bunker is going on sale in the u.k. it was meant to protect local water shorts in the event of a newell attack. it includes blast-proof doors and a lot more. it's expected to sell for $80,000. thank you for watching al jazeera. i'm stephanie sy. we'll break down the trans trans-pacific tonight. ♪ our digital producer wajahat ali is here bringing in all of your live feedback. this trade agreement while like

some of the others is also quite different in that it's very brood and much of it has been crafted in secret. >> yeah, that seems to be the trigger for most of our community members. they think everyone would care if they knew about it . . . and lisa a lot of people are wondering whether this would really help american workers and jobs. >> that's a question we'll ask. it is a massive trade agreement between 12

countries and the us. it is much more than a free trade deal. it has the potential to impact everything from how we use the internet and pay for prescription drugs to food safety and the environment. it's controversial because most negotiations happen in secret. not even members of congress have seen a draft of the complete text. digital activists, as well as many others have some deep concerns, fuelled by wikileaks and others. globally protesters say the deal give industry stakeholders a seat at the tail while those who advocate for the public are left out not just in the u.s. but around the world. so why all the secrecy? and how exactly will this deal effect us every day?

joining us to sort this out, we're joined by the international campaigns director for public citizens global trade watch. the author of a forthcoming book about the trans -pacific agreement. and joshua is a fellow at the brookings institution and adjunct professor. thanks everyone for joining us. so melinda what makes the trans-pacific partnership different? >> the north america free trade agreement, what we're talking about the trans-pacific is nafta

on steroids. it expands trade agreements much beyond what we typically think of as a trade agreement, setting tariffs and quotas for goods, but expands it into a whole range of other issues as you mentioned earlier, of how we interact with the internet, how we -- the price of our medicines and so forth. so it's a massive expansion, packaged as a trade agreement, but it's so much more than that. >> why do you think those crafting this agreement feel this agreement needs to be so much more than what it would traditionally be? >> i think that's a great question, and i think the main point about this is that it is way beyond a normal trade agreement -- it has about 24 or 25 chapters in it. of those chapters only 4 or 5 deal with trade. it is designed to set the rules for the next phase in global

trade, and the main point is the rules -- are going to be set by somebody else, and there is a worry that maybe that would be up and coming countries like china. the u.s. has the highest standards, and right now it is resisting demands from canada to scrap some regulations on logging and environmental controls, so theist is in the odd situation of sometimes being blasted by people who are saying that it goes too far, like the canadians, and by others who say that it isn't protecting the environmental standards. in my view it's doing a first rate job, but it has a lot of problems. >> our community acknowledges the huge scale. but again they are worried about the secrecy.

speaking about labbyist, check out my page. here is a list of advisors who have been allowed access to the agreement. and myra going to you with that, look, congress has a constitutional right to have access to look over all trade agreements. most of congress is in the dark. the public is in the dark. but 605 corporate insiders have had the full text. why so much secrecy here? >> proopponents will say it's a trade agreement, and trade agreements have always been secret. but clearly as melinda has said it is more than that. it covers copyright policy.

and those issues are trying to be reformed the united states, and australia is going through a major copyright review, and we're trying to set in a stone of like of these cowhich right provisions that are clearly in flux. and many of those trade advisory secret. >> joshua i'm not sure that secrecy in in and of itself is the rub here, because most free trade agreements are done primarily behind closed doors. i think what is really getting people's attention is the number of industry lobbyists who had access. do you have any reason why? >> i think that's being played out in the sense that there are definitely trade advisory committees who have access to the negotiations, but they are not actually lobbyists. the administration has been very

clear that lobbyists aren't going to have access. a lot of them are corporate, because a lot of this has to do with trade, which at the end of the day is being conducted by companies who have a particular interest and expertise in how that works. so i think it needs to be understanding that there is an expertise that you would want the government to listen to. >> but wouldn't you want expertise on both sides? it seems as though -- judging from the opponents there hasn't been a balance -- >> let me jump in on that -- >> hang on. >> there absolutely has not been a balance. there are 600 corporate advisors and a small handful of any -- of representatives of labor or consumer and the environment. it's a tiny -- it's a tiny fraction, and even those -- those people aren't allowed to share what they know

about the text -- they can't share it with their constituencies because it's not allowed, and -- well, it's against the law for them to do that, and so what we have been arguing for a long time is we can't actively provide a real public debate if we don't see what the texts are. and there are many experts and people who know about regulation and public health, environment, that need to have -- have a voice at that table, and we have been calling for that for years, and there is a precedent for making these types of negotiations open. in 2003, there was a free trade agreement of the americas, that at this stage the entire text was published on the web. and that was the bush administration. bush one. and the obama administration with an open government of platform has not been willing to do that. >> bernard make it quick because

we have a break. >> it is simply not the case that membersf congress can't see the text. any member of the senate or congress can read any of the text -- >> that was after -- i will say that that was after three years of screaming at ustr, there were 131 members of the house who were not able to see it, senator widen was not able to see it, and he introduced a bill to say he should have the right to see it, now they can see it, but they can't have cleared staff, or take notes or tell anyone what they have seen. so many -- >> i think we're getting a red herring here. we're hearing only about the complains. we're not hearing about what this arrangement can do. it will cover tens of millions

of customers. it will raise living standards, improve markets, it will make it possible for pharmaceuticals to be developed and dealt with for developed countries at lower prices -- >> bernard that is something i want to talk much more deeply about. and we're going to do that after the break. we'll come back and talk about the most controversial parts of the agreement like bernard just mentioned. so we'll get back into that with all of those specifics in two minutes.

real reporting that brings you the world. giving you a real global perspective like no other can. real reporting from around the world. this is what we do. al jazeera america.

>> start with one issue ad guests on all sides of the debate. and a host willing to ask the tough questions and you'll get... the inside story ray suarez hosts inside story weekdays at 5pm et / 2pm pt only on al jazeera america

>> one thing we know is while the public is shut out of negotiating process, private, corporate interests are not. in particular, big contraindustries are spending gi norm amounts of money to convince policy makers that copyright laws will lead to innovation, creatisty and jobs. in reality, that is not the case. internet users need to know what is going on in the secret trade negotiations. internet users have a right to participate in this powerful international deal that will impact millions of lives fo decades to come. you just watched a clip from the electronic frontier foundation.

myera, from your perspective, what is ot risk here? >> based upon the leak of the intellectual property chapter that we saw from wikileaks, from november last year, it carries tonnes of copyright leaving users being senn sored. one is intermedia liability, compelling providers such as comcast and atmt and facebook and google and read it, those type of websites, to have liability over what users post. what that means is they'll be legally compelled to enforce copyright, and they will end up blocking websites, filtering content, spnding users --

suspending users accounts, leaving users silence as to what they can do online. another is digital rights management or digital restriction measures. what they do is - what the drn does is it has - there are tools that protect users security wise or, you know, protect copyright on these devices. what they essential do is turn the devices and content into legal black boxes. we don't know what is going on. we can't repair hour, tinger or install our own apps. interact. >> we contacted the office of the united states trade representative to ask about ttp and issues surrounding it and they provided a statement saying:

that is an interesting statement, it says it will benefit unions and environmental standards, yet they are opposed to ttp. how does that square? >> scare tactics are spread with regards to the ttp. the united states is the leader in the production of intellectual property. american people and citizens artists and inventors produce the intellectual property. it's the kinds of people who produce the iphones. those people who create, they have a right to have intellectual property protected. what united states is aiming to do is be sure that the standards that are high and that are in place in the united states are the same standards that are going be followed by countries like japan and singapore. it is an up and coming producer.

one of the main goals of the ttp is to set same high-level standards. whether it's international copyright in the traditional sense. the notion that these things are done in secret is a red herring. at every meeting held, stakeholders in singapore, and in the united states, americans who want to go to the meetings meetings. >> could i interject for a second. in is myera. negotiations. >> i've been to them too. >> there's hard by any chance for us to negotiate with the negotiators. firstly, we don't know what is in it besides what is leaked. we have:

you heard bernard. a lot of people say it helps corporations at the expense of american workers. what's the response? >> it's important to look at the government's data from these trade agreements from the past. from n.a.s.a. we have 20 years, we were told, promised that there would be an expansion of jobs, 170,000 jobs per year were going to be promoted through n.a.s.a. through 2004 the government's data was a million jobs lost. it will increase trade. it increases the volume of trade. it increases exports. we have huge trade deficits with countries we have the trade agreements with. it's been a net loss of jobs. when you have a net loss of jobs, most of the those have been - many in the manufacturing sector.

they have been replaced by service sector jobs, there has been a depression on u.s. wages. due to the agreements, economists across the ideological spectrum agree that trade agreements, these types of trade agreements contributed to incoming equality. you expand trade, but for whom, and who is benefitting. >> josh, why don't you jump in on this. first of all there's no guarantees with anything like this. what makes you optimistic on the ttp front. >> i think the climate leading to job loss, the data shows it's not correct. >> i want to jump in on the labour and environment bid. we have to consider whether we are thinking about the u.s. or an overseas perspective. the u.s. has been a leader when it comes to trying to include in the agreements standards on

labor and environment. there's no other country that wants to do it except the united states, when it wants to make sure that environmental protections are not undermined. it's developing countries pushing back and saying we don't want the environment standards, the labour standard, they are not appropriate. we are at different stages of development. cheaper labour is something which makes exports more competitive. if you are in a developed country and you think there should be stronger environmental standard overseas, and you support the trade agreement, you may not thing it is appropriate. it's a mixed bag. the u.s. is trying to make sure that a lot of standards are raised globally. >> i would jump in on that. there was a leak of the environment chapter that was fairly recent and it is true that the united states was pushing for stronger standards. every other country line upped against the u.s., and the text of the agreement was going more

towards the other country's positions, and while the u.s. claims to continue to push for that, that is not going to be a done deal in the tpp negotiation, while there is a chapter on the environment, the u.s. will push a chapter allowing them to attack environmental laws. we have seen this happen. to expand the system where foreign investors can attack local state or national laws that they believe affect their future profits, even if that is an environmental standard and demand billions in compensation, not through our court but through an extra jurisdictional tribunal, where judges decide whether a company should get billions of taxpayer dollars.

>> let me jump in. one thing we need to be clear about. it's great that people are paying attention to the tpp. it's important. the tpp is not all that dramatically new from anything that's gone on in the past. all you need to do is look back two to three years. that is the most recent trade agreement that the u.s. signed and passed. the ttp will introduce an innovation, but be similar to what's in korea. >> current members are pushing back on the trans-pacific partnership. we'll talk about that and the transpacific implication when we come back.

on al jazeera america

>> we're talking about the free straight agreement. and supporting many free trade deals in the past. but here's what he had to say about tpt. because of the shroud of secrecy, it's impossible for the public to be informed about tpp. tpp: >> bernard, what does it say when the members of the president's own party are pushing back on him like this? >> well, i think that the most recent pushback came from senator reed in nevada. and it's a good reminder that as tip o'neil said, all politics is local. senator reed is facing a fight in his own state of nevada, so he's asking he'll to showdown and not push the tpp and the presidential authority too quickly.

and that's okay. i don't think there's a problem there. because we'll have time, if the thing doesn't get resolved in 2014, it will be done the following year in 2015. but let me just say one more thing. because i think it's forgotten. from an american perspective, four out of five jobs in the united states are in the services field. and those are not low paying jobs. when you think about the guy who comes to your house and brings the fedex packages, that's a services job, not a low paying job. when you think about the financial services and distribution. >> i don't disagree with you, bernard, but you have a lot of big guns out there, not just harry reid, who may or may not be worried about his constituents. but you have them loaded up with see serious questions about this trade agreement.

and i think that, to a lot of people speaks volumes about the president's judgment and the administration's judgment and where this is going. >> i think the answer to that is people are fearful because of something more intensative, but i agree strongly with what josh meltser says. if we look at three or four years ago, the tpp is essential lee on the same framework. >> actually, i think that's -- the korea free agreement is the reason why many of the democrats are lining up against the president because the exports have declined to korea during that time period and the trade deficit has increased and it has been a net loss of 40,000 jobs. so you see that model being expanded is not going to be beneficial forker the please and

for the tpp and this is a massive agreement. we have had agreements with smaller economies, but now we're talking about 40% of global economy being included in a trade agreement. and to have these stream rules that give foreign investors greater rights thannostic investors, and monopolies of large pharmaceutical companies. >> josh, we have 20 seconds live. four negotiations and where is this headed? it's going to be finished in the next six months. the democrats are pushing back against the president's agenda. half of the congress votes on what is to be done. and the president's trade agenda and politics when it gets passedded. >> thanks to all of our guests. find us on aljazeera.com/ajamstream.

>> the world is -- u.n. vergth investigators call on kim jong un'un's gospel, nazi era, north korea rejects the claim. hello there, i'm barbara serra. you're watching al jazeera live from london. presidential palace giving a mandate to form a new government. venezuela