Sunshine?
I’ll take some flack for this one. We have a prevailing ethic in the Western World that says that nothing, absolutely nothing should be talked about behind closed doors. This is often fostered by the media, whose denizens naturally want an easy way to gather what passes for news. Or it is pushed by organizations and individuals, usually not elected, that think nothing should happen without their input (often thought of in terms of a veto). You might call this a pet peeve from an old curmudgeon (are there curmudgeons who aren’t old?).
Aside from curmudgeonly tendencies, I’m here to tell you that meaningful trade agreements cannot be negotiated in public. I was reminded of this when I was researching yesterday’s post about the draft Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. I found endless diatribes online because ACTA is being negotiated by governments behind closed doors. The total-freedom-of-the-Internet folks have their knickers in a twist because those evil government negotiators are trying to think of ways to limit online sales of pirated goods. MarkMonitor expects that Internet counterfeit sales will top $135 billion in 2010, so “freedom” is actually pretty costly to consumers. I don’t know about you, but I don’t feel the need for busybodies to protect my freedom to buy fake pharmaceuticals or other life-threatening products online – or anywhere else.
"What do you do, sir?"
But can you negotiate a good trade agreement of any sort out in the glare of publicity? Or in the “sunshine” as its supporters prefer to call such openness? I don’t think so, and I have tried it both ways. The core issue is that once a country, a politician or an executive has gone on the public record as having a certain position, our society tries to remove the possibility of changing your mind. If you can’t change your mind or position, then you are going to take the most extreme position you can get away with – even if that position is not what you need to have at the end of the day. We have all seen how often politicians and public officials are attacked for changing their minds, charged with being “wishy washy”, not sticking with their values or “waffling”. The same goes for a trade negotiation. If you say it in public, you are stuck with it – even if common sense argues that compromise might be reached with just a bit of flexibility. The “pro-sunshine” people thrive on public debate and generally have no interest in compromise, the essence of a negotiated agreement or settlement. Negotiation prompts flows of ideas, different perspectives, maybe even new information. Public posturing does not. As John Maynard Keynes said: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” That process is less likely to happen in a public debate.
Two of the best negotiators I have known were Bill Kelly for the United States and Rod Grey for Canada. We were negotiating a code of conduct about export subsidies, a truly contentious issue – and, yes, we were behind closed doors in Geneva. Kelly stated the U.S. position on a particular point, but Grey, a great student of negotiating history, interjected that the United States had taken the opposite position in talks decades earlier. Kelly shot right back: “the United States reserves its right to change its mind every quarter of a century or so!” The whole room, Ambassador Grey included, dissolved in laughter. Can you imagine that in front of a TV camera?
