The Trans Pacific Partnership is proposed trade agreement currently being negotiated between U.S. and Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Malaysia and Vietnam. All the negotiations have taken place in secret with the last round held in Brunei. Due to the secrecy involved and with Japan enacting its new secrecy law the question must be asked: How far will the Japanese government go to protect its interests in these negotiations because the US insisted that the talks be held in secret.
Given its vague wording as to what constitutes a state secret could or would the government force media outlets to quash stories which exposed the inner workings of the negotiations and the agreements reached. Or, would they wait until broadcast or publication had taken place then charge those responsible with violating the law?
Professor Hiroaki Mizushima of Hosei University said news programs were completely at a loss. Only TV Asahi and TBS tried to make sense of the bill for viewers. In his opinion, NHK failed by essentially “dumping” whatever the administration said about the bill into its reports, thus conveying the impression that is was “safe.”
NHK acted as a government media outlet in its failure to adequately explain what the breath and scope bills enactment could mean for the average Japanese citizen and their constitutional rights.
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe played is part in obscuring the legislation's less the opaque wording by insisting that the average would feel no impact from the bill. What's happens if a blogger gains access to sensitive government documents and publishes them online. Like has happened in other countries. Once published those governments have prosecuted these citizen journalists stating they have no protections under the law as they aren't employed by a legitimate media outlet what ever that is supposed to mean.
Japan's media aren't ones to make waves yet what if they decide to test the limits of the governments tolerance for what it considers to be governments secrets protected under the law and reveal the information to the public.
That’s not likely to happen anytime soon, but clues to how the law will affect the status quo are available, just not in the security sector it supposedly covers. During the contentious talks that led to the 2007 free trade agreement between the U.S. and South Korea, the latter passed a law forbidding the release of information related to negotiations at the insistence of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). Consequently, several employees of a TV station that produced a news program critical of the FTA were jailed for divulging information about the talks, as was the government official who leaked that information. The USTR was reportedly afraid that public protests would work against it, and in fact violent demonstrations and even one public suicide took place in front of the venue where the talks were taking place. The South Korean government did as it was told.
Given its vague wording as to what constitutes a state secret could or would the government force media outlets to quash stories which exposed the inner workings of the negotiations and the agreements reached. Or, would they wait until broadcast or publication had taken place then charge those responsible with violating the law?
Professor Hiroaki Mizushima of Hosei University said news programs were completely at a loss. Only TV Asahi and TBS tried to make sense of the bill for viewers. In his opinion, NHK failed by essentially “dumping” whatever the administration said about the bill into its reports, thus conveying the impression that is was “safe.”
After the bill was passed, Tokyo Shimbun surveyed some experts for their take on the process. Several said the government purposely kept the details of the bill under wraps until it was submitted to the Cabinet for approval. As a result, the media was unprepared to cover it thoroughly when it quickly reached the debate phase.
Professor Hiroaki Mizushima of Hosei University said news programs were completely at a loss. Only TV Asahi and TBS tried to make sense of the bill for viewers. In his opinion, NHK failed by essentially “dumping” whatever the administration said about the bill into its reports, thus conveying the impression that is was “safe.”
NHK acted as a government media outlet in its failure to adequately explain what the breath and scope bills enactment could mean for the average Japanese citizen and their constitutional rights.
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe played is part in obscuring the legislation's less the opaque wording by insisting that the average would feel no impact from the bill. What's happens if a blogger gains access to sensitive government documents and publishes them online. Like has happened in other countries. Once published those governments have prosecuted these citizen journalists stating they have no protections under the law as they aren't employed by a legitimate media outlet what ever that is supposed to mean.
Japan's media aren't ones to make waves yet what if they decide to test the limits of the governments tolerance for what it considers to be governments secrets protected under the law and reveal the information to the public.
That’s not likely to happen anytime soon, but clues to how the law will affect the status quo are available, just not in the security sector it supposedly covers. During the contentious talks that led to the 2007 free trade agreement between the U.S. and South Korea, the latter passed a law forbidding the release of information related to negotiations at the insistence of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). Consequently, several employees of a TV station that produced a news program critical of the FTA were jailed for divulging information about the talks, as was the government official who leaked that information. The USTR was reportedly afraid that public protests would work against it, and in fact violent demonstrations and even one public suicide took place in front of the venue where the talks were taking place. The South Korean government did as it was told.
No comments:
Post a Comment