The second meeting of the Airbus dispute panel (DS316), scheduled to conclude today, I believe, will be aired to the "public" through "an opportunity to view a videotape, at a date to be announced" (see USTR announcement)(hat tip: Roger Alford at Opiniojuris).
To an uninformed bystander like myself, there seem to be a number of anomalies in this procedure. First, the main concern apears to be "business confidential information" (BCI"). Yet representatives of the only parties seriously involved as producers of large civil aircraft will be in the room during the hearings themselves. So if a party chooses to include BCI in its opening statement, comments or questions, most of the potential damage would already have been done. Unless they are concerned about downstream suppliers and consumers - but I doubt that BCI should be relevant in this respect. Second, if the hearing will be canned and edited before the public is exposed to it, why in this digital era of podcasts, is it truly necessary to physically attend the viewing? Perhaps Geneva is in search of shows and attractions to draw in crowds of tourists (those flying in specially to view the Airbus videotape might be interested in the July schedule of cultural events...), but I doubt this would be it. Third, why is the viewing only open to "those individuals who apply and are accepted to the WTO"? And what are the criteria for approval (the USTR statement only requires information relating to identity of applicants)? Why are they not made available in advance? For example, would journalists be acceptable? or only people who have a personal interest in the case or represent unions or corporations who do?
I don't know much about the public-private political economy in this case, but my hunch is that it is the driving force behind the procedure of this "public viewing", which seems more tailored to exclusiveness than openess. More generally, however, it sets a bad model for other more obviously socially sensitive cases.
In the dance of transparency, for every veil removed, there appears another one instead. If they will ever be removed entirely, the truth is that what will be revealed is not so exciting to non-specialists. Maybe it is better to just lay back and watch the dance.
T.
