issue and are in the best position to explain the impact of anything the government proposes and whether it is technically feasible-not a small issue in this sector. ![]() Beyond the constitutional argument, they are also the ones with actual expertise. The real issue here is this particular group of stakeholders is probably telling USTR things the senators don’t want them to hear, but that is hardly a reason to shut them out of the process. They also have a constitutional right to petition the government, just like all the rest of us, which the senators seem to have forgotten. The fact that they have a stake in the government’s decisionmaking-which is why they’re call stakeholders-should not disqualify them from giving advice. Government officials have a duty to talk to stakeholders, and if the topic is digital trade, I can’t think of more obvious stakeholders than companies that provide digital trade services. This is indicative of how low our politics have sunk. One would think listening to the critics that the only acceptable post-government occupation is in a monastery-or the unemployment line. They were in government, and then they left and have not returned. A popular term on the left, “revolving door” came up, although for most of the people criticized, the door didn’t revolve it simply opened. The senators also seemed particularly upset that the individuals being consulted from these companies were former USTR employees, some at senior levels. Apparently, talking to people who disagree with these senators is not allowed. Trade Representative (USTR) personnel (Ambassador Katherine Tai and USTR staffers) actually talking to representatives of “Big Tech,” which means Amazon, Google and others, about the digital trade provisions of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF). Vance (R-OH), Josh Hawley (R-MO) and others- objected to Office of the U.S. Last week politicians from both ends of the spectrum-Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), J.D.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |