Dmitry makes some interesting points👇🏽. If I may add a few thoughts.
In short:
1. Some transparency during the talks is needed for public support
2. But not all the time. Negotiators need to be able float ideas they can withdraw
3. It helps to have a neutral reporter
1/11
In short:
1. Some transparency during the talks is needed for public support
2. But not all the time. Negotiators need to be able float ideas they can withdraw
3. It helps to have a neutral reporter
1/11
1. Public support. Transparency doesn't guarantee support. It can increase opposition, but at least the opposition is more likely to be based on facts. But without it, support is likely to be weak.
2/11
2/11
This isn’t about “What are the sides fighting over?” (the press’ usual focus), but: What’s been agreed and what does it mean? What are the arguments for and against the points that haven’t been agreed? What are the implications?
That way public debate can be more realistic
3/11
That way public debate can be more realistic
3/11
2. Deniability. The need for negotiators to make a mistake and to be able to withdraw it.
There are crucial phases in negotiations when negotiators have to be free to float ideas and to withdraw them if they see they are not going anywhere. These phases have to be secret
4/11
There are crucial phases in negotiations when negotiators have to be free to float ideas and to withdraw them if they see they are not going anywhere. These phases have to be secret
4/11
If those floated ideas gain weight, then they become public through the more transparent phases of the talks.
In WTO talks, ideas are floated in private in sessions of smaller groups of key participants. They can then be taken to sessions of the full membership
5/11
In WTO talks, ideas are floated in private in sessions of smaller groups of key participants. They can then be taken to sessions of the full membership
5/11
And the @wto Secretariat usually briefs journalists and publishes its own news reports of negotiations meetings of the full membership.
For example this news story on the fisheries subsidies talks wto.org/english/news_e…
Which brings me to the final point:
6/11
For example this news story on the fisheries subsidies talks wto.org/english/news_e…
Which brings me to the final point:
6/11
3. It helps to have a neutral reporter.
@wto talks can be explained to the public neutrally by the Secretariat. If the Secretariat is biased the members soon complain. But WTO governments & delegations naturally push their own line when briefing media or the public.
7/11
@wto talks can be explained to the public neutrally by the Secretariat. If the Secretariat is biased the members soon complain. But WTO governments & delegations naturally push their own line when briefing media or the public.
7/11
Unfortunately the @wto Secretariat is itself under pressure from some members to disclose less and less. More recent website news on the fisheries subsidies talks have said almost nothing:
wto.org/english/news_e…
8/11
wto.org/english/news_e…
8/11
The situation is worse with informal negotiations meetings. Some delegations (and I understand the US is prominent) oppose the @wto Secretariat reporting anything on informal meetings because by definition there are no official records.
This has serious implications ...
9/11
This has serious implications ...
9/11
The WTO agriculture negotiations ONLY take place in informal meetings. Formal meetings are held only to take decisions eg, to appoint a new chair. Without Secretariat reports on informal ag talks, there will be NO public information on them, except delegations’ own spin
10/11
10/11
This is why the demise of @ICTSD couldn't have come at a worse time.
For Brexit there are neutral reporters eg @instituteforgov
And Twitter? Mixed benefits. It allows better information to be shared quickly, but it also amplifies misinformation.
11/end
For Brexit there are neutral reporters eg @instituteforgov
And Twitter? Mixed benefits. It allows better information to be shared quickly, but it also amplifies misinformation.
11/end
