UNITED
NATIONS, May
19 -- Just as
US Secretary
of State John
Kerry gave a
speech in
Washington
State
promoting the
proposed Trans
Pacific
Partnership,
Inner City
Press in New
York asked UN
official
Pingfan Hong
for the UN's
view of the
TPP.
Pingfan Hong
said that TPP
would be a
step backward
from the
multilateral
process, and
that it would
be
discriminatory
against
countries in
the developing
world. Video
here.
It was a rare
"stand up to
the US" moment
in today's
UN.
Earlier this
month, as
exclusively
reported by
Inner City
Press, when
Kerry told UN
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon not to
try to hold a
Yemen talks in
Geneva
including the
Houthis, Ban
immediately
acquiesced.
But Pingfan
Hong spoke his
mind, here
We have transcribed
it:
Inner
City Press: On
trade policy,
the big one
right now is
TPP, John
Kerry is
giving a
speech about
it, what is
DESA's view,
impact on US
economy and
world economy,
should it be
modified or
disclosed?
UN's
Pingfan Hong:
About the TPP,
from a UN or a
DESA point of
view, we don’t
consider that
as a single
issue. We
analyze that
issue from the
perspective of
the
multilateral
treaty system.
That is,
compare that
with the WTO.
From that
point of view,
it’s kind of
at best, TPP,
it’s
paradoxical.
For example,
if you see
those 20 areas
covered, in
this TPP, from
e-commerce to
other
services,
intellectual
property
rights, labor
standards,
environmental
standards,
indeed TPP
sets a much
higher
standard than
WTO
negotiations.
From
that you’ll
probably say
it’s a little
bit forward
looking, or
it’s more
advanced. On
the other hand
you see, from
a developing
country’s
point of view,
both this
Trans Pacific
Partnership as
well as this
trans
Atlantic, they
are US and EU
centric. So
it's a set
back actually,
the progress
made in
multilateral
trading system
after World
War Two it's
backward from
that point of
view, means
that your
developing
countries,
they don’t
have much
voice or
bargaining
power in this
two, major,
developed
economy
driven, this
regional
trade, the
largest two
trade
agreements.
From
UN point of
view we are
still in favor
of the
multilateral
trading system
of WTO,
because any
regional trade
agreement,
including
these two
biggest ones,
definitely
they do, they
are
discriminatory
for a large
number of non
member
countries. And
to a large
extent they
are also
undermining
this
multilateral
treaty system
in terms of
they’re
working, not
only trade,
from other
regions, but
also divert
the political
efforts for
many countries
to work on
this WTO trade
negotiations,
Doha round.
Trade
is just a
means. It’s a
means for
development.
So from a
development
point of view,
we should
focus on
whether treaty
negotiation
can contribute
to the
development or
not. Not just
how much trade
it would
generate. So
in that sense
it’s more
complicated
than just look
at the
single... I
mean, we don’t
want to pay
too much
attention to
the political
debate, like
now it’s still
ongoing, in
the US on this
issue.
Meanwhile
in Renton,
Washington
Kerry praised
TPP with no
acknowledgement
of flaws such
as the
globalization
of censorship
under the
Digital
Millennium
Copyright Act,
example
here.
That example,
ironically, is
by Reuters
- a news wire
one might
think would
oppose
censorship.
Back
on January 15,
2014 on
Capitol Hill,
Fast Track for
the proposed
Trans Pacific
Partnership
was promoted
in the guise
of a
twenty-year
review of
NAFTA.
The US Chamber
of Commerce,
Carla Hills
and former
Congressman
David Dreier
were among the
pro Fast Track
for TPP
witnesses
before the
House
Committee on
Foreign
Affairs,
Subcommittee
on the Western
Hemisphere.
As Chairman
Salman's
introduction
put it, "NAFTA
has been the
impetus for
the regional
bilateral
trade
agreements
reached since
then, and has
provided
important
lessons as the
U.S. seeks to
build closer
ties to trade
and investment
partners
through the
much
anticipated
Trans Pacific
Partnership."
After some
perfunctory
praise of
NAFTA, and
some
unanswered
questions
about free
trade
agreements
with Colombia
and South
Korea, things
quickly turned
to promotion
of the TPP.
The bill was
introduced in
Congress on
January 9; it
has been protested
including in
Harlem on
January 4,
2014, here.
Leaked
documents used
in an
investigative
story can be
blocked, as
the Reuters'
complaint to
Google blocked
from Google's
search its
bureau chief's
e-mail to the
UN seeking to
get Inner City
Press thrown
out. This is a
perversion of
the concept of
copyright (as
well as a
contradictory
argument for
Reuters or
anyone in
journalism to
be making,
that such
documents
should be
taken down or
blocked.)
As the Electronic
Frontier
Foundation's
Intellectual
Property
Director
Corynne
McSherry told
Inner City
Press about
the case:
"Unfortunately,
it
is all too
easy for a
copyright
holder
(assuming that
the person
that sent this
notice
actually held
copyright in
the email) to
abuse the DMCA
to take down
content and
stifle
legitimate
speech. As
countries
outside the US
consider
adopting
DMCA-like
procedures,
they must make
sure they
include strong
protections
for free
speech, such
as significant
penalties for
takedown
abuse."
Along
with other
pro-corporate
provisions,
TPP would
internationalize
this abuse of
copyright to
undermine
freedom of the
press.
If
this remains
precedent,
what else
could come
down?
Why
not an email
from Iran, for
example, to
the UN's
International
Atomic Energy
Agency? Why
not a
sanctions
filing by a
country? Here
is Reuters
logic,
accepted if
only
automatically
by Google:
The
copyrighted
material is a
private email
I wrote in
April 2012 and
for which I
never gave
permission to
be published.
It has been
published on a
blog and
appears in on
the first page
of search
results for my
name and the
firm I work
for, Reuters.
It can be seen
here:
http://www.innercitypress.com/reutersLC3unmalu.pdf
But
this is true
of ANY leaked
document: it
can be said
that the
entity or
person exposed
"never gave
permission
[for it] to be
published."
Does that mean
Google can or
should block
search access
to it?
Can a
complaint to a
Media
Accreditation
official
against a
competitor
legitimately
be considered
"private"? In
any event, the
DMCA is not
about
protecting
privacy.
Iran
or North Korea
could say a
filing or
status report
they make with
the IAEA is
"private" and
was not
intended to be
published.
Would Google,
receiving a
DMCA filing,
block access
to the
information
on, say,
Reuters.com?
The
fact that
Google accepts
or didn't
check, to
remain in the
DMCA Safe
Harbor, the
filing makes
it even worse.
The request to
take-down
wasn't made to
InnerCityPress.com
or its server
-- it would
have been
rejected. But
banning a page
from Search
has the same
censoring
effect.
The US
has a regime
to protect
freedom of the
press, and
against prior
restraint. But
this is a
loophole,
exploited
cynically by
Reuters. What
if a media
conducted a
long
investigation
of a mayor,
fueled by a
leaked email.
When the story
was published,
could the
Mayor make a
Reuters-like
filing with
Google and get
it blocked?
Here
is the text of
Reuters'
communication
to the UN's
top Media
Accreditation
and Liaison
Unit official
Stephane
Dujarric and
MALU's
manager, to
which it
claimed
"copyright"
and for now
has banned
from Google's
Search:
Hi
Isabelle
and Stephane,
I
just wanted to
pass on for
the record
that I was
just
confronted by
Matt Lee in
the DHL
auditorium in
very hostile
fashion a
short while
ago (there
were several
witnesses,
including
Giampaolo).
He's obviously
gotten wind
that there's a
movement afoot
to expel him
from the UNCA
executive
committee,
though he
doesn't know
the details
yet. But he
was going out
of his way to
be as
intimidating
and aggressive
as possible
towards me,
told me I
"disgust" him,
etc.
In
all
my 20+ years
of reporting
I've never
been
approached
like that by a
follow
journalist in
any press
corps, no
matter how
stressful
things got.
He's become
someone who's
making it very
hard for me
and others in
the UN press
to do our
jobs. His
harassment of
fellow
reporters is
reaching a new
fever pitch.
I
just thought
you should
know this.
Cheers,
Lou
Louis
Charbonneau
Bureau Chief.
United Nations
Reuters News
Thomson
Reuters
reuters. com
This
email
was sent to
you by Thomson
Reuters, the
global news
and
information
company.
by Mahesh -
12/27/2013
-calls for the
removal of a
letter from
the head of
his bureau at
the United
Nations,
pursuing a
copyright
infringement
on the part of
the
competition
Try
to make out a
small
competitor
from the UN
press room and
then, when
these publish
proof of
intrigue,
invokes the
copyright to
release a
letter from
compromising
the network.
MOLESTA-AGENCY
Inner
City Press is
a small
non-profit
agency
covering the
work of the
United Nations
for years,
with an
original cut,
which become
distasteful to
many. Unlike
other matching
its founder
master sent
never tires of
asking account
of
inconsistencies
and
contradictions
and often
refers to
unpleasant
situations
involving
colleagues and
their
reportage, too
often twisted
to obvious
political
contingencies.
THE
LAST CAVITY –
In
this case the
clutch is born
when Matthew
Lee, Inner
City Press
ever since he
founded and
made famous in
the 90 's,
challenged the
screening of
"Lies Agreed
Upon" in the
auditorium of
the United
Nations, a
filmaccio of
propaganda in
which the Sri
Lankan regime
tries to deny
the now tested
massacres (and
destroyed by
International
Crisis Group).
In
the piece, in
which
denounced the
incident, Lee
also announced
that the
screening was
organized by
the President
of the United
Nations
Correspondents
(UNCA),
Italian Giampaolo
Pioli,
skipping the
normal
consultation
procedure for
this kind of
events. Pioli
then, was also
accused of
being in a
conflict of
interest,
given that he
rented an
apartment in
New York an
apartment to
the Deputy
Permanent
Representative
to the UN in
Sri Lanka,
named Palitha
Kohona and is
suspected of
war crimes.
TRY
WITH THE
COPYRIGHT-
So
he comes to
the letter
with which
Louis
Charbonneau,
Reuters bureau
chief at the
United
Nations, wrote
to the Media
Accreditation
and Liaison
Unit (MALU)
calling for
the ouster of
Lee, which the
UN being there
for years as
his
colleagues,
but we see
that this was
not done. Lee,
however, comes
into
possession of
the letter and
publish it,
and then
writes to
Google
millantando
Charbonneau
the copyright
on the letter
and asking
for removal
pursuant to
the Digital
Millennium
Copyright Act.
That
is a bit like
if a company
request the
removal of a
compromising
document from
a journalistic
investigation,
in the name of
copyright, a
claim clearly
absurd and
disingenuous.
HARASSMENT
AND THREATS-
In
the letter
published,
Charbonneau
complained
about the
aggressive
behavior of
Lee and cited
among the
witnesses to
cases where
Lee had been
"aggressive"
towards him
even Pioli. Lee
with that
piece has
gained
throughout a
hail of
protests from
Sri Lanka and
an
investigation
by the UNCA,
along with
death threats
and other
well-known
amenities the
refugees away
from the
clutches of
the regime,
but it is
still there. Behold
then the
brilliant idea
of
Charbonneau,
improperly
used copyright
law to censor
the
objectionable
publications
to a colleague
and
competitor. Pity
that Lee has
already
resisted
successfully
in similar
cases, in 2008
was the same Google
to remove your
site from
being indexed
in the news
in its search
engines, it is
unclear what
impetus
behind, only
to regret it
soon after
that even Fox
News had cried
scandal.
, 
